AUGUST 25, 2012                       TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE                        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:RESPONSE...
In   the   United   States    of                          America MONOPOLIES       arePROHIBITED/FORBIDDEN! So HOW, was ON...
No. _____________________________________                                                      IN THE                     ...
to May 18, 2011 Mailing RETURNED Containing Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. Copy Of May 3,2011 Pleading which is attach...
November 2012 Presidential Elections.                           Therefore, Newsome is movingforward to utilize through any...
PLEASE NOTE: If there is a problem with a Slideshare.net              Link, documents may be accessed at: www.slideshare.n...
this Court nor Parties involved made this information available to Newsome.                    Moreover,KNOWLEDGE of Baker...
3.   Newsome hereby DEMANDS that this Court advise her of any/all CONFLICTS-     Of-Interest that exist. In further suppor...
. . .the recent nomination of Stephen Breyer to the United States       Supreme Court raised the question of his participa...
TIMELY, PROPERLY and ADEQUATELY objected to theseCRIMINAL and CIVIL violations! Newsome believes that BakerDonelson is inv...
in their favor and that of their clients (i.e. in this instant lawsuit Stor-           All Alfred). YES, the proper CRIMIN...
BAKER DONELSONU.S. SUPREME COURT                      APPOINTED BY           BEARMAN CALDWELL &JUSTICE(S)                 ...
BAKER DONELSONU.S. SUPREME COURT                      APPOINTED BY             BEARMAN CALDWELL &JUSTICE(S)               ...
BAKER DONELSONU.S. SUPREME COURT                      APPOINTED BY           BEARMAN CALDWELL &JUSTICE(S)                 ...
BAKER DONELSONU.S. SUPREME COURT                       APPOINTED BY           BEARMAN CALDWELL &JUSTICE(S)                ...
BAKER DONELSONU.S. SUPREME COURT                      APPOINTED BY           BEARMAN CALDWELL &JUSTICE(S)                 ...
4.   On or about January 11, 2011, this Court’s Clerk’s Office (Ruth Jones)            The above-entitled petition for an ...
Newsome submitted her TIMELY March 12, 2011 PFEW in accordance with Rule     33 of the Supreme Court.6.   Due to the EXTRA...
U.S. v. Denedo, 129 S.Ct. 2213 (U.S.,2009) - Under the All Writs Act,            a courts power to issue any form of relie...
. . .received and viewed approximately four (4) Booklets entitled, “In ReVogel Denise Newsome On Petition For EXTRAORDINAR...
(b) That the Booklets entitled, “In Re Vogel Denise Newsome On    Petition For EXTRAORDINARY WRIT To The Supreme Court Of ...
(d) That the Booklets entitled, “In Re Vogel Denise Newsome On    Petition For EXTRAORDINARY WRIT To The Supreme Court Of ...
A concise statement of the case setting out the facts                  material to consideration of the questions presente...
9.   PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:                         That at this time Newsome will NOT     be submitting any additional and/o...
actions which are LEGALLY and LAWFULLY authorized to be filed as stated in      May 3, 2011 Responsive pleading.10.   News...
2011 through pleading entitled, "UNITED STATES KENTUCKY SENATORRAND PAUL: Request Of Status Of INVESTIGATION(S) Request Re...
Enclosed are the following items: . . .          - 1 Postal Money Order Serial Number 19256593937          - 1 Postal Mone...
13.   PLEASE BE ADVISED that at this time, Newsome is      requesting in WRITING by Friday, SEPTEMBER      14, 2012, that ...
Thus, the U.S. Supreme Court has a continuing                                                 power to issue extraordinary...
In re Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co., 41 S.Ct. 288          (U.S.Ohio,1921) - Prohibition will issue if the lower court       ...
f. Writ of Exigi Facias          Writ of Exigi Facias: That you cause to be          demanded. Exigent: Requiring IMMEDIAT...
U.S. v. Oregon State Medical Soc., 72 S.Ct. 690 (1952) -           Notwithstanding that injunctive relief is MANDATORY    ...
relief and only if the defendant owes him a clear            nondiscretionary duty. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1361.            U.S. ex...
m. Writ of Recaption          Writ of Recaption: A writ allowing a plaintiff to          RECOVER goods and damages from a ...
unauthorized to take cognizance of the                affair), to answer in a tribunal that has no                legal co...
adequate relief and the ruling WILL RESULT in                          GROSS INJUSTICE.                          Fisher v....
PLEASE NOTE: AGAIN, NOTHING in this Court’s April 27,      2011 letter advising that Newsome’s PFEW does NOT meet the plea...
Platt v. Minnesota Min. & Mfg. Co., 84 S.Ct. 769, 376 U.S. 240, 11              L.Ed.2d 674 (1964) – Extraordinary writs a...
and to dispose of premises in accordance with decree of                                 forfeiture; claimant and occupant ...
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE

7,970

Published on

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
7,970
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE

  1. 1. 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
  2. 2. 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
  3. 3. 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
  4. 4. 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
  5. 5. 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
  6. 6. 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
  7. 7. 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
  8. 8. 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
  9. 9. . . .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
  10. 10. 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
  11. 11. 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
  12. 12. 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
  13. 13. 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
  14. 14. 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
  15. 15. 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
  16. 16. 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
  17. 17. 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
  18. 18. 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
  19. 19. 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
  20. 20. . . .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
  21. 21. (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
  22. 22. (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
  23. 23. 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
  24. 24. 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
  25. 25. 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
  26. 26. 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
  27. 27. 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
  28. 28. 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
  29. 29. 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
  30. 30. 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
  31. 31. 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
  32. 32. 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
  33. 33. 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
  34. 34. 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
  35. 35. 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
  36. 36. 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
  37. 37. 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
  38. 38. 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
  39. 39. 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

×