THIS DOCUMENT MAY ALSO BE FOUND AT: https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a71638e5b5e71b7a6af
08/10/12 – USPS PROOF OF MAILING RECEIPT –   USDC Southern District Mississippi (Jackson)
VOGEL DENISE NEWSOME                                       Post Office Box 14731                                      Cinc...
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                                         SOUTHERN DISTRICT – JACKSON DIVISIONVOGEL DENI...
3.   UNDISPUTED IS THE FACT:                                That Defendants Page Kruger & Holland,     P.A., Thomas Y. Pag...
. . . [3] Congress rewrote the second statute, section 455, in 1974. Subsection (b) of that        section lists a number ...
(5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them,                  or the spous...
5.   Judge Tom S. Lee, as a matter of law, is DISQUALIFIED from presiding over this lawsuit in that he     has is BIAS and...
denial. A party that does not intend to deny all the allegations must either specifically                  deny designated...
8.    While Newsome’s Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss and Memorandum In Support Of Motion To      Dismiss; Plaintiff’s ...
I.  MOTION TO STRIKE/                                  CONSOLIDATION OF DEFENSES               Pendleton County v. Amy, 80...
A. RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE MOTION TO           DISMISS AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION ...
issues, evidence and legal conclusions provided in Newsome’s MTSMTD; therefore, a reasonable mind      may conclude that a...
To date, Newsome’s July 14, 2012, 34 Pages with approximately 145 distinctly numbered paragraphs        containing stateme...
24.   Opening paragraph on Page 1 which begins with ―COME NOW, Defendants, Page Kruger & Holland,      P.A. (―PKH‖), Thoma...
DAHH when a Motion to Strike is filed, it is done so with EXACT SPECIFICS as to what is being      requested to be stricke...
AND MOTION FOR    DEFAULT JUDGMENT (JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN THIS ACTION) along with the        MEMORANDUM IN     SUPPORT OF...
CD/DVD. Upon checking with the Court, it is Newsome’s understanding that any issue regarding the      uploading and/or fil...
38.   ¶3 on Page 2 which begins with, ―Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (a)(4),‖ in that it is - “STRICKEN      STATEMENT CLAUSE.”...
raised has EXPIRED! Therefore, Named Defendants have WAIVED any and ALL rights to rebut        and/or contest Newsome’s “M...
In further support thereof, Newsome states the following:  44.   This instant Motion for Default Judgment (―MFDJ‖) is subm...
Pleading in this action under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which Newsome has      timely, properl...
EXHIBITS TABLEEXHIBIT   DESCRIPTION  A       Affidavit Of Vogel Denise Newsome in Support of Motion to Strike  B       FRC...
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                                    SOUTHERN DISTRICT – JACKSON DIVISIONVOGEL DENISE NE...
6.    Newsome timely, properly and adequately NOTIFIED this Court through her      Complaint at Page 136 and her subsequen...
(i.e. that she will file Motion to Strike and/or Motion for Default Judgment) should      they fail to comply with the sta...
(8)    Count VIII – Breach Of The Covenant Of Good Faith And                       Fair Dealing 42 USC § 1981: Equal Right...
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO:  Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO: Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss

7,654
-1

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
7,654
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

08/10/12 - MOTION TO STRIKE RESPONSE TO: Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss

  1. 1. THIS DOCUMENT MAY ALSO BE FOUND AT: https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a71638e5b5e71b7a6af
  2. 2. 08/10/12 – USPS PROOF OF MAILING RECEIPT – USDC Southern District Mississippi (Jackson)
  3. 3. VOGEL DENISE NEWSOME Post Office Box 14731 Cincinnati, Ohio 45250 (601) 885-9536 or (513) 680-2922 August 10, 2012VIA PRIORITY MAIL: Tracking No. 03113260000101213563United States District Court - Southern District (Jackson, MS)ATTN: J. T. Noblin (Clerk of Court)500 E. Court Street, Suite 2.500Jackson, Mississippi 39201 RE: Vogel Denise Newsome v. Page Kruger & Holland P.A., et al., Civil Action No. 3:12-cv-00342, United States District Court Southern District (Jackson, MS) PLEASE NOTE: Newsome is requesting to be advised of ANY/ALL Conflict-Of-Interests in regards to this lawsuit.Dear Mr. Noblin: Attached please find the following document(s): 1) DVD containing Newsome’s Motion to Strike Defendants’ Response In Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss and Memorandum In Support Of Motion To Dismiss; Motion To Strike Defendants’ Response In Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion For Rule 11 Sanctions Of And Against Defendants; and Motion To Strike Defendants’ Response In Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion For Default Judgment; Plaintiff’s Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions of and Against Defendants; and Motion for Default Judgment (Jury Trial Demanded in this Action) and supporting Memorandum Brief with EXHIBITS in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure – i.e. for Costs efficiency purposes. Newsome encloses TWO copies of the FIRST Page only of her pleading. Please stamp“FILED” one of these copies and return to her in in the self-addressed postage-paid envelopeenclosed. By copy of this letter, Newsome is providing opposing counsel with a copy of the abovereferenced pleading on DVD as well. Newsome has in good faith also placed these pleadings at thefollowing locations via the INTERNET due to the PUBLIC/GLOBAL/INTERNATIONAL interestsin matters involving her, United States of America President Barack Obama, United States ofAmerica Government, Florida A&M University Robert Champion matter, Trayvon Martin/GeorgeZimmerman matter, etc. which appears to have a DIRECT impact and/or connection to the recentand VICIOUS attacks and ONGOING Conspiracies (i.e. involving BAKER DONELSONBEARMAN CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ and their CLIENTS and PARTNER Law Firms asPHELPS DUNBAR, etc.) that have been leveled against Newsome for sharing information that arematters of PUBLIC interests. Therefore, please feel free to retrieve these pleadings, should problemsoccur with viewing, from: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/reserved-for-081012-motion-tostrikeresponse-pkh and https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a71638e5b5e71b7a6af.
  4. 4. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT – JACKSON DIVISIONVOGEL DENISE NEWSOME PLAINTIFFV. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-cv-00342PAGE KRUGER & HOLLAND P.A., ET AL. DEFENDANTSPLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE MOTION TO DISMISS AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS; MOTION TO STRIKEDEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS OF AND AGAINSTDEFENDANTS; AND MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS OF AND AGAINST DEFENDANTS; AND MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN THIS ACTION)1 COMES NOW Plaintiff Vogel Denise Newsome (―Newsome‖ and/or ―Plaintiff‖) WITHOUT waiving herOBJECTIONS to Judge Tom S. Lee presiding over this matter in that a CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST exist whichrequires RECUSAL as well as Newsome’s OBJECTIONS to Magistrate assignment in this matter and files this, herMotion to Strike Defendants’ Response In Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss andMemorandum In Support Of Motion To Dismiss; Motion To Strike Defendants’ Response In Opposition To Plaintiff’sMotion For Rule 11 Sanctions Of And Against Defendants; and Motion To Strike Defendants’ Response InOpposition To Plaintiff’s Motion For Default Judgment; Plaintiff’s Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions of and AgainstDefendants; and Motion for Default Judgment (Jury Trial Demanded in this Action) (―MTS-DEFRIOTMTSMTD. ..‖) in the preservation of her rights and pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (―FRCP‖) Rule 12(F) governingmatters regarding motion to strike; FRCP Rule 12(G) governing matters regarding consolidation of defenses andobjections; FRCP Rule 11 governing sanctions and/or signing of pleadings, motions, and other documents; FRCPRule 55 governing default judgments; Rule 38 of the FRCP, and the Fourteenth and Seventh Amendment to theConstitution. In support of this instant MTS-DEFRIOTMTSMTD. . ., Newsome attaches (should it be requiredpursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 144) her Affidavit at EXHIBIT “A” – incorporated herein by reference as if set forth infull herein. In further support thereof Newsome states: 1. This instant ―MTS-DEFRIOTMTSMTD. . .‖ 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. 2. Newsome attaches her supporting Affidavit at EXHIBIT “A” which is incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 1 NOTE: Boldface, caps, small-caps, italics, highlights and underline represents ―emphasis‖ added. Page 1 of 23
