11/19/12 - petition for original writ et al (pkh) - supreme court (stamped)

i

I. QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

1. Whether EXTRAORDINARY and/or EXCEP-

TIONAL circumstances warrants the granting

of the Petition(s) sought.

2. Whether Supreme Court of United States Jus-

tices are required to RECUSE themselves in

this lawsuit. Whether Conflict-Of-Interest ex-

ist with Justices and/or Administrative Staff of

this Court in this lawsuit.

3. Should United States District Court Judge for

the Southern District of Mississippi (Jackson

Division) [“USDC-Jackson, MS”], the Honora-

ble Tom S. Lee, who it appears has a business

and personal relationship with Defendant(s) in

the lower court action and appears have finan-

cial and/or personal interests in this lawsuit,

be disqualified from presiding in cases in

which Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell &

Berkowitz, its PARTNERING firms as Phelps

Dunbar LLP are used as FRONTS to

shield/mask/hide the role it is playing in law-

suits and/or legal actions involving Vogel Den-

ise Newsome (“Newsome”)?

4. Whether Judge Tom S. Lee has jurisdic-

tion/legal authority to preside over lower court

action where “Affidavit of Disqualification” has

been filed against him. See APPENDIX

(“APPX”) “5” and “Request for Conflict of In-terest Information, Notice of Opposition to Magistrate Judge Assignment; and Notice of Address” was filed; however, Judge Lee RE-

ii

FUSED to address ALL issues raised in plead-

ings. See APPENDIX “6” - Appendix Chart

(“APPX CHART”) No. “12” 1 Whether Judge

Tom S. Lee submitted issues raised and in

dispute to a JURY as timely demand-

ed/requested.

5. Whether Judge Tom S. Lee owe a specific duty

to Newsome to recuse himself from United

States District Court – Southern District of

Mississippi (Jackson Division) action.

6. Whether Newsome is entitled to know of “Con-

flict of Interest” that exist between factfind-

er(s)/judges/justices and/or opposing par-

ties/counsel.

7. Whether Judges/Justices owe a specific duty to

Newsome to recuse themselves when “conflict

of interest” exists. Whether Judges/Justices

remained on the bench in legal actions where

Newsome is a party with knowledge there was

a “conflict of interest” due to their relationship

with opposing parties and/or their coun-

sel/counsel’s law firm.

8. Whether judges/justices assigned cases involv-

ing Newsome and supporting “THIRD-

PARTIES’” (i.e. such as opposing law firm(s)

as Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz, their employees and/or clients) in-

1 In accordance with the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United

States and in good faith to mitigate costs to prepare an Appendix with the

amount of VOLUMINOUS documents referenced, Newsome has provided the

LINKS where supporting documents may be found supporting this pleading.

Newsome has prepared at APPENDIX “6” an APPENDIX CHART (“APPX

CHT”) containing the documents to be included in the JOINT APPENDIX in

this matter.

iii

terests had a duty to recuse themselves from

lawsuits – i.e. as Judge Tom S. Lee [see APPX

CHT No. “7” – Recusal Orders executed be-

cause of relationship to Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz - provided and

incorporated herein by reference] – in which

knowledge of CONFLICT OF INTEREST EX-

ISTED. Whether judges/justices are allowed to

discriminate in their compliance with laws

governing recusal [see APPX CHT No. “8” –

Docket Sheet (Newsome v. Entergy - wherein

Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berko-witz appears as counsel of record - provided

and incorporated herein by reference]. Wheth-

er judges/justices should be IMMEDIATELY

removed from the bench and/or the applicable

legal actions initiated against judges/justices

for removal when record evidence supports

judges/justices failure to recuse. How does said failure of judges/judges to recuse themselves

affect the public and/or Constitutional rights

of citizen(s)?

9. Whether Newsome’s Complaint and her sub-

sequent pleadings in the lower court meet the

PLEADING Requirements of Rule 8 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

10. Whether Newsome’s Complaint can be dis-

missed WITH prejudice upon Motion to Dis-

miss for 42 § 1983 claims that are NOT the

basis of her claims and when § 1983 claims

were NEVER raised in her Complaint.

11. Whether Newsome’s Complaint is governed by

CONTINUING TORT – statute of limitations

– when civil wrongs/violations of Defend-

iv

ants/Respondents are ONGOING and contin-

ues to date.

12. Whether Newsome is entitled to injunctive re-

lief as a direct and proximate cause of the ir-

reparable injuries/harm sustained and contin-

ues to date. Injunctive relief commanding

and/or preventing the unlawful/illegal acts of

Respondents.

