Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
08/13/12 - OBJECTION(S) TO 08/02/12 ORDER BY JUDGE TOM S. LEE - Motion To Disqualify
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

08/13/12 - OBJECTION(S) TO 08/02/12 ORDER BY JUDGE TOM S. LEE - Motion To Disqualify

17,559
views

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
17,559
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. OBJECTION(S) TO 08/02/12 JUDGE TOM S. LEE ORDER DEADLINE IS 10 DAYS FROM DATE OF ORDER: 08/16/12The following information ispertinent/relevant to understand UnitedStates of America President BarackObama’s and his LegalCounsel/Advisor/Grand Duke Of Ku KluxKlan Baker Donelson’s and theirCONSPIRATORS/CO-CONSPIRATORS Role and Interest in this Lawsuit. Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz (“Baker Donelson”) is Legal Counsel/Advisor for the United States of America Presidents (i.e. which includes President Barack Obama), United States Congressional Members, United States Supreme Court Justices, FEDERAL JUDGES ASSOCIATION, etc. http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/leggitt-lance-bresearchinfo http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/leggitt-lancesr- advisortopresidenthhscounselorgovofva http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/bd-oilfield-patents http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/duff-james-duff-legal-counsel-for-federal-judges- associationhighlighted 1) Page Kruger & Holland is the law firm Vogel Denise Newsome was employed at, at the time of her February 14, 2006 KIDNAPPING. 2) Baker Donelson appears orchestrated and directed the February 14, 2006, KIDNAPPING of Vogel Denise Newsome – i.e. working with its Clients: Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Spring Lake Apartment, Judge William Skinner, Constable Jon Lewis, and other CONSPIRATORS/CO-CONSPIRATORS 3) Baker Donelson, it appears, then SWIFTLY moved to have its employees MOVED into the following positions for purposes of OBSTRUCTING and COVERING UP their CRIMES and that of their Client(s) – Spring Lake Apartment/Melody Crews, Hinds County Mississippi/Constable Jon Lewis/Willliam Skinner, and other Conspirators: (a) About 2006 – Lee Rawls was placed in the United State Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation as CHIEF OF STAFF and also served as SENIOR Counsel to FBI Director/Robert Mueller 06/06/2006 – http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/062606- fbicomplaint-mississippi-matter 10/13/08 - http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/101308-fbi-complaint-gmm-properties 09/24/09 –http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/092409-fbicomplaint-storall 12/28/09 - http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/122809-fbicomplaint-ohio-supreme-court 06/09/10 - http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/060910-fbi-complaint-public-storage (b) About July 2006 – James C. Duff to the position of DIRECTOR of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (c) About May 2007 - Bradley S. Clanton to the position of CHAIRMAN of the Mississippi Advisory Commission – i.e. provides assistance in INVESTIGATIONS, etc. to United States Commission on Civil Rights/United States Department of Justice 4) Hinds County Mississippi Constable Jon Lewis was the person ORDERED to carry out the KIDNAPPING of Vogel Denise Newsome. At the time of this KIDNAPPING, it appears that Jon Lewis was a member of Mississippi GOVERNOR Haley Barbour’s Administration – i.e. CHAIRMAN of the Mississippi Athletic Commission. Haley Barbour is a Client of Baker Donelson. http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/mississippi-athletic-commission-jon-lewis http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/bd-c-leelottiiigovbarbour 5) Judge Tom S. Lee is the Judge attempting to ABUSE his AUTHORITY and preside over the above reference lawsuit over Vogel Denise Newsome’s OBJECTIONS. Judge Tom S. Lee is one of Baker Donelson’s PURCHASED Judges/Justices. http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/baker-donelson-ties-to-judgesjustices-as-of120911 16, 2012
  • 2. 08/13/12 – USPS PROOF OF MAILING RECEIPTUSDC SOUTHERN DISTRICT MISSISSIPPI (Jackson)OBJECTION(S) To 08/02/12 Order By Judge Tom S. Lee
  • 3. VOGEL DENISE NEWSOME Post Office Box 14731 Cincinnati, Ohio 45250 (601) 885-9536 or (513) 680-2922 August 13, 2012VIA PRIORITY MAIL: Tracking No. 03113260000101213594United 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 OBJECTION(S) To August 2, 2012 Order Of Judge Tom S. Lee; Motion For DISQUALIFICATION; AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL and supporting Memorandum Brief with EXHIBITS in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure – i.e. for Costs efficiency purposes. 2) EXHIBIT “39” for the July 25, 2012 (DOC. NO. 19) submittal entitled, Motion to Strike Motion To Stay All Proceedings Pending A ruling On Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss and Memorandum In Support Of Motion To Stay All Proceedings Pending A Ruling On Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss; Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions of and Against Defendants; and Motion for Default Judgment (Jury Trial Demanded in this Action). The Clerk advised Newsome that this Exhibit was corrupted. 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-objection-to-080212-judge-tom-s-lee-order and https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a7164865a6770a66d9d .