  5. 5. 3. UNDISPUTED IS THE FACT: That Defendants Page Kruger & Holland, P.A., Thomas Y. Page, Louis G. Baine III, and Linda Thomas (hereinafter, ―Named Defendants‖) and their Legal Counsel/Attorney’s Phelps Dunbar/W. Thomas Siler, Jr./Jason T. Marsh do NOT dispute Newsome’s TIMELY demand as required by statutes/laws for a JURY Trial on any and all triable issues raised allowed under Rule 38 of the FRCP, the Seventh Amendment of the United States Constitution and other statutes/laws governing said matters. See EXHIBIT “B” – Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which states in part: Rule 38. Right to a Jury Trial; Demand (a) Right Preserved. The right of trial by jury as declared by the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution—or as provided by a federal statute—is preserved to the parties inviolate. (b) Demand. On any issue triable of right by a jury, a party may demand a jury trial by: (1) serving the other parties with a written demand—which may be included in a pleading—no later than 14 days after the last pleading directed to the issue is served; and (2) filing the demand in accordance with Rule 5(d). (c) Specifying Issues. In its demand, a party may specify the issues that it wishes to have tried by a jury; otherwise, it is considered to have demanded a jury trial on all the issues so triable. If the party has demanded a jury trial on only some issues, any other party may—within 14 days after being served with the demand or within a shorter time ordered by the court—serve a demand for a jury trial on any other or all factual issues triable by jury. and EXHIBIT “C” – Seventh Amendment of the United States Constitution attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein.4. UNDISPUTED IS THE FACT: That a CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST presently exists with the assignment of this lawsuit to Judge Tom S. Lee. The record evidence CLEARLY supports that Newsome has timely, properly and adequately NOTIFIED this Court of the Conflict-Of- Interest regarding Judge Tom S. Lee. See Doc. No. 2 – “Motion Conflict-Of-Interest Information. . .” As a direct and proximate result of this Court to comply with the MANDATORY requirements of statutes and laws governing said matters, Newsome has been irreparably injured/harmed and deprived rights – i.e. equal protection of the laws, privileges and immunities, and due process of laws guaranteed under the United States Constitution and other governing laws. As a direct and proximate result of this Court’s unlawful/illegal practices and failure to comply with the MANDATORY requirements of 28 U.S.C.A. § 455 and any and all applicable statutes/laws governing said matters, Newsome has been irreparably injured/harmed and deprived rights – i.e. equal protection of the laws, privileges and immunities, and due process of laws guaranteed under the United States Constitution and other governing laws. See EXHIBIT “D” – FRCP Rule 26 and EXHIBIT “E” - 28 U.S.C.A. § 455 respectively attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. Phillips v. Joint Legislative Committee on Performance and Expenditure Review Of The State of Mississippi, et al., 637 F.2d 1014 (5th Cir. 1981) - [3] Under statute requiring a judge to disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might be reasonably questioned, judge need not accept all the allegations by moving party as true and, in fact, no motion at all is required; the judge must disqualify himself if the facts cast doubt on his impartiality regardless of how or by whom they are drawn to his attention. 28 U.S.C.A. § 455. Page 2 of 23
  6. 6. . . . [3] Congress rewrote the second statute, section 455, in 1974. Subsection (b) of that section lists a number of specific situations in which a judge must recuse himself. . .Subsection (a), a more general provision, requires that Any justice, judge, or magistrate of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Section 455, unlike section 144, does not stipulate a formal procedure by which it must be raised. Like section 144, however, it may be raised by motion. Davis, 517 F.2d at 1051. Substantively, the two statutes are quite similar, if not identical.[FN6] FN6. To the extent that there is a difference, section 455 imposes the stricter standard: a movant under section 144 must allege facts to convince a reasonable person that bias exists, Parrish, 524 F.2d at 100, while under the broader language of section 455, he must show only that a reasonable person ―would harbor doubts about the judges impartiality‖, Potashnick v. Port City Constr. Co., 5 Cir. 1980, 609 F.2d 1101, 1111 (emphasis added), cert. denied, - - U.S. --, 101 S.Ct. 78, 66 L.Ed.2d 22 (1980). See Comment, Disqualification of Federal Judges for Bias or Prejudice, 46 U.Chi.L.Rev. 236, 243-50 (1978). See also Note, Disqualification of Judges and Justices in the Federal Courts, 86 Harv.L.Rev. 736, 745-50 (1973). On the other hand, section 455, unlike section 144, does not require the judge to accept all allegations by a moving party as true. Indeed, the section requires no motion at all; the judge must disqualify himself if the facts cast doubt on his impartiality regardless of how or by whom they are drawn to his attention. See Fredonia Broadcasting Corp. v. RCA Corp., 5 Cir. 1978, 569 F.2d 251, 254-57, cert. denied, 439 U.S. 859, 99 S.Ct. 177, 58 L.Ed.2d 167 (1979). Section 144, by contrast, requires allegation by affidavit within a stringent time limit and allows a party only one such affidavit in any case. If a party could bind a judge by his factual allegations in a section 455 motion, free from the formal requirements and more demanding standard of proof of section 144, the result would be a virtual open season for recusal. See 46 U.Chi.L.Rev. at 250. [4] The alleged bias of a judge must be personal as distinguished from judicial in nature in order to require recusal. 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 144, 455. - - See EXHIBIT “F” – Phillips matter attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein.Clearly the INTEGRITY of this Court has been compromised and the appearance of IMPROPRIETYis inevitable through Judge Tom Stewart Lee’s acts and projects an appearance that this Lawsuit can bewon through criminal acts – i.e. through bribes, blackmail, extortion, intimidation, threats, etc. - byDefendants and their counsel. Therefore, Judge Lee’s acts CLEARLY VIOLATE the Mississippi Code ofJudicial Conduct. See EXHIBIT “G” – Code of Judicial Conduct (Mississippi) attached hereto andincorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. 28 USC § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge (a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. (b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances: (1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding; (2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it; (3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy; (4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding; Page 3 of 23
  7. 7. (5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person: (i) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party; (ii) Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding; (iii) Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding; (iv) Is to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding. (c) A judge should inform himself about his personal and fiduciary financial interests, and make a reasonable effort to inform himself about the personal financial interests of his spouse and minor children residing in his household. . . . See EXHIBIT “E” - 28 USC § 455 attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein.MANDATORY DISQUALIFICATION is required when ―ONE‖ of the grounds specificallyenumerated in statute applies – i.e. for instance, as in this instant lawsuit, grounds for Judge TomStewart Lee’s disqualification is required pursuant to 28 USC § 455 and/or the applicable statutes/lawsgoverning said matters: Renteria v. Schellpeper, 936 F.Supp. 691 (1996) - [6] If one of grounds specifically enumerated in statute applies, disqualification of judge is mandatory whether or not reasonable person would question judges impartiality. 28 U.S.C.A. § 455(b). . . . [6] . . .If one of the provisions of section 455(b) applies then disqualification is mandatory whether or not a reasonable person would question the judges impartiality. Liljeberg v. Health Serv. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 859 n. 8, 108 S.Ct. 2194, 2202 n. 8, 100 L.Ed.2d 855 (1988).UNDISPUTED IS THE FACT: Judge Tom S. Lee is adamant and it appears isrefusing to RECUSE himself as required by statutes/laws governing said matters. Therefore, it appearsthat the proper INVESTIGATION(S) as with other CORRUPT Judge(s) as G. Thomas Porteous, may benecessary in having Judge Lee removed from lawsuits involving Newsome. Furthermore, involvingmatters of PUBLIC Interest in which Judge Lee is associated may have to be resolved throughIMPEACHMENT proceedings. Clearly it is obvious that Judge Tom Stewart Lee is placing hisJUDICIAL FATE in the “banking” on and/or “placing all of his eggs” in the basket/relationship ofBaker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz. Newsome have already initiated further legal andproper CONGRESSIONAL actions involving Judge Tom Stewart Lee. Even if the United StatesCongress may be dragging its feet and/or attempting to OBSTRUCT such matters, ALL that is requiredof Newsome is to PROVE by facts, evidence and legal conclusions that proper legal recourse forredress has been met. See pleading filed at Doc. No. 2 of this instant Lawsuit – See EXHIBIT “H” –Docket Sheet for this action attached hereto. Newsome’s burden has been met and this Court has beentimely, properly and adequately notified of same. It matters NOT that there are attempts by law firmssuch as Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz and members of such CONSPIRACIES thatmay be members of the United States of America Congress, Supreme Court of the United States ofAmerica, etc. OBSTRUCTING the ADMINISTRATION of JUSTICE, Newsome need only PROVEand SHOW through EVIDENCE that she has initiated legal actions and has done so.Legal actions which clearly appears may require additional measures permissible under thestatutes/laws governing matters when the United States of America’s Congress, etc. FAILS to act toprotect the INTEREST of the PEOPLE and/or PUBLIC-AT-LARGE! Page 4 of 23
  8. 8. 5. Judge Tom S. Lee, as a matter of law, is DISQUALIFIED from presiding over this lawsuit in that he has is BIAS and PREJUDICE toward Newsome, has a FINANCIAL/PECUNIARY interest in this lawsuit, has KNOWLEDGE of extrajudicial matters regarding Newsome to which he is and/or may be a party, may be a MATERIAL WITNESS in legal proceedings to which he has been named in other lawful actions brought by Newsome, has been appointed for purposes of COMPROMISING and TAINTING these proceeding, and has FAILED to NOTIFY all parties to this lawsuit as to the CONFLICT-OF- INTEREST and the grounds requiring his DISQUALIFICATION. Should it become necessary to bring intends to SUBPOENA any and/or all of legal against Judge Tom S. Lee, Newsome his personal financial records (i.e. Tax Returns, Stocks Portfolio, etc.) for presentation to JURY in the TRIAL on this matter.6. Defendants’ Page Kruger & Holland, P.A., Thomas Y. Page, Louis G. Baine III, and Linda Thomas and their Legal Counsel/Attorney’s Phelps Dunbar/W. Thomas Siler, Jr./Jason T. Marsh at the time of executing and submitting Defendants’ Response In Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss and Memorandum In Support Of Motion To Dismiss; Defendants’ Response In Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion For Rule 11 Sanctions Of And Against Defendants; and Defendants’ Response In Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion For Default Judgment KNEW that it was frivolous, WITHOUT merits and provided for purposes of: purposes of delay, harassment, obstructing justice, increasing costs of litigation, embarrassment, sham/frivolousness, unduly burdensome, provided for purposes of committing fraud upon this Court, and other reasons known to Named Defendants and their Counsel Therefore, warranting the relief set forth in this instant ―MTS-DEFRIOTMTSMTD. . .‖7. Pursuant to Rule 8 (i.e. specifically (b)) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (―FRCP‖), Named Defendants’ Response In Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss and Memorandum In Support Of Motion To Dismiss; Defendants’ Response In Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion For Rule 11 Sanctions Of And Against Defendants; and Defendants’ Response In Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion For Default Judgment fail to meet the pleading requirements for responses. Said Rule 8 states in part: Rule 8. General Rules of Pleading (a) Claim for Relief. A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain: (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the courts jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional support; (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief. (b) Defenses; Admissions and Denials. (1) In General. In responding to a pleading, a party must: (A) state in short and plain terms its defenses to each claim asserted against it; and (B) admit or deny the allegations asserted against it by an opposing party. (2) Denials—Responding to the Substance. A denial must fairly respond to the substance of the allegation. (3) General and Specific Denials. A party that intends in good faith to deny all the allegations of a pleading—including the jurisdictional grounds—may do so by a general Page 5 of 23