13. Whether Newsome, as a matter of Constitu-

tional right, is entitled to JURY trial(s) when

requested. Whether Newsome has been de-

prived of Constitutional right to jury trial(s).

14. Whether Newsome timely, properly and/or ad-

equately DEMANDED jury trial on issues.

15. Whether Newsome WAIVED her right to have

issues tried before jury.

16. Whether Judge Tom S. Lee possessed

knowledge that Newsome timely, properly and

adequately demanded JURY on ALL triable

issues. Whether Judge Tom S. Lee possessed

knowledge that he infringed upon Newsome’s

Constitutional Rights. Whether Judge Tom S.

Lee acts are arbitrary and/or capricious.

17. Whether the United States District Court –

Southern District of Mississippi (Jackson Divi-

sion) entered a decision in conflict with the de-

cision of another federal district and/or federal

circuit court of appeals on the same important

matter; has decided in important federal ques-

tion in a way that conflicts with a decision by a

federal court of last resort; and/or has taken a

far departure from the accepted and usual

v

course of judicial proceedings, or sanctioned

such a departure, as to call for an exercise of

the Supreme Court of the United States’ su-

pervisory power and/or original jurisdiction.

18. Whether United States District Court –

Southern District of Mississippi (Jackson Divi-

sion) has decided an important question of

federal law that has not been, but should be,

settled by this Court; and/or has decided an important federal question in a way that con-flicts with relevant decisions of the Supreme

Court of the United States.

19. Whether the lower court has decided an im-

portant federal question in a way that conflicts

with the decision of another federal court of

last resort or of a United States court of ap-

peals.

20. Whether lower court decision(s) raise ques-

tion(s) as to the validity of the federal statute

or treaty; raise a question statute statute/law

relied upon is repugnant to the Constitution,

laws or treaties of the United States; or ad-

dress the contention that a right, privilege or

immunity is “set up or claimed under the Con-

stitution or statutes of, or any commission

held or authority exercised under, the United

States.”

21. Whether the Supreme Court of the United

States’ decision in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 50 (2010), have

provide courts with a license and/or defense to

engage in criminal acts – i.e. provide arbi-

trary/capricious decisions for purposes of cov-

ering up criminal/civil wrongs leveled against

vi

citizens/litigants – for purposes of protecting TOP/BIG/KEY Financial Campaign Contribu-tors. Whether said Court NOTIFIED parties

in the Citizens United matter and/or the

PUBLIC that a CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST

existed in its handing of said decision. Wheth-

er the Supreme Court of United States’ DE-

LIBERATE FAILURE to RECUSE and/or

NOTIFY of Conflict-Of-Interest in the han-

dling of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, renders its decision NULL/VOID

and its acts ARBITRARY/ CAPRICIOUS.

22. Whether Newsome has been deprived equal

protection of the laws, equal privileges and

immunities of the laws, and due process of

laws secured under the United States of Amer-

ica’s Constitution.

23. Whether Newsome is a victim of “Pattern-of-

Practices,” “Pattern-of-Abuse,” “Pattern-of-

Injustices” and/or “PATTERN” of unlaw-

ful/illegal practices as a direct and proximate

result of her engagement in protected activi-

ties.

24. Whether Newsome is a victim of “Criminal Stalking.”

25. Whether Newsome is a victim of Government

“BULLYING.” Whether the United States

Government/Courts allow parties opposing

Newsome in legal matters (judicial and admin-

istrative) to use their “political” and “financial wealth” for purposes of BULLYING Newsome.

Whether said BULLYING is for purposes of

intimidation, coercion, threats, bribery,

blackmail, etc. to force Newsome to abandon

vii

protected rights and/or deprive Newsome

equal protection of the laws, equal privileges

and immunities of the laws and due process of

laws.

26. Whether United States of America Govern-

ment Officials and Newsome’s former employ-

er(s) have engaged in criminal/civil wrongs

leveled against her for purposes of BLACK-

LISTING. Whether the United States Gov-ernment Agencies/Courts have placed infor-mation on the INTERNET regarding New-some that it knew and/or should have known was false, misleading and/or malicious.

27. Whether Government agencies, their employ-

ees and others have engaged in TERRORIST

ACTS.

28. Whether the United States citizens/public

and/or Foreign Nations, their leaders and citi-

zens are entitled to know of the crimes and

civil injustices of the United States of Ameri-

ca’s Government, its officials/employees and

co-conspirators leveled against African/Black-

Americans and/or people of color.

29. Whether extraordinary circumstances exist to

warrant granting of this petition.

