1. TRACKING Numbers Assigned By USPS
Supreme Court - 9505500001633091000092
President Obama - 9505500001633091000085
Solicitor General - 9505500001633091000078
RESPONSE TO SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES’ DOCUMENTS RETURN OF
JANUARY 4, 2013 RESPONSE TO NOVEMBER 5, 2012,
PETITIONER’S
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES’ DOCUMENTS RECEIVED –
REQUEST FOR ANSWER REGARDING WHAT IT IS THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA DOES NOT UNDERSTAND REGARDING VOGEL DENISE NEWSOME’S PETITION(S) FOR:
ORIGINAL WRIT – WRIT OF CONSPIRACY – WRIT OF COURSE – WRIT OF DETINUE – WRIT OF ENTRY - WRIT OF
EXIGI FACIAS - WRIT OF FORMEDON - WRIT OF INJUNCTION - WRIT OF MANDAMUS - WRIT OF POSSESSION - WRIT OF
PRAECIPE - WRIT OF PROTECTION - WRIT OF RECAPTION - WRIT OF PROHIBITION - WRIT OF REVIEW - WRIT OF
SUPERSEDEAS - WRIT OF SUPERVISORY CONTROL - WRIT OF SECURITATE PACIS - EXTRATERRITORIAL WRITS –
AFFIDAVIT TO SUPPORT COMPLIANCE WITH SUPREME COURT FILING REQUIREMENTS –
REQUEST TO BE NOTIFIED OF ANY/ALL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

2. TRACKING Numbers Assigned By USPS
Supreme Court - 9505500001633091000092
President Obama - 9505500001633091000085
Solicitor General - 9505500001633091000078

3. No. _____________________________________
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
VOGEL DENISE NEWSOME
PETITIONER
V.
STOR-ALL ALFRED, LLC;
JUDGE JOHN ANDREW WEST/
HAMILTON COUNTY (OHIO) COURT OF COMMON PLEAS; AND
DOES 1 THROUGH 250
RESPONDENT(S)
RESPONSE TO SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES’ DOCUMENTS RETURN
OF PETITIONER’S JANUARY
4, 2013 RESPONSE TO NOVEMBER 5,
2012, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES’
DOCUMENTS RECEIVED – REQUEST FOR ANSWER REGARDING WHAT
IT IS THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOES NOT
UNDERSTAND REGARDING VOGEL DENISE NEWSOME’S PETITION(S) FOR: ORIGINAL
WRIT – WRIT OF CONSPIRACY – WRIT OF COURSE – WRIT OF DETINUE – WRIT OF ENTRY - WRIT
OF EXIGI FACIAS - WRIT OF FORMEDON - WRIT OF INJUNCTION - WRIT OF MANDAMUS - WRIT OF
POSSESSION - WRIT OF PRAECIPE - WRIT OF PROTECTION - WRIT OF RECAPTION - WRIT OF
PROHIBITION - WRIT OF REVIEW - WRIT OF SUPERSEDEAS - WRIT OF SUPERVISORY CONTROL -
WRIT OF SECURITATE PACIS - EXTRATERRITORIAL WRITS – AFFIDAVIT TO SUPPORT
COMPLIANCE WITH SUPREME COURT FILING REQUIREMENTS – REQUEST TO BE
NOTIFIED OF ANY/ALL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST1
COMES NOW Petitioner, Vogel Denise Newsome – a/k/a Denise V. Newsome (“Newsome”
and/or “Petitioner Newsome”) – WITHOUT WAIVING HER RIGHTS and ARGUMENTS/ISSUES
and DEFENSES raised and/or set forth in the October 9, 2010 “Emergency Motion to Stay;
Emergency Motion for Enlargement of Time and Other Relief The United States Supreme Court
Deems Appropriate To Correct The Legal Wrongs/Injustices Reported Herein” (“EM/ORS”) as well
as subsequent pleadings/submittals – i.e. wherein Newsome TIMELY, PROPERLY and
ADEQUATELY demanded that the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States STEP
DOWN IMMEDIATELY! This instant filing entitled,
1
BOLDFACE, ITALICS, UNDERLINE, CAPS/Small Caps, etc. added for emphasis.
Page 1 of 5