  9. 9. denial. A party that does not intend to deny all the allegations must either specifically deny designated allegations or generally deny all except those specifically admitted. (4) Denying Part of an Allegation. A party that intends in good faith to deny only part of an allegation must admit the part that is true and deny the rest. (5) Lacking Knowledge or Information. A party that lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of an allegation must so state, and the statement has the effect of a denial. (6) Effect of Failing to Deny. An allegation—other than one relating to the amount of damages—is admitted if a responsive pleading is required and the allegation is not denied. If a responsive pleading is not required, an allegation is considered denied or avoided. (c) Affirmative Defenses. (1) In General. In responding to a pleading, a party must affirmatively state any avoidance or affirmative defense, including: • accord and satisfaction; • arbitration and award; • assumption of risk; • contributory negligence; • duress; • estoppel; • failure of consideration; • fraud; • illegality; • injury by fellow servant; • laches; • license; • payment; • release; • res judicata; • statute of frauds; • statute of limitations; and • waiver. (2) Mistaken Designation. If a party mistakenly designates a defense as a counterclaim, or a counterclaim as a defense, the court must, if justice requires, treat the pleading as though it were correctly designated, and may impose terms for doing so. (d) Pleading to Be Concise and Direct; Alternative Statements; Inconsistency. (1) In General. Each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct. No technical form is required. (2) Alternative Statements of a Claim or Defense. A party may set out 2 or more statements of a claim or defense alternatively or hypothetically, either in a single count or defense or in separate ones. If a party makes alternative statements, the pleading is sufficient if any one of them is sufficient. (3) Inconsistent Claims or Defenses. A party may state as many separate claims or defenses as it has, regardless of consistency. (e) Construing Pleadings. Pleadings must be construed so as to do justice.See EXHIBIT “I” – Rule 8 of FRCP attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in fullherein. Page 6 of 23
  10. 10. 8. While Newsome’s Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss and Memorandum In Support Of Motion To Dismiss; Plaintiff’s Motion For Rule 11 Sanctions Of And Against Defendants; and Plaintiff’s Motion For Default Judgment (hereinafter, ―MTSMTD‖) meet the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the FRCP, neither Defendants’ Response In Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss and Memorandum In Support Of Motion To Dismiss; Defendants’ Response In Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion For Rule 11 Sanctions Of And Against Defendants; nor Defendants’ Response In Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion For Default Judgment address the issues raised NOR rebut the FACTS, EVIDENCE/EXHIBITS and LEGAL CONCLUSION supporting Newsome’s MTSMTD. This Court’s record/docket in this lawsuit remains SILENT on the issues raised and the TIME for Named Defendants to provide a REBUTTAL to each and every issues raised has EXPIRED/LAPSED – i.e. has been WAIVED by Named Defendants. Therefore, as a matter of law, statements/averments in Newsome’s MTSMTD are deemed ADMITTED and/or TRUE!9. Named Defendants and their Legal Counsel/Attorney Phelps Dunbar/W. Thomas Siler, Jr./Jason T. Marsh do NOT rebut and/or dispute that a ―CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST‖ exist and that Judge Tom S. Lee is adamant about proceeding in this lawsuit with KNOWLEDGE that he is MANDATORILY required to recuse himself. Furthermore, it is UNDISPUTED that Named Defendants and their Legal Counsel/Attorneys DELIBERATELY and with MALICIOUS intent, did KNOWINGLY fail to advise Newsome of the Conflict-of-Interest and, in FURTHERANCE of CONSPIRACIES (i.e. in which TOLLING DOCTRINE regarding statute of limitation applies to RESTART from each OVERT act of Named Defendants, their Counsel/Attorneys and those PARTY to such unlawful/illegal criminal acts) are proceeding before this Court and in this lawsuit in violation of the Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct, Code of Judicial Conduct (Mississippi) as well as other statutes/laws governing said matters.10. In accordance with the statutes/laws governing said matters, Newsome has timely, properly and adequately PRESERVED said issues such as the CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST and other issues raised in her Motions to Strike the Defendants’ pleadings filed in this lawsuit. See for instance EXHIBIT “J” – “Waiver Of Loss Of Right To Disqualify Judge By Participation In Proceedings . . .” attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein.11. UNDISPUTED IS THE FACT: That Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and supporting Memorandum Brief in this lawsuit is premised on claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against “STATE” and/or ―Government‖ employers/officials/employees. UNISPUTED is the fact that Newsome’s instant lawsuit is a premised on 42 U.S.C. § 1981 – Equal Rights Under The Law which allows for one to ―to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens . . .‖ Therefore, NOT even with a MAGNIFYING GLASS will a JURY and Court find any such § 1983 claims as asserted by the Defendants in this lawsuit.12. UNDISPUTED IS THE FACT: Due to the Conflict-Of-Interest, BIAS, PREJUDICE towards Newsome, FINANCIAL/PECUNIARY interest and other reasons known to Judge Tom S. Lee requiring his DISQUALIFICATION and/or RECUSAL, as a matter of law, he LACKS jurisdiction to preside as Judge in this instant Lawsuit and the matters therein.13. For this Court to grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Newsome would be prejudiced and deprived equal protection of the laws, equal immunities and privileges and due process of laws. Rights secured/guaranteed under the United States Constitution and other governing laws. Page 7 of 23
  11. 11. I. MOTION TO STRIKE/ CONSOLIDATION OF DEFENSES Pendleton County v. Amy, 80 U.S. 297 (1871) - Defendants pleas which were inartistically framed and were argumentative and set up nothing which could not have been taken advantage of for what it was worth under the general issue might have been stricken from the record on motion. Brown v. Lamb, 112 Ohio App. 116, 171 N.E.2d 191 (1960) - (n.4) Motions to strike pleadings and papers from the files are ordinarily employed to strike pleadings for failure to comply with previous orders . . . or to test its form with respect to certification, and the office of such motions is not to inquire into the merits of the case. (n.8) A pleading is “frivolous” when it is clearly insufficient on its face and does not controvert material points of the opposite pleading and is presumably interposed for mere purposes of delay or to embarrass the opponent. Sherrill v. Stewart, 21 So.2d 11 (Miss.,1945) - A ―frivolous pleading‖ is one so clearly untenable or the insufficiency of which is so manifest upon bare inspection of pleading that court is able to determine its character without argument or research. McDowell v. Minor, 131 So. 278 (Miss.,1930) - Where pleading is manifestly sham and frivolous, motion to strike is available. Pursuant to Rule 12 (F) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Newsome through this MTS-DEFRIOTMTSMTD. . . moves this Court to strike the statements, contents and any supporting exhibits ofDefendants’ Response In Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss and Memorandum In SupportOf Motion To Dismiss; Defendants’ Response In Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion For Rule 11 Sanctions Of AndAgainst Defendant and Defendants’ Response In Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion For Default Judgment(―DEFRIOTMTSMTD. . .‖). Under said Rule it states: Rule 12(F) Motion to Strike. The Court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter. The court may act: (1) on its own; or (2) on motion made by a party either before responding to the pleading or, if a response is not allowed, within 20 days after being served with the pleading.Therefore, in an effort to provide specificity Newsome moves for the striking of contents/statements in―DEFRIOTMTSMTD. . .‖ in that these pleadings are IRRELEVANT and IMMATERIAL to this instant lawsuitand CLEARLY ―FAIL‖ to address and/or CONTEST Newsome’s Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss andMemorandum In Support Of Motion To Dismiss; Plaintiff’s Motion For Rule 11 Sanctions Of And AgainstDefendants; and Plaintiff’s Motion For Default Judgment (hereinafter, ―MTSMTD‖) In further support of thisinstant MTS-DEFRIOTMTSMTD. . ., Newsome moves this Court to strike the contents/statements for the followingreasons: Page 8 of 23