  • 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. DEFENDANTS PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION(S) TO AUGUST 2, 2012 ORDER OF JUDGE TOM S. LEE; MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL1 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, herOBJECTION(S) To August 2, 2012 Order Of Judge Tom S. Lee; Motion For DISQUALIFICATION; AND DEMANDFOR JURY TRIAL (“OBJECTION(S) To 08/02/12 Order”) in the preservation of her rights and pursuant to FederalRules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) Rule 60: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure – Rule 60: Relief from Judgment or Order (b) Grounds for Relief from a Final Judgment, Order, or Proceeding. On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; . . . (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; . . . (6) any other reason that justifies relief. See EXHIBIT “A” – Rule 60 of the FRCP attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein.FRCP Rule 12(G) governing matters regarding consolidation of defenses and objections. To have this Lawsuit triedby a JURY (i.e. NOT Bench Trial before Judge Tom S. Lee and/or the Court) of Newsome’s peers pursuant to Rule38 of the FRCP and Seventh Amendment of the United States Constitution as well as the Fourteenth Amendment of 1 NOTE: Boldface, underline, italics, HIGHLIGHTS, caps/small caps added for emphasis. Use of LEGAL RESOURCESAS: Federal Procedural Forms (Lawyers Edition), American Jurisprudence Practice and Procedures, United States CodeAnnotated, and other resource materials as guide in preparation of this document to aid in meeting pleading requirements asrequired by rules and laws governing said matters. Page 1 of 35
  • 5. the United States Constitution and other statutes/laws of the United States governing said matters. In support of thisinstant “OBJECTION(S) TO 08/02/12 ORDER,” Newsome further states: 1. This instant “OBJECTION(S) To 08/02/12 Order” 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. I. OBJECTION(S) TO AUGUST 2, 2012 ORDER Plaintiff Vogel Denise Newsome OBJECTS to the August 2, 2012 Order executed by this Court’s JudgeTom Stewart Lee (“Tom S. Lee” and/or “Judge Lee”) and states the following for said OBJECTION(S): 2. Newsome’s OBJECTION(S) to the August 2, 2012 Order executed by Judge Tom S. Lee/this Court is NULL/VOID pursuant to Rule 60 of the FRCP and other statutes/laws governing said matters in that it: (a) Has been entered by mistake over Newsome’s OBJECTIONS to Judge Tom S. Lee. (b) Is an ABUSE of discretion by Judge Tom S. Lee. (c) KNOWINGLY, DELIBERATELY and with MALICIOUS intent entered with FRAUDULENT intent as well as CRIMINAL intent to deprive Newsome rights secured under United States statutes/laws governing said matters. (d) Is NULL/VOID! (e) Has been obtained as a direct and proximate result of BIAS and PREJUDICE towards Newsome, for pecuniary/financial interests as well as other reasons KNOWN to this Court/Judge Tom S. Lee and the KEY role being played out in CONSPIRACIES and “Tacit Agreements” reached: TACIT AGREEMENT - Occurs when two or more persons pursue by their acts the same object by the same means. One person performing one part and the other another part, so that upon completion they have obtained the object pursued. Regardless whether each person knew of the details or what part each was to perform, the end results being they obtained the object pursued. Agreement is implied or inferred from actions or statements. Colonial Refrigerated Transp., Inc. v. Mitchell, 403 F.2d 541 (5th Cir. 1968) - Purpose of rule requiring party to inform court at time order or ruling is made to make known the action which he desires court to take, or his objection to action of court and his grounds therefor, is to inform trial judge of possible errors so that he may have an opportunity to reconsider his ruling and make any changes deemed advisable. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. rule 46, 28 U.S.C.A. Jenkins v. General Motors Corp., 446 F.2d 377 (5th Cir. 1971) - Timely objection is necessary to bring to trial courts attention alleged errors in conduct of a trial. Page 2 of 35