30. Whether conspiracy(s) leveled against New-

some exist. Whether United States Govern-

ment Officials’/Courts’ failure and “neglect to prevent” has created a “threat to the public” in allowing criminal(s) to remain at large in the general population.

viii

31. Whether citizens of the United States have the

right to exercise First Amendment Rights and

Rights secured/guaranteed under the United

States Constitution and/or Rights secured un-

der the laws of the United States without fear of reprisal.

32. Whether United States Government Agencies

and their Officials/Employees have the right to

retaliate against Newsome for exercising

rights protected and secured under the laws of

the United States and United States Constitu-

tion.

33. Whether opposing parties, their insurance

providers, special interest groups, lobbyists,

and their representatives have legal authority

to retaliate against Newsome for her engage-

ment in protected activities. Whether oppos-

ing parties and their conspirators/co-

conspirators are allowed to stalk Newsome

from job-to-job/employer-to-employer and

state-to-state for purposes of terminating her

employment, blacklisting, etc. in retaliation

for Newsome having exercised and/or or en-

gagement in protected activities.

34. What role (if any) has the law firm Baker Do-nelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz, its

employees, clients and others played in the

criminal/civil wrongs and conspiracies leveled

against Newsome?

35. What relationship (if any) does the law firm

Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berko-witz, its employees and clients have to United

States of America President Barack Obama

and his Administration?

ix


Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berko-witz, its employees and clients have to past

Presidents of the United States of America

and their Administration?


Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berko-witz, its employees and clients have to offi-

cials/employees in the United States of Ameri-

ca Senate and United States of America House

of Representatives?


Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berko-witz, its employees and clients have in the ap-

pointment of judges/justices to the courts?

39. What role (if any) did the law firm Baker Do-nelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz, its

employees and clients have in the handling of

criminal/civil complaints Newsome filed with

the United States Department of Justice – i.e.

based on relationship and KEY position(s)

held with the Commission on Civil Rights

[Chairman, etc.] which serve as a national clearinghouse for information in respect to

discrimination or denial of equal protection of

the laws; submitting reports, findings and rec-

ommendations to the President and Congress;

and issuing public service announcements to

discourage discrimination or denial of equal

protection of the laws . . . served as Chief

Counsel to the U.S. House Judiciary Commit-tee's Subcommittee on the Constitution, which

responsibilities included advising the Chair-

man and Republican Members of the Judiciary

x

Committee on legislation and Congressional

oversight implicating civil and constitutional

rights, Congressional authority, separation of

powers, proposed constitutional amendments

and oversight of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice and the U.S. Com-mission on Civil Rights [see for instance AP-

PENDIX DOCUMENTS CHART (“APPX

CHT”) No. “9” – Baker Doneslon information

regarding Bradley S. Clanton]

40. What role (if any) did Baker Donelson Bear-man Caldwell & Berkowitz, its employees, its

clients and the United States Department of

Justice play in the COVER-UP of crimi-

nal/civil violations leveled against Newsome

reported on or about September 17, 2004 in

“Petitioner's Petition Seeking Interven-

tion/Participation of the United States De-

partment of Justice” - i.e. styled "VOGEL DENISE NEWSOME vs. ENTERGY SER-VICES, INC." [see APPIX “8”] in which New-

some timely, properly and adequately reported

the criminal/civil violations of Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz, Judge G.

Thomas Porteous Jr. and others – to no avail.

41. Whether the IMPEACHMENT of Judge G.

Thomas Porteous, Jr. (i.e. having role as pre-

siding judge in lawsuit involving Newsome) on

or about December 8, 2010 [see APPX CHT

No. “10” – Article “Senate Removes Federal Judge in Impeachment Conviction” incorpo-

rated herein by reference], is perti-

nent/relevant to this instant lawsuit.

42. What role (if any) did Baker Donelson Bear-man Caldwell & Berkowitz, its employees, its

xi

clients, others and the United States Depart-

ment of Justice play in the COVER-UP of

criminal/civil violations leveled against New-

some reported on or about September 24, 2004

in “Request for Department of Justice's Inter-

vention/ Participation in this Case” - i.e. refer-

encing "Newsome v. Mitchell McNutt & Sams P.A." [See APPX CHT No. “11”] in which New-

some timely, properly and adequately reported

the criminal/civil violations of Mitchell McNutt

& Sams – to no avail.

43. Whether the INDICTMENT of Judge Bobby

DeLaughter [i.e. having a role as presiding

judge in lawsuit involving Newsome] on or

about January 6, 2009, and his pleading

GUILTY on or about July 30, 2009, is perti-

nent and/or relevant to this instant lawsuit.

44. Whether Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz, its employees and clients have an

interest in the outcome of this lawsuit. If so,

whether the Supreme Court of the United

States is aware of said