  12. 12. A. RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE MOTION TO DISMISS AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS (“RIOTMTSMTD”) The entire contents of ―RIOTMTSMTD‖ which include; however, is not limited to the Style and Headings ofsaid pleading in that it is: (ii) redundant; (iii) immaterial; (iv) impertinent and/or (v) scandalous and provided forpurposes of delay, harassment, obstructing justice, increasing costs of litigation, embarrassment, sham/frivolousness,unduly burdensome, provided for purposes of committing fraud upon this Court, and other reasons known to NamedDefendants and their Counsel and the following: 14. Opening paragraph on Page 1 which begins with ―COME NOW, Defendants, Page Kruger & Holland, P.A. (―PKH‖), Thomas Y. Page, Louis G. Baine, III, and Linda Thomas‖ in that it is - (ii) redundant; (iii) immaterial; (iv) impertinent and/or (v) scandalous and provided for purposes of delay, harassment, obstructing justice, increasing costs of litigation, embarrassment, sham/frivolousness, unduly burdensome, provided for purposes of committing fraud upon this Court, and other reasons known to Defendants and their counsel (Phelps Dunbar LLP, W. Thomas Siler, Jr. and Jason T. Marsh [hereinafter, ―Phelps Dunbar,‖ ―Siler‖ and/or ―Marsh‖)] hereinafter collectively known as “STRICKEN STATEMENT CLAUSE.” 15. ¶1 on Page 1 which begins with, ―On July 17, 2012, Plaintiff filed an incomplete, single page document‖ and the referenced Footnote 1 in that they are - “STRICKEN STATEMENT CLAUSE.” Named Defendants and their counsel Phelps Dunbar/W. Thomas Siler, Jr./Jason T. Marsh FRIVOLOUSLY and MALICIOUSLY attempt to take advantage of an error made by the Clerk of the Court. Furthermore, if there was any such error by the Clerk in the uploading of documents provided, counsel for Named Defendants should have proceeded in good faith to NOTIFY the Court of error. As the Court, Named Defendants’ counsel obtained Newsome’s MTSMTD and supporting Exhibits on a CD/DVD. Upon checking with the Court, it is Newsome’s understanding that any issue regarding the uploading and/or filing has been resolved. Moreover, the Docket Entry reflecting: DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #12: This docket entry failed to select all pages of the document. Court staff has correctly refiled the document. – See EXHIBIT “H” at 08/10/2012 entry attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. Therefore, it did NOT preclude Named Defendants from providing a response to Newsome’s MTSMTD in accordance with the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the FRCP. Furthermore, Named Defendants counsel was provided with additional information that Newsome’s MTSMTD and supporting Exhibits may be obtained from the following links should problems arise with accessing the documents provided on CD/DVD: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/071412-motion-to-strike-page-kruger- holland-matter and/or https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a706a8d5e6473bcaa69. To date, Newsome’s July 14, 2012, 34 Pages with approximately 145 distinctly numbered paragraphs containing statements and/or issues, legal conclusions and approximately 42 supporting Exhibits to MOTION TO STRIKE MOTION TO DISMISS; MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS OF AND AGAINST DEFENDANTS; AND MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN THIS ACTION) along with the MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS; meet the pleading REQUIREMENTS, is UNCONTESTED and the time for Named Defendants to provide a REBUTTAL to ALL issues raised has EXPIRED! Therefore, Named Defendants have WAIVED any and ALL rights to rebut and/or contest Newsome’s “MTSMTD!” Furthermore, Named Defendants’ FAIL to REBUT the Page 9 of 23
  13. 13. issues, evidence and legal conclusions provided in Newsome’s MTSMTD; therefore, a reasonable mind may conclude that averments/statements in MTSMTD are deemed ADMITTED/TRUE!16. ¶2 on Page 1 which begins with, ―Plaintiff does not offer any legal authority to refute the legal defenses‖ in that it is - “STRICKEN STATEMENT CLAUSE.” To date, Newsome’s July 14, 2012, 34 Pages with approximately 145 distinctly numbered paragraphs containing statements and/or issues, legal conclusions and approximately 42 supporting Exhibits to MOTION TO STRIKE MOTION TO DISMISS; MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS OF AND AGAINST DEFENDANTS; AND MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN THIS ACTION) along with the MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS; meet the pleading REQUIREMENTS, is UNCONTESTED and the time for Named Defendants to provide a REBUTTAL to ALL issues raised has EXPIRED! Therefore, Named Defendants have WAIVED any and ALL rights to rebut and/or contest Newsome’s “MTSMTD!” Furthermore, as a matter of law and pursuant to Rule 12(F), DAHH when a Motion to Strike is filed, it is done so with EXACT SPECIFICS as to what is being requested to be stricken and the facts, evidence and/or legal conclusion to support same.17. On Page 2, continuance of paragraph from Page 1 which states, ―Defendants in their Motion to Dismiss‖ along with Footnotes 2, 3 and 4 in that they are - “STRICKEN STATEMENT CLAUSE.” To date, Newsome’s July 14, 2012, 34 Pages with approximately 145 distinctly numbered paragraphs containing statements and/or issues, legal conclusions and approximately 42 supporting Exhibits to MOTION TO STRIKE MOTION TO DISMISS; MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS OF AND AGAINST DEFENDANTS; AND MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN THIS ACTION) along with the MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS; meet the pleading REQUIREMENTS, is UNCONTESTED and the time for Named Defendants to provide a REBUTTAL to ALL issues raised has EXPIRED! Therefore, Named Defendants have WAIVED any and ALL rights to rebut and/or contest Newsome’s “MTSMTD!”18. ¶3 on Page 2 which begins with, ―Plaintiff has filed her Motion to Strike,‖ Footnote 5 and Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 in that they are - “STRICKEN STATEMENT CLAUSE.” To date, Newsome’s July 14, 2012, 34 Pages with approximately 145 distinctly numbered paragraphs containing statements and/or issues, legal conclusions and approximately 42 supporting Exhibits to MOTION TO STRIKE MOTION TO DISMISS; MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS OF AND AGAINST DEFENDANTS; AND MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN THIS ACTION) along with the MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS; meet the pleading REQUIREMENTS, is UNCONTESTED and the time for Named Defendants to provide a REBUTTAL to ALL issues raised has EXPIRED! Therefore, Named Defendants have WAIVED any and ALL rights to rebut and/or contest Newsome’s “MTSMTD!”19. ¶4 on Page 2 which begins with, ―Here, Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss‖ and Footnote 6 in that they are - “STRICKEN STATEMENT CLAUSE.” To date, Newsome’s July 14, 2012, 34 Pages with approximately 145 distinctly numbered paragraphs containing statements and/or issues, legal conclusions and approximately 42 supporting Exhibits to MOTION TO STRIKE MOTION TO DISMISS; MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS OF AND AGAINST DEFENDANTS; AND MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN THIS ACTION) along with the MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS; meet the pleading REQUIREMENTS, is UNCONTESTED and the time for Named Defendants to provide a REBUTTAL to ALL issues raised has EXPIRED! Therefore, Named Defendants have WAIVED any and ALL rights to rebut and/or contest Newsome’s “MTSMTD!”20. On Page 3, continuance of paragraph from Page 2 which states, ―motion to dismiss under,‖ in that it is - “STRICKEN STATEMENT CLAUSE.” Page 10 of 23
  14. 14. To date, Newsome’s July 14, 2012, 34 Pages with approximately 145 distinctly numbered paragraphs containing statements and/or issues, legal conclusions and approximately 42 supporting Exhibits to MOTION TO STRIKE MOTION TO DISMISS; MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS OF AND AGAINST DEFENDANTS; AND MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN THIS ACTION) along with the MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS; meet the pleading REQUIREMENTS, is UNCONTESTED and the time for Named Defendants to provide a REBUTTAL to ALL issues raised has EXPIRED! Therefore, Named Defendants have WAIVED any and ALL rights to rebut and/or contest Newsome’s “MTSMTD!” 21. On Page 3, paragraph which begins with, ―WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendants, Page Kruger & Holland, P.A.‖ in that it is - “STRICKEN STATEMENT CLAUSE.” To date, Newsome’s July 14, 2012, 34 Pages with approximately 145 distinctly numbered paragraphs containing statements and/or issues, legal conclusions and approximately 42 supporting Exhibits to MOTION TO STRIKE MOTION TO DISMISS; MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS OF AND AGAINST DEFENDANTS; AND MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN THIS ACTION) along with the MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS; meet the pleading REQUIREMENTS, is UNCONTESTED and the time for Named Defendants to provide a REBUTTAL to ALL issues raised has EXPIRED! Therefore, Named Defendants have WAIVED any and ALL rights to rebut and/or contest Newsome’s “MTSMTD!” 22. On Page 3, paragraph which begins with, ―Further, Defendants request the Court find‖ and the remaining contents therein, in that they are - “STRICKEN STATEMENT CLAUSE.” To date, Newsome’s July 14, 2012, 34 Pages with approximately 145 distinctly numbered paragraphs containing statements and/or issues, legal conclusions and approximately 42 supporting Exhibits to MOTION TO STRIKE MOTION TO DISMISS; MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS OF AND AGAINST DEFENDANTS; AND MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN THIS ACTION) along with the MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS; meet the pleading REQUIREMENTS, is UNCONTESTED and the time for Named Defendants to provide a REBUTTAL to ALL issues raised has EXPIRED! Therefore, Named Defendants have WAIVED any and ALL rights to rebut and/or contest Newsome’s “MTSMTD!” 23. On Page 4, the Certificate of Service and the contents therein in that it is - “STRICKEN STATEMENT CLAUSE.” Now that the statutes/laws governing said matters require the STRIKING of the entire contents, statements,exhibits, etc. as noted above, there remains NO legal/lawful pleading of record. Therefore, Newsome is entitled tothe relief (Rule 11 Sanctions and DEFAULT Judgment, etc.) sought herein. B. RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS OF AND AGAINST DEFENDANTS (“RIOTMFR11”) The entire contents of ―RIOTMFR11‖ which include; however, is not limited to the Style and Headings ofsaid pleading in that it is: (ii) redundant; (iii) immaterial; (iv) impertinent and/or (v) scandalous and provided forpurposes of delay, harassment, obstructing justice, increasing costs of litigation, embarrassment, sham/frivolousness,unduly burdensome, provided for purposes of committing fraud upon this Court, and other reasons known toDefendants and their Counsel and the following: Page 11 of 23