  • 6. Fort Worth & D. Ry. Co. v. Harris, 230 F.2d 680 (5th Cir. 1956) - Federal Rule of Civil Procedure requiring a party to make known his objections and grounds therefor is not a mere technicality, but is of substance in the administration of business in the courts. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. rule 46, 28 U.S.C.A.3. Newsome believes that the facts, evidence and legal conclusions provided herein as well as in her previous filings will sustain that the August 2, 2012 Order entered by Judge Tom S. Lee was entered for purposes of depriving Newsome DUE PROCESS as well as rights secured under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and other statutes/laws of the United States.4. It appears from the facts and evidence presented in this lawsuit, this Court’s Judge Tom S. Lee is CONSPIRING with Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz (“Baker Donelson”) to allow the use of Defendants’ Legal Counsel/Attorney’s Phelps Dunbar/W. Thomas Siler, Jr./Jason T. Marsh as a “FRONTING” Firm for purposes of shielding/hiding their CRIMINAL/CIVIL violations as well as the BIAS and PREJUDICE towards Newsome, EXTRAJUDICIAL sources that are at play which are having a direct impact on Judge Lee’s unlawful/illegal practices as well as the IMPROPRIETIES, etc. that exist out of view of Newsome and the PUBLIC/GLOBAL eyes. Liteky v. U.S., 114 S.Ct. 1147 (1994) - Revision made in 1974 to statute prohibiting judges participation in case which he has an interest or relationship to a party brought into the statute elements of general bias and prejudice recusal that had previously been addressed only in statute dealing with recusal of a district judge for bias in general; it entirely duplicated the grounds of recusal set forth in the latter statute but made them applicable to all justices, judges, and magistrates, not just district judges, and placed the obligation to identify the existence of those grounds upon the judge himself, rather than requiring recusal only in response to a partys affidavit. 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 144, 455(b)(1). . . Revisions made in 1974 to statute dealing with disqualification of judge who has an interest in the case or relationship to a party require all interest or relationship and bias or prejudice grounds to be evaluated on an objective basis so that what matters is not the reality of bias or prejudice, but its appearance; recusal is required whenever impartiality might reasonably be questioned. 28 U.S.C.A. § 455(a). . . . Catch-all provision of the disqualification statute as a broader reach than subsection setting forth specific grounds for disqualification, but the provisions have some ground in common and should not be applied inconsistently. 28 U.S.C.A. § 455(a, b). See EXHIBIT “N” - Liteky v. United States: The Extrajudicial Source Doctrine and Its Implications for Judicial Disqualification attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein.5. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 455 and other statutes/laws governing said matters, Judge Tom S. Lee is MANDATORILY (i.e. it is NOT discretionary) to RECUSE/DISQUALIFY himself from this lawsuit. Furthermore, Newsome does NOT consent to Judge Tom S. Lee presiding over this lawsuit and USURPING authority and ABUSING discretion in the handling of this lawsuit.6. 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 Page 3 of 35
  • 7. (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. II. MOTION TO DISQUALIFY (“MotionToDisqualify”) Plaintiff Vogel Denise Newsome respectfully moves under 28 U.S.C.A. § 455 that the Honorable TomS. Lee be disqualified from presiding as Judge in the above-entitled matter. In support of saidMotionToDisqualify, Newsome attaches her supporting Affidavit. See EXHIBIT “E” - Vogel Denise Newsome’sAFFIDAVIT of Disqualification of Judge Tom S. Lee attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forthin full herein. Newsome further states the following in support of MotionToDisqualify:A. PRIOR TO AUGUST 2, 2012 ORDER EXECUTED BY JUDGE TOM STEWART LEE KNOWLEDGE OF MANDATORY DISQUALIFICATION/RECUSAL REQUIRED WAS KNOWN TO COURT: 7. In keeping with Newsome’s May 12, 2012 pleading entitled, Request for Conflict of Interest Information, Notice of Opposition to Magistrate Judge Assignment; and Notice of Address (“Request for Conflict Of Interest Information”) – See Doc. No. 2 of this instant Lawsuit as well as EXHIBIT “D” attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein, she AGAIN, respectfully REITERATES and moves under 28 U.S.C.A. § 455 that the Honorable Tom S. Lee be DISQUALIFIED from presiding as Judge in the above-entitled matter. Newsome files with this instant “OBJECTION(S) To 08/02/12 Order” her Affidavit in support thereof as required by 28 U.S.C.A. § 144, to show that Judge Tom S. Lee has a personal bias and/or prejudice against her in favor of 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. See EXHIBIT “E” – Vogel Denise Newsome’s AFFIDAVIT Of Disqualification Of Judge Tom S. Lee attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. Berger v. U.S., 41 S.Ct. 230 (1921) - Under 28 U.S.C.A. § 144, providing that, when a party shall file an affidavit that the judge has a personal bias or prejudice against him, the judge shall proceed no further, but another judge shall be designated, and that such affidavit shall state the facts and the reasons for the belief that such bias or prejudice exists, when an affidavit legally sufficient is filed, the judge against whom it is filed cannot pass on the truth of the matters alleged or preside on the trial . Page 4 of 35