4. RESPONSE TO SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES’
JANUARY 4, 2013
DOCUMENTS RETURN OF PETITIONER’S
RESPONSE TO NOVEMBER 5, 2012, SUPREME
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES’ DOCUMENTS
RECEIVED – REQUEST FOR ANSWER REGARDING WHAT IT IS
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOES
NOT UNDERSTAND REGARDING VOGEL DENISE NEWSOME’S
PETITION(S) FOR: ORIGINAL WRIT – WRIT OF CONSPIRACY – WRIT OF COURSE –
WRIT OF DETINUE – WRIT OF ENTRY - WRIT OF EXIGI FACIAS - WRIT OF
FORMEDON - WRIT OF INJUNCTION - WRIT OF MANDAMUS - WRIT OF
POSSESSION - WRIT OF PRAECIPE - WRIT OF PROTECTION - WRIT OF RECAPTION
- WRIT OF PROHIBITION - WRIT OF REVIEW - WRIT OF SUPERSEDEAS - WRIT OF
SUPERVISORY CONTROL - WRIT OF SECURITATE PACIS - EXTRATERRITORIAL
WRITS – AFFIDAVIT TO SUPPORT COMPLIANCE WITH SUPREME
COURT FILING REQUIREMENTS – REQUEST TO BE NOTIFIED OF
ANY/ALL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
(response known as “RTSCtRETURN-PETITIONER010413”) is in response to this Court’s return of
the January 4, 2013, pleading. See EXHIBIT “A” – Copy of the ORIGINAL of the 01/04/13
Pleading attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. The January 4,
2013 pleading was returned NOT STAMPED and was UNACCOMPANIED by the REQUIRED
Rule 14.5 Clerk’s Letter addressing the reasons for its return. This instant filing is submitted in
GOOD FAITH and in support thereof, Newsome states:
1) FIRST and FOREMOST, Newsome has REPEATEDLY requested that this Court
advise her of any/all CONFLICTS-OF-INTEREST in its handling of this case. To
date, this Court continues to DANCE AROUND and/or attempts to EVADE making
KNOWN to Newsome the CONFLICTS-OF-INTEREST known to it which appears
PRECLUDES the Justices of this Court and or the Administrative Staffs handling of
this matter. Therefore, through this INSTANT filing, Newsome again REITERATES
and DEMANDS to be notified of any/all CONFLICTS-OF-INTEREST in its
handling of the ORIGINAL Lawsuit she seeks to bring.
PLEASE NOTE: This lawsuit involves matters of
PUBLIC/INTERNATIONAL INTERESTS!
2) This instant “RTSCtRETURN-PETITIONER010413” 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 ISSUES
and rights of Newsome secured/guaranteed under the United States Constitution and
other laws of the United States. Moreover, to address matters of
PUBLIC/GLOBAL/INTERNATIONAL importance and interests.
Page 2 of 5

5. 3) That the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of America were
TIMELY, PROPERLY and ADEQUATELY demanded to “STEP DOWN” by
Friday, July 22, 2011; however, to date still remain on the bench with
KNOWLEDGE of the CRIMINAL acts they have committed and CONTINUE to
commit not ONLY against Newsome but the PUBLIC-AT-LARGE through their
CORRUPTION and DECEPTIVE practices to HIDE/CONCEAL the criminal/civil
wrongs of their Legal Counsel/Advisor and CONSPIRATORS/CO-
CONSPIRATORS Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz (“Baker
Donelson”) – i.e. and Baker Donelson Clients such as United States of America
President Barack Obama, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company/Stor-All Alfred, etc.
4) Rule 14.5 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States reads, “If the
Clerk determines that a petition submitted timely and in good faith is in a form that
does not comply with this Rule or Rule 33 or Rule 34, the Clerk will return it with a
letter indicating the deficiency. A corrected petition submitted in accordance
with Rule 29.2 no more than 60 days after the date of the Clerk’s
letter will be deemed timely.”
To DATE, Newsome has NOT received a letter from this Court advising her
of the DEFICIENCIES with her October 30, 2012 Petition. The October 30, 2012
Petition was CORRECTED and the reproduction of NEW booklets made in what
she believed to be in accordance with the Rules 17 and 33 as well as other applicable
Rules of this Court. Nevertheless, this Court has FAILED in accordance with Rule
14.5 to provide Newsome with an UPDATED letter addressing the
DEFICIENCIES with the October 30, 2012 Petition submitted. Therefore, please let
this instant pleading serve as Newsome’s DEMAND that this Court INDICATE the
DEFICIENCY(S) – if any - with the October 30, 2012 Petition as required by Rule
14.5 of the Rules of the Supreme Court. AGAIN, there was NO letter accompany the
return of the Petition and then this Court merely provided an OUTDATED letter
(Exhibit “A” attached) with Newsome’s January 4, 2013 pleading. This clearly is
UNACCEPTABLE and in VIOLATION of the Rules of the Supreme Court!
As this Court did in its April 1, 2013 letter for the Newsome vs. Honorable
Tom S. Lee, et a.l. matter, Newsome demands the same to AID her in understanding
what is wrong with her October 30, 2012 Petition(s) submitted.
5) This Court’s FAILURE to provide Newsome with the DEFICIENCIES with the
October 30, 2012 Petition, is clearly an OBSTRUCTION of JUSTICE and
PRECLUDES her from making the necessary changes (if any are really needed)
because, according to her, she believes that said Pleading was REDONE in with the
REQUIRED CORRECTIONS accordance with the Rules of the Court. However,
WITHOUT a letter from this Court in COMPLIANCE with Rule 14.5, it is both
unlawful and unethical for this Court to REFUSE to file Petition(s); moreover, FAIL
to provide Newsome with a list of deficiencies (if any). When according the Petition
Newsome received back was STAMPED “RECEIVED” by this Court on or about
November 5, 2012 - See EXHIBIT “B” – Cover Page ONLY attached hereto
Page 3 of 5