  15. 15. 24. Opening paragraph on Page 1 which begins with ―COME NOW, Defendants, Page Kruger & Holland, P.A. (―PKH‖), Thomas Y. Page, Louis G. Baine, III, and Linda Thomas‖ in that it is - (ii) redundant; (iii) immaterial; (iv) impertinent and/or (v) scandalous and provided for purposes of delay, harassment, obstructing justice, increasing costs of litigation, embarrassment, sham/frivolousness, unduly burdensome, provided for purposes of committing fraud upon this Court, and other reasons known to Defendants and their counsel (Phelps Dunbar LLP, W. Thomas Siler, Jr. and Jason T. Marsh [hereinafter, ―Phelps Dunbar,‖ ―Siler‖ and/or ―Marsh‖)] hereinafter collectively known as “STRICKEN STATEMENT CLAUSE.”25. ¶1 on Page 1 which begins with, ―On July 17, 2012, Plaintiff filed an incomplete, single page document‖ and the referenced Footnote 1 in that they are - “STRICKEN STATEMENT CLAUSE.” Named Defendants and their counsel Phelps Dunbar/W. Thomas Siler, Jr./Jason T. Marsh FRIVOLOUSLY and MALICIOUSLY attempt to take advantage of an error made by the Clerk of the Court. Furthermore, if there was any such error by the Clerk in the uploading of documents provided, counsel for Named Defendants should have proceeded in good faith to NOTIFY the Court of error. As the Court, Named Defendants’ counsel obtained Newsome’s MTSMTD and supporting Exhibits on a CD/DVD. Upon checking with the Court, it is Newsome’s understanding that any issue regarding the uploading and/or filing has been resolved. Moreover, the Docket Entry reflecting: DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #12: This docket entry failed to select all pages of the document. Court staff has correctly refiled the document. – See EXHIBIT “H” at 08/10/2012 entry attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. Therefore, it did NOT preclude Named Defendants from providing a response to Newsome’s MTSMTD in accordance with the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the FRCP. Furthermore, Named Defendants counsel was provided with additional information that Newsome’s MTSMTD and supporting Exhibits may be obtained from the following links should problems arise with accessing the documents provided on CD/DVD: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/071412-motion-to-strike-page-kruger- holland-matter and/or https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a706a8d5e6473bcaa69. To date, Newsome’s July 14, 2012, 34 Pages with approximately 145 distinctly numbered paragraphs containing statements and/or issues, legal conclusions and approximately 42 supporting Exhibits to MOTION TO STRIKE MOTION TO DISMISS; MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS OF AND AGAINST DEFENDANTS; AND MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN THIS ACTION) along with the MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS; meet the pleading REQUIREMENTS, is UNCONTESTED and the time for Named Defendants to provide a REBUTTAL to ALL issues raised has EXPIRED! Therefore, Named Defendants have WAIVED any and ALL rights to rebut and/or contest Newsome’s “MTSMTD!” Furthermore, Named Defendants’ FAIL to REBUT the issues, evidence and legal conclusions provided in Newsome’s MTSMTD; therefore, a reasonable mind may conclude that averments/statements in MTSMTD are deemed ADMITTED/TRUE!26. ¶2 on Page 1 which begins with, ―Plaintiff does not offer any legal authority to refute the legal defenses‖ in that it is - “STRICKEN STATEMENT CLAUSE.” To date, Newsome’s July 14, 2012, 34 Pages with approximately 145 distinctly numbered paragraphs containing statements and/or issues, legal conclusions and approximately 42 supporting Exhibits to MOTION TO STRIKE MOTION TO DISMISS; MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS OF AND AGAINST DEFENDANTS; AND MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN THIS ACTION) along with the MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS; meet the pleading REQUIREMENTS, is UNCONTESTED and the time for Named Defendants to provide a REBUTTAL to ALL issues raised has EXPIRED! Therefore, Named Defendants have WAIVED any and ALL rights to rebut and/or contest Newsome’s “MTSMTD!” Furthermore, as a matter of law and pursuant to Rule 12(F), Page 12 of 23
  16. 16. DAHH when a Motion to Strike is filed, it is done so with EXACT SPECIFICS as to what is being requested to be stricken and the facts, evidence and/or legal conclusion to support same.27. On Page 2, continuance of paragraph from Page 1 which states, ―Defendants in their Motion to Dismiss‖ along with Footnotes 2, 3, 4 and 5 in that they are - “STRICKEN STATEMENT CLAUSE.” To date, Newsome’s July 14, 2012, 34 Pages with approximately 145 distinctly numbered paragraphs containing statements and/or issues, legal conclusions and approximately 42 supporting Exhibits to MOTION TO STRIKE MOTION TO DISMISS; MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS OF AND AGAINST DEFENDANTS; AND MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN THIS ACTION) along with the MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS; meet the pleading REQUIREMENTS, is UNCONTESTED and the time for Named Defendants to provide a REBUTTAL to ALL issues raised has EXPIRED! Therefore, Named Defendants have WAIVED any and ALL rights to rebut and/or contest Newsome’s “MTSMTD!”28. ¶3 on Page 2 which begins with, ―Rule 11 is designed to,‖ in that it is - “STRICKEN STATEMENT CLAUSE.” To date, Newsome’s July 14, 2012, 34 Pages with approximately 145 distinctly numbered paragraphs containing statements and/or issues, legal conclusions and approximately 42 supporting Exhibits to MOTION TO STRIKE MOTION TO DISMISS; MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS OF AND AGAINST DEFENDANTS; AND MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN THIS ACTION) along with the MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS; meet the pleading REQUIREMENTS, is UNCONTESTED and the time for Named Defendants to provide a REBUTTAL to ALL issues raised has EXPIRED! Therefore, Named Defendants have WAIVED any and ALL rights to rebut and/or contest Newsome’s “MTSMTD!”29. On Page 3, continuance of paragraph from Page 2 which states, ―Defendants have filed a legally,‖ in that it is - “STRICKEN STATEMENT CLAUSE.” To date, Newsome’s July 14, 2012, 34 Pages with approximately 145 distinctly numbered paragraphs containing statements and/or issues, legal conclusions and approximately 42 supporting Exhibits to MOTION TO STRIKE MOTION TO DISMISS; MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS OF AND AGAINST DEFENDANTS; AND MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN THIS ACTION) along with the MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS; meet the pleading REQUIREMENTS, is UNCONTESTED and the time for Named Defendants to provide a REBUTTAL to ALL issues raised has EXPIRED! Therefore, Named Defendants have WAIVED any and ALL rights to rebut and/or contest Newsome’s “MTSMTD!”30. ¶4 on Page 3 which begins with, ―To recount, this action arises,‖ in that it is - “STRICKEN STATEMENT CLAUSE.” To date, Newsome’s July 14, 2012, 34 Pages with approximately 145 distinctly numbered paragraphs containing statements and/or issues, legal conclusions and approximately 42 supporting Exhibits to MOTION TO STRIKE MOTION TO DISMISS; MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS OF AND AGAINST DEFENDANTS; AND MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN THIS ACTION) along with the MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS; meet the pleading REQUIREMENTS, is UNCONTESTED and the time for Named Defendants to provide a REBUTTAL to ALL issues raised has EXPIRED! Therefore, Named Defendants have WAIVED any and ALL rights to rebut and/or contest Newsome’s “MTSMTD!”31. On Page 3, paragraph which begins with, ―WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendants, Page Kruger & Holland, P.A.‖ in that it is - “STRICKEN STATEMENT CLAUSE.” To date, Newsome’s July 14, 2012, 34 Pages with approximately 145 distinctly numbered paragraphs containing statements and/or issues, legal conclusions and approximately 42 supporting Exhibits to MOTION TO STRIKE MOTION TO DISMISS; MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS OF AND AGAINST DEFENDANTS; Page 13 of 23
  17. 17. AND MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN THIS ACTION) along with the MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS; meet the pleading REQUIREMENTS, is UNCONTESTED and the time for Named Defendants to provide a REBUTTAL to ALL issues raised has EXPIRED! Therefore, Named Defendants have WAIVED any and ALL rights to rebut and/or contest Newsome’s “MTSMTD!” 32. On Page 3, paragraph which begins with, ―Further, Defendants request the Court find‖ and the remaining contents therein, in that they are - “STRICKEN STATEMENT CLAUSE.” To date, Newsome’s July 14, 2012, 34 Pages with approximately 145 distinctly numbered paragraphs containing statements and/or issues, legal conclusions and approximately 42 supporting Exhibits to MOTION TO STRIKE MOTION TO DISMISS; MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS OF AND AGAINST DEFENDANTS; AND MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN THIS ACTION) along with the MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS; meet the pleading REQUIREMENTS, is UNCONTESTED and the time for Named Defendants to provide a REBUTTAL to ALL issues raised has EXPIRED! Therefore, Named Defendants have WAIVED any and ALL rights to rebut and/or contest Newsome’s “MTSMTD!” 33. On Page 4, the Certificate of Service and the contents therein in that it is - “STRICKEN STATEMENT CLAUSE.” Now that the statutes/laws governing said matters require the STRIKING of the entire contents, statements,exhibits, etc. as noted above, there remains NO legal/lawful pleading of record. Therefore, Newsome is entitled tothe relief (Rule 11 Sanctions and DEFAULT Judgment, etc.) sought herein. C. RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (“RIOTMFDJ”) The entire contents of ―RIOTMFDJ‖ which include; however, is not limited to the Style and Headings of saidpleading in that it is: (ii) redundant; (iii) immaterial; (iv) impertinent and/or (v) scandalous and provided for purposesof delay, harassment, obstructing justice, increasing costs of litigation, embarrassment, sham/frivolousness, undulyburdensome, provided for purposes of committing fraud upon this Court, and other reasons known to Defendants andtheir Counsel and the following: 34. Opening paragraph on Page 1 which begins with ―COME NOW, Defendants, Page Kruger & Holland, P.A. (―PKH‖), Thomas Y. Page, Louis G. Baine, III, and Linda Thomas‖ in that it is - (ii) redundant; (iii) immaterial; (iv) impertinent and/or (v) scandalous and provided for purposes of delay, harassment, obstructing justice, increasing costs of litigation, embarrassment, sham/frivolousness, unduly burdensome, provided for purposes of committing fraud upon this Court, and other reasons known to Defendants and their counsel (Phelps Dunbar LLP, W. Thomas Siler, Jr. and Jason T. Marsh [hereinafter, ―Phelps Dunbar,‖ ―Siler‖ and/or ―Marsh‖)] hereinafter collectively known as “STRICKEN STATEMENT CLAUSE.” 35. ¶1 on Page 1 which begins with, ―On July 17, 2012, Plaintiff filed an incomplete, single page document‖ and the referenced Footnote 1 in that they are - “STRICKEN STATEMENT CLAUSE.” Named Defendants and their counsel Phelps Dunbar/W. Thomas Siler, Jr./Jason T. Marsh FRIVOLOUSLY and MALICIOUSLY attempt to take advantage of an error made by the Clerk of the Court. Furthermore, if there was any such error by the Clerk in the uploading of documents provided, counsel for Named Defendants should have proceeded in good faith to NOTIFY the Court of error. As the Court, Named Defendants’ counsel obtained Newsome’s MTSMTD and supporting Exhibits on a Page 14 of 23