  • 8. 8. Based on the Affidavit, Newsome respectfully moves that the Honorable Judge Tom S. Lee proceed NO further in this action and that another judge be assigned to hear this case. Furthermore, that the Honorable Tom S. Lee declare himself DISQUALIFIED to sit as a Judge in this lawsuit and that another judge be assigned this lawsuit.9. This “MotionToDisqualify” has been TIMELY and properly submitted in compliance with 28 U.S.C.A. § 455 and/or statutes/laws governing said matters. See “Request for Conflict Of Interest Information” Doc. No. 2/EXHIBIT “D” attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. U.S. v. York, 888 F.2d 1050 (5th Cir. 1989) - In regard to statute pertaining to duty of judge to recuse himself, section which addresses appearances of impropriety, as well as section which addresses actual bias for conflict of interest on part of judge, both require timeliness. 28 U.S.C.A. § 455(a, b). Pomeroy v. Merritt Plaza Nursing Home, Inc., 760 F.2d 654 (5th Cir. 1985) - Literal ten- day requirement of rule that party alleging bias or prejudice of judge file an affidavit stating facts and reasons for belief that bias or prejudice exists not less than ten days before beginning of term at which the proceeding is to be heard no longer applies, since formal terms of court have been abolished. 28 U.S.C.A. § 144. Grambling University Nat. Alumni Assn v. Board of Suprs for Louisiana System, 286 Fed.Appx. 864 (5th Cir. 2008) - Plaintiffs motion for recusal, on ground that judges impartiality might reasonably be questioned, was untimely; while knowing facts underlying recusal argument plaintiff allowed case to linger for nearly ten months and only brought recusal motion after judge dismissed claims. 28 U.S.C.A. § 455(a).10. Newsome in support of her “Request for Conflict Of Interest Information” (Doc. No. 2) and this instant Motion, shows that the Honorable Tom S. Lee is disqualified from presiding as a judge in the above- numbered and entitled cause under provisions 28 U.S.C.A. § 455, due to: a) Bias and prejudice towards Newsome. b) Judge Lee’s direct and personal financial/pecuniary interest in this Lawsuit. c) Deprive Newsome of life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and property, etc. d) The SAME reasons giving rise to Judge Lee’s RECUSAL/DISQUALIFICATIONS in KKLM vs. Marsh USA, Joni B. Tyler vs. JPF1 and Joyce Walker vs. Captain D’s LLC, etc. - See EXHIBIT “F” attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein – in that it appears that Baker Donelson has and is playing a MAJOR/KEY role in the running and controlling of this lawsuit; however, has relied upon its CONSPIRATOR Law Firm Phelps Dunbar LLP to act as a “FRONT” to shield/mask their criminal/civil wrongs from Newsome as well as the PUBLIC-AT-LARGE! e) Baker Donelson is Legal Counsel/Attorneys for Federal Judges Association. See EXHIBIT “S” attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. f) Baker Donelson played a MAJOR/KEY role in having Judge Tom S. Lee appointed to the Judicial Bench. g) Baker Donelson and Named Defendants’ Counsel/Attorneys Phelps Dunbar SHARE/SWAP attorneys. See EXHIBIT “T” attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. Moreover, SHARE Clients. Information they are attempting to SHIELD/HIDE from Newsome as well as the PUBLIC-AT-LARGE! h) Judge Tom S. Lee has been named in other legal proceedings brought by Newsome before the United States of America Congress, etc. addressing his unlawful/illegal and judicial misconduct. i) Newsome is presently engaging in Congressional and/or further legal proceedings in which a reasonable person knowing the following facts and evidence regarding the Governmental positions held/controlled by Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz (“Baker Donelson”):  Chief of Staff to the President of the United States  United States Secretary of State Page 5 of 35
  • 9.  United States Senate Majority Leader  Members of the United States Senate  Members of the United States House of Representatives  Director of the Office of Foreign Assets Control for United States  Department of Treasury  Director of the Administrative Office of the United States  Chief Counsel, Acting Director, a