  18. 18. CD/DVD. Upon checking with the Court, it is Newsome’s understanding that any issue regarding the uploading and/or filing has been resolved. Moreover, the Docket Entry reflecting: DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #12: This docket entry failed to select all pages of the document. Court staff has correctly refiled the document. – See EXHIBIT “H” at 08/10/2012 entry attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. Therefore, it did NOT preclude Named Defendants from providing a response to Newsome’s MTSMTD in accordance with the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the FRCP. Furthermore, Named Defendants counsel was provided with additional information that Newsome’s MTSMTD and supporting Exhibits may be obtained from the following links should problems arise with accessing the documents provided on CD/DVD: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/071412-motion-to-strike-page-kruger- holland-matter and/or https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a706a8d5e6473bcaa69. To date, Newsome’s July 14, 2012, 34 Pages with approximately 145 distinctly numbered paragraphs containing statements and/or issues, legal conclusions and approximately 42 supporting Exhibits to MOTION TO STRIKE MOTION TO DISMISS; MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS OF AND AGAINST DEFENDANTS; AND MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN THIS ACTION) along with the MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS; meet the pleading REQUIREMENTS, is UNCONTESTED and the time for Named Defendants to provide a REBUTTAL to ALL issues raised has EXPIRED! Therefore, Named Defendants have WAIVED any and ALL rights to rebut and/or contest Newsome’s “MTSMTD!” Furthermore, Named Defendants’ FAIL to REBUT the issues, evidence and legal conclusions provided in Newsome’s MTSMTD; therefore, a reasonable mind may conclude that averments/statements in MTSMTD are deemed ADMITTED/TRUE!36. ¶2 on Page 1 which begins with, ―Plaintiff does not offer any legal authority to support her request‖ in that it is - “STRICKEN STATEMENT CLAUSE.” To date, Newsome’s July 14, 2012, 34 Pages with approximately 145 distinctly numbered paragraphs containing statements and/or issues, legal conclusions and approximately 42 supporting Exhibits to MOTION TO STRIKE MOTION TO DISMISS; MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS OF AND AGAINST DEFENDANTS; AND MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN THIS ACTION) along with the MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS; meet the pleading REQUIREMENTS, is UNCONTESTED and the time for Named Defendants to provide a REBUTTAL to ALL issues raised has EXPIRED! Therefore, Named Defendants have WAIVED any and ALL rights to rebut and/or contest Newsome’s “MTSMTD!” Furthermore, as a matter of law and pursuant to Rule 12(F), DAHH when a Motion to Strike is filed, it is done so with EXACT SPECIFICS as to what is being requested to be stricken and the facts, evidence and/or legal conclusion to support same.37. On Page 2, continuance of paragraph from Page 1 which states, ―default judgment against Defendants‖ along with Footnotes 2 and 3 in that they are - “STRICKEN STATEMENT CLAUSE.” To date, Newsome’s July 14, 2012, 34 Pages with approximately 145 distinctly numbered paragraphs containing statements and/or issues, legal conclusions and approximately 42 supporting Exhibits to MOTION TO STRIKE MOTION TO DISMISS; MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS OF AND AGAINST DEFENDANTS; AND MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN THIS ACTION) along with the MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS; meet the pleading REQUIREMENTS, is UNCONTESTED and the time for Named Defendants to provide a REBUTTAL to ALL issues raised has EXPIRED! Therefore, Named Defendants have WAIVED any and ALL rights to rebut and/or contest Newsome’s “MTSMTD!” Page 15 of 23
  19. 19. 38. ¶3 on Page 2 which begins with, ―Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (a)(4),‖ in that it is - “STRICKEN STATEMENT CLAUSE.” To date, Newsome’s July 14, 2012, 34 Pages with approximately 145 distinctly numbered paragraphs containing statements and/or issues, legal conclusions and approximately 42 supporting Exhibits to MOTION TO STRIKE MOTION TO DISMISS; MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS OF AND AGAINST DEFENDANTS; AND MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN THIS ACTION) along with the MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS; meet the pleading REQUIREMENTS, is UNCONTESTED and the time for Named Defendants to provide a REBUTTAL to ALL issues raised has EXPIRED! Therefore, Named Defendants have WAIVED any and ALL rights to rebut and/or contest Newsome’s “MTSMTD!” While Newsome is proceeding in this lawsuit Pro Se, she is a PAYING litigant and has paid the required FILING FEE as well as DEMANDED a “TRIAL By JURY” [See Complaint at Doc. No. 1 Page 136 as well as the Docket Sheet at EXHIBIT “H” of this instant filing which clearly REFLECTS “Jury Demand: Plaintiff”] and have timely, properly and adequately PRESERVED triable issues and REITERATED JURY DEMAND on additional triable ISSUES raised in her MTSMTD that are MANDATORILY required to be submitted to the JURY under the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution and other statutes/laws governing said matters. Newsome does NOT waive her right to have ALL triable issues raised in her MTSMTD tried by the Judge assigned this lawsuit – i.e. which at this present time, appears to be Judge Tom S. Lee who is DISQUALIFIED to preside over this lawsuit and is attempting to ABUSE his judicial authority and USURP powers in which he is CLEARLY PROHIBITED to exercise!39. ¶4 on Page 2 which begins with, ―To recount, this action arises,‖ in that it is - “STRICKEN STATEMENT CLAUSE.” To date, Newsome’s July 14, 2012, 34 Pages with approximately 145 distinctly numbered paragraphs containing statements and/or issues, legal conclusions and approximately 42 supporting Exhibits to MOTION TO STRIKE MOTION TO DISMISS; MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS OF AND AGAINST DEFENDANTS; AND MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN THIS ACTION) along with the MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS; meet the pleading REQUIREMENTS, is UNCONTESTED and the time for Named Defendants to provide a REBUTTAL to ALL issues raised has EXPIRED! Therefore, Named Defendants have WAIVED any and ALL rights to rebut and/or contest Newsome’s “MTSMTD!”40. ¶5 on Page 2 which begins with, ―As Defendants have filed a timely,‖ in that it is - “STRICKEN STATEMENT CLAUSE.” To date, Newsome’s July 14, 2012, 34 Pages with approximately 145 distinctly numbered paragraphs containing statements and/or issues, legal conclusions and approximately 42 supporting Exhibits to MOTION TO STRIKE MOTION TO DISMISS; MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS OF AND AGAINST DEFENDANTS; AND MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN THIS ACTION) along with the MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS; meet the pleading REQUIREMENTS, is UNCONTESTED and the time for Named Defendants to provide a REBUTTAL to ALL issues raised has EXPIRED! Therefore, Named Defendants have WAIVED any and ALL rights to rebut and/or contest Newsome’s “MTSMTD!”41. On Page 2, paragraph which begins with, ―WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendants, Page Kruger & Holland, P.A.‖ in that it is - “STRICKEN STATEMENT CLAUSE.” To date, Newsome’s July 14, 2012, 34 Pages with approximately 145 distinctly numbered paragraphs containing statements and/or issues, legal conclusions and approximately 42 supporting Exhibits to MOTION TO STRIKE MOTION TO DISMISS; MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS OF AND AGAINST DEFENDANTS; AND MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN THIS ACTION) along with the MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS; meet the pleading REQUIREMENTS, is UNCONTESTED and the time for Named Defendants to provide a REBUTTAL to ALL issues Page 16 of 23
  20. 20. raised has EXPIRED! Therefore, Named Defendants have WAIVED any and ALL rights to rebut and/or contest Newsome’s “MTSMTD!” 42. On Page 3, paragraph which begins with, ―Further, Defendants request the Court find‖ and the remaining contents therein, in that they are - “STRICKEN STATEMENT CLAUSE.” To date, Newsome’s July 14, 2012, 34 Pages with approximately 145 distinctly numbered paragraphs containing statements and/or issues, legal conclusions and approximately 42 supporting Exhibits to MOTION TO STRIKE MOTION TO DISMISS; MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS OF AND AGAINST DEFENDANTS; AND MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN THIS ACTION) along with the MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS; meet the pleading REQUIREMENTS, is UNCONTESTED and the time for Named Defendants to provide a REBUTTAL to ALL issues raised has EXPIRED! Therefore, Named Defendants have WAIVED any and ALL rights to rebut and/or contest Newsome’s “MTSMTD!” 43. On Page 4, the Certificate of Service and the contents therein in that it is - “STRICKEN STATEMENT CLAUSE.” Now that the statutes/laws governing said matters require the STRIKING of the entire contents, statements,exhibits, etc. as noted above, there remains NO legal/lawful pleading of record. Therefore, Newsome is entitled tothe relief (Rule 11 Sanctions and DEFAULT Judgment, etc.) sought herein. II. MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT Newsome moves this Court to enter a Default Judgment in this lawsuit of and Against ―Named Defendants‖– Page Kruger & Holland, P.A., Thomas Y. Page, Louis G. Baine III and Linda Thomas pursuant to FRCP Rule 55which state in part: FRCP Rule 55. Default; Default Judgment (a) Entering a Default. When a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must enter the party’s default. (b) Entering a Default Judgment. (1) By the Clerk. If the plaintiff’s claim is for a sum certain or a sum that can be made certain by computation, the clerk – on the plaintiff’s request, with an affidavit showing the amount due – must enter judgment for that amount and costs against a defendant who has been defaulted for not appearing and who is neither a minor nor an incompetent person. (2) By the Court. In all other cases, the party must apply to the court for default judgment. A default judgment may be entered against a minor or incompetent person only if represented by general guardian, conservator, or other like fiduciary who has appeared. If the party against whom a default judgment is sought has appeared personally or by a representative, that party or its representative must be served with written notice of application at least 3 days before the hearing. The court may conduct hearings or make referrals – preserving any federal statutory right to a jury trial – when, to enter or effectuate judgment, it needs to: (A) conduct an accounting; (B) determine the amount of damages; (C) establish the truth of any allegation by evidence; or (D) investigate any other matter. Page 17 of 23
  21. 21. In further support thereof, Newsome states the following: 44. This instant Motion for Default Judgment (―MFDJ‖) 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. 45. This instant MFDF is submitted to protect the rights of Newsome and the relief she is entitled to as a direct and proximate result of Defendants FAILURE to file an Answer and/or Responsive pleading required under the statutes/laws governing said matters. 46. All NOTIFICATION requirements have been met. ―Named Defendants‖ were timely, properly and adequately notified that Default Judgment would be sought against them as early as about June 6, 2012, and received on or about June 8, 2012. Moreover, through the ―Waiver of the Service of Summons‖ executed by ―Named Defendants‖ which contained, ―NOTIFICATION ACCOMPANYING WAIVER OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS,” they were advised of the following: You are further hereby NOTIFIED, that unless you serve and file a written responsive pleading within the specified time, the Plaintiff will take judgment against you by default (i.e. for instance, “Motion for Default Judgment”) for the relief demanded in the Complaint. See at Page 4 of EXHIBITS “K,” “L,” “M,” and “N” respectively attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. UNDISPUTED IS THE FACT: That in an effort to DECEIVE this Court and efforts of keeping this information out of the records, ―Named Defendants‖ and their counsel (Phelps Dunbar/Siler/Marsh) RECREATED the ―Waiver of the Service of Summons‖ to SHIELD/HIDE from this Court by removing information regarding the method of mailing information (i.e. CERTIFIED MAIL) and noted information stating, ―NOTE: To save cost of litigation Plaintiff provided with "Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons" and "Waiver of Service of Summons" a document entitled, "Notification Accompanying Waiver of Service of Summons" which she believes contains pertinent information regarding ANSWERING of Complaint - a copy of which is attached to this "Waiver of Service of Summons" that was provided on the ORIGINAL ―Waiver of the Service of Summons‖ and the attached ―NOTIFICATION ACCOMPANYING WAIVER OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS.” Nevertheless, the record of this Court will support timely notification and evidence of what was received – See EXHIBITS “K,” “L,” “M,” and “N” respectively attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. 47. UNDISPUTED IS THE FACT: In support of this instant MFDJ, Newsome presents the following PRIMA FACIE CASE: (a) Newsome would be prejudiced by this Court’s denial of her Motion for Default Judgment. While Newsome is proceeding in this instant lawsuit pro se she is a PAYING LITIGANT and is NOT proceeding in this matter in forma pauperis and is governed by the rules and procedures of this Court and/or statutes/laws applicable to this action. Therefore, the attempts by Named Defendants’ counsel to assert this lawsuit is subject to the provisions of 42 USC § 1983 is WITHOUT merit, baseless and FRIVOLOUS. The record evidence supports that Newsome lost her job as a direct and proximate result of acts taken against her by ―Named Defendants‖ and those conspiring with them to cause Newsome injury/harm. Said actions taken by ―Named Defendants‖ and those conspiring against Newsome were to obtain an undue advantage over her in their expectation of the bringing of legal action and for means of financial devastation to prevent Newsome from successfully litigating this action. Newsome would be further prejudiced by denial of the relief sought in that she has already suffered irreparable injury/harm as a direct and proximate result of ―Named Defendants’‖ culpable acts. Furthermore, should this Court deny Newsome’s Motion for Default Judgment, it would deprive her equal protection of the laws, equal privileges and immunities and due process of laws, etc. Rights secured/guaranteed under the Constitution, Civil Rights Act as well as other governing statutes/laws in such matters. (b) ―Named Defendants‖ have no meritorious defense. ―Named Defendants‖ made a conscious, willful and decision to file a FRIVOLOUS Responsive Page 18 of 23
  22. 22. Pleading in this action under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which Newsome has timely, properly and adequately moved to have STRICKEN from the record – i.e. as a matter of law is to be GRANTED! (c) Not only did ―Named Defendants’‖ culpable conduct lead to their default, said conduct led to Newsome being terminated from her place of employment – culpable acts done with intent to obtain an undue advantage in the bringing of this lawsuit against them. Furthermore the record evidence and that presented in this instant motion will support ―Named Defendants’‖ culpable acts led to their default – a default which is as a direct and proximate result of “Named Defendants’” defiance and reckless disregard of the rules and procedures governing said matters. The record evidence supports that Newsome timely, properly and adequately notified ―Named Defendants‖ of the consequences of failing to file a timely Answer and/or file a responsive pleading/motion in accordance to the statutes/laws governing said matters. To no avail. ―Named Defendants‖ ignored said notifications provided them by Newsome through the “Notification Accompanying Waiver of Service of Summons” which was attached to the ―Waiver of the Service of Summon‖ served on ―Named Defendants.‖ In fact, Named Defendants’ and their counsel’s (Phelps Dunbar/Siler/Marsh) knowledge of said information and the CRITICAL nature thereof, is EVIDENCED in their removal of said NOTIFICATION and RECREATION of the ―Waiver of the Service of Summons.‖ Thus, further supporting how ―Named Defendants‖ have abused their time and can be expected to continue such CRIMINAL/CIVIL violations before this Court. Jackson v. Hamilton County Community Mental Health Bd.,174 FRD 394 (1997) In determining whether . . . to grant default judgment, court must balance the following factors: (1) whether plaintiff will be prejudiced; (2) whether defendant has meritorious defense; and (3) whether culpable conduct of defendant led to the default. In order to find defendant’s conduct culpable, for purpose of determining whether . . . to grant default judgment, conduct must display either intent to thwart judicial proceedings or reckless disregard for effect of its conduct on those proceedings. (Id.)48. As sustained by this instant MTS-DEFRIOTMTSMTD. . ., ―Named Defendants‖ failed to provide an Answer to the Complaint filed in this lawsuit or a responsive pleading permissible under Rule 12 of the FRCP. The statutes/laws governing said matters requires the STRIKING of Named Defendants’ Motion to Stay and supporting Memorandum In Support for the reasons set forth above in this instant pleading. The laws are clear on such matters that STRICKEN pleadings are as though they were NEVER filed and CANNOT be relied upon. Therefore, Newsome believes that a reasonable mind may conclude that ―Named Defendants’‖ failure to file a timely Answer or responsive pleading under Rule 12 of the FRCP was due to the fact that Complaint filed in this lawsuit is well grounded in facts, evidence and legal conclusions to sustain it.49. For purposes of expedition, saving of time and minimize costs associated with litigation, Newsome consolidate her motions/pleadings herein pursuant to FRCP Rule 12(G) which states: FRCP Rule 12(g) Joining Motions. - Right to Join. A motion under this rule may be joined with any other motion allowed by this rule.50. Newsome, therefore, in keeping with Rules 1(B) and 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, moves this Court for an entry and judgment GRANTING default judgment of and against ―Named Defendants‖ in the amount set forth in her Complaint and this instant MTS-DEFRIOTMTSMTD. . ..51. Newsome further demands a JURY trial (i.e. NOT a Bench Trial) on triable issues. Newsome is proceeding in this instant lawsuit as a PAYING Litigant and the Docket Sheet in this matter clearly reflects “JURY DEMAND: Plaintiff.” See EXHIBIT “H” attached hereto and incorporated by reference. Page 19 of 23
  23. 23. EXHIBITS TABLEEXHIBIT DESCRIPTION A Affidavit Of Vogel Denise Newsome in Support of Motion to Strike B FRCP Rule 38 C Seventh Amendment United States Constitution D FRCP Rule 26 E 28 USC § 455 F Phillips v. Joint Legislative Committee on Performance and Expenditure Review Of The State of Mississippi G Code of Judicial Conduct (Mississippi) H Docket Sheet (Newsome vs Page Kruger & Holland) I FRCP Rule 8 J Waiver or Loss of Right To Disqualify Judge (Civil Cases) K WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS – Page Kruger & Holland P.A. L WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS – Thomas Y. Page M WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS – Louis G. Baine III N WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS – Linda Thomas Page 23 of 23
  24. 24. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT – JACKSON DIVISIONVOGEL DENISE NEWSOME PLAINTIFFV. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-cv-00342PAGE KRUGER & HOLLAND P.A., ET AL. DEFENDANTS VOGEL DENISE NEWSOME’S AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE MOTION TO DISMISS AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS; MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS OF AND AGAINST DEFENDANTS; AND MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TOPLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS OF AND AGAINST DEFENDANTS; AND MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN THIS ACTION) 1STATE OF OHIO ) ) SSCOUNTY OF HAMILTON )I, Vogel Denise Newsome (“Newsome”), being first duly sworn, deposes and states: 1. Newsome is the Plaintiff in the above-entitled action. 2. Newsome has personal knowledge as to the claims and facts set forth in the Motions and Memorandum Brief in which this Affidavit supports. Moreover, giving rise to the lawsuit filed in this action. 3. Newsome is competent to testify to the matters set forth in the Complaint and her subsequent pleadings filed. 4. The Motions and Memorandum Brief in which this Affidavit supports and this Affidavit is being filed in good faith and is NOT imposed 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. 5. Newsome states that the Motion to Strike Defendants’ Response In Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss and Memorandum In Support Of Motion To Dismiss; Motion To Strike Defendants’ Response In Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion For Rule 11 Sanctions Of And Against Defendants; and Motion To Strike Defendants’ Response In Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion For Default Judgment; Plaintiff’s Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions of and Against Defendants; and Motion for Default Judgment (Jury Trial Demanded in this Action) in which this Affidavit supports is in COMPLIANCE with “Pleading REQUIREMENTS” pursuant to Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 1 NOTE: Boldface, caps, small-caps, italics, highlights and underline represents “emphasis” added. EXHIBIT “A” Page 1 of 6
  25. 25. 6. Newsome timely, properly and adequately NOTIFIED this Court through her Complaint at Page 136 and her subsequent pleadings filed in this matter that she DEMANDS a JURY Trial. Newsome does NOT waive her right to have triable issues raised in her Motion to Strike Defendants’ Response In Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss and Memorandum In Support Of Motion To Dismiss; Motion To Strike Defendants’ Response In Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion For Rule 11 Sanctions Of And Against Defendants; and Motion To Strike Defendants’ Response In Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion For Default Judgment; Plaintiff’s Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions of and Against Defendants; and Motion for Default Judgment (Jury Trial Demanded in this Action) tried before a JURY – i.e. OPPOSING a BENCH Trial on triable issues.7. Newsome OBJECTS to the appointment of this matter to Judge Tom Stewart Lee and believes that he is to RECUSE and/or DISQUALIFY himself from this lawsuit for the reasons set forth in her previous pleadings and this instant filing to which this Affidavit supports.8. Judge Tom S. Lee, as a matter of law, is disqualified from presiding over this lawsuit in that he has is BIAS and PREJUDICE toward Newsome, has a FINANCIAL/PECUNIARY interest in this lawsuit, has KNOWLEDGE of extrajudicial matters regarding Newsome to which he is and/or may be a party, may be a MATERIAL WITNESS in legal proceedings to which he has been named in other lawful actions brought by Newsome, has been appointed for purposes of COMPROMISING and TAINTING these proceeding and has FAILED to NOTIFY all parties to this lawsuit as to the CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST and the grounds requiring his DISQUALIFICATION. Should it become necessary to bring legal against Judge Tom S. Lee, Newsome intends to SUBPOENA any and/or all of his personal financial records (i.e. Tax Returns, Stocks Portfolio, etc.) for presentation to JURY in the TRIAL on this matter.9. Newsome OPPOSES and OBJECTS to this Court’s allowing parties to abuse this Court’s Electronic Filing System.10. Newsome will be prejudiced by this Court’s allowing the sham and frivolous Defendants’ Response In Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss and Memorandum In Support Of Motion To Dismiss; Defendants’ Response In Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion For Rule 11 Sanctions Of And Against Defendants; and Defendants’ Response In Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion For Default Judgment to remain a part of the record in that they have been filed in violation of the statutes/laws governing said matters.11. There are genuine issues of material fact which precludes the filing of Motion to Dismiss and the supporting Memorandum In Support; wherein resulting in the Motion to Strike and Motion for Default Judgment as well as other relief set forth in the Motions to which this Affidavit supports.12. All facts and/or claim set forth in the Complaint are to be deemed as TRUE and to date remain UNCONTESTED!13. On or about June 6, 2012, Newsome timely, properly and adequately notified “Named Defendants” – Page Kruger & Holland, Thomas Y. Page, Louis G. Baine III and Linda Thomas [hereinafter “Named Defendants”] – of the consequences Page 2 of 6 USDC Southern District Mississippi (Jackson) CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-cv-00342
  26. 26. (i.e. that she will file Motion to Strike and/or Motion for Default Judgment) should they fail to comply with the statutes and laws governing said matters. See Exhibits “K,” “L,” “M” and “N” of the Motion to Strike to which this Affidavit supports.14. Newsome believes that based upon the facts, evidence and legal conclusions provided in the Complaint and her subsequent pleading, that a reasonable mind may conclude that Named Defendants and/or their Counsel (Phelps Dunbar/W. Thomas Siler, Jr./Jason T. Marsh) did knowingly and willing submit their D “Defendants’ Response In Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss and Memorandum In Support Of Motion To Dismiss; Defendants’ Response In Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion For Rule 11 Sanctions Of And Against Defendants; and Defendants’ Response In Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion For Default Judgment” with fraudulent intent – i.e. purposes of committing fraud upon this Court.15. Newsome believes that the record evidence will sustain that “Named Defendants” come before this Court with DIRTY HANDS! Moreover, may rely and encourage WILLFUL participants as their legal counsel (Phelps Dunbar/W. Thomas Siler, Jr./Jason T. Marsh) to this action to come before this Court with DIRTY HANDS!!!16. Newsome believes that it is important for this Court to be fully aware as to what is going on in matters outside this lawsuit so that this Court can better understand the unlawful/illegal acts of Named Defendants and/or their Counsel. Moreover, see through their HIDDEN MOTIVES and AGENDAS!17. The allegations set forth in Motions to which this Affidavit supports can be supported by factual evidence in the record of “Named Defendants” as well as pleadings in this lawsuit.18. There is sufficient facts, evidence and legal conclusions contained in the Complaint to sustain the 13 Counts (i.e. while misnumbered does NOT take away from the merits, facts, evidence and legal conclusions sustaining them): (1) Count I - 42 USC § 1981: Equal Rights Under The Law Against Defendants; (2) Count II - 42 USC § 1985: Conspiracy To Interfere With Civil Rights and 42 USC § 1981: Equal Rights Under The Law Against Defendant(s); (3) Count III - 42 USC § 1986: Action For Neglect To Prevent and 42 USC § 1981: Equal Rights Under The Law Against Defendant(s); (4) Count IV - Negligent Interference with Employment and 42 USC § 1981: Equal Rights Under The Law Against Defendant(s); (5) Count V - Discrimination in Employment and 42 USC § 1981: Equal Rights Under The Law Against Defendant(s); (6) Count II [Sic] – Retaliation and 42 USC § 1981: Equal Rights Under The Law Against Defendant(s); (7) Count IIIII [Sic] - Breach Of Express Employment Agreement 42 USC § 1981: Equal Rights Under The Law Against Defendant(s); Page 3 of 6 USDC Southern District Mississippi (Jackson) CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-cv-00342
  27. 27. (8) Count VIII – Breach Of The Covenant Of Good Faith And Fair Dealing 42 USC § 1981: Equal Rights Under The Law Against Defendant(s); (9) Count IX – Negligent Infliction Of Emotional Distress and 42 USC § 1981: Equal Rights Under The Law Against Defendant(s); (10) Count X – Fraud Against [sic] and 42 USC § 1981: Equal Rights Under The Law Against Defendant(s); (11) Count XI – Negligent Interference With Employment – Malicious Conspiracy To Cause Discharge From Employment and 42 USC § 1981: Equal Rights Under The Law Against Defendant(s); (12) Count IVII – Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution – Due Process and 42 USC § 1981: Equal Rights Under The Law; and (13) Count VII – Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution – Equal Protection and 42 USC § 1981: Equal Rights Under The Law Against Defendant(s) set forth. Furthermore, to sustain that this Court is to take “all the allegations in the complaint as TRUE even if doubtful in fact” - i.e. in a light more favorable to Newsome.19. There is sufficient facts, evidence and legal conclusions to sustain the approximate 34 Pages with approximately 145 distinctly numbered paragraphs containing statements and/or issues, legal conclusions and approximately 42 supporting Exhibits to MOTION TO STRIKE MOTION TO DISMISS; MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS OF AND AGAINST DEFENDANTS; AND MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN THIS ACTION) along with the MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS.20. Newsome believes that when this Court allows the UNLAWFUL/ILLEGAL practices as that in the submittal of Defendants’ Response In Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss and Memorandum In Support Of Motion To Dismiss; Defendants’ Response In Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion For Rule 11 Sanctions Of And Against Defendants; and Defendants’ Response In Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion For Default Judgment it sends a message that such criminal and unethical practices are accepted – i.e. all you have to do is have BIG MONEY and be a BIG LAW FIRM with influences in HIGH PLACES.21. Newsome believes that Foreign Countries/Nations and Foreign Leaders are tired of the United States of America coming to them PREACHING to clean up their CORRUPTION, HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, etc., yet and still the United States continue to engage in such unlawful/illegal practices itself – i.e. sending a message of HYPOCRISY and TWO-FACEDNESS. This instant lawsuit is a classic example of the BLATANT corruption, discrimination, employment violations, etc. that employers engage in because they feel they are above the laws of the United States and/or feel they do not have to comply.22. Newsome believes that there is sufficient evidence in the record of this Court to sustain that the law firm (Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz [“Baker Donelson”]) that provides United States President Barack Obama with legal Page 4 of 6 USDC Southern District Mississippi (Jackson) CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-cv-00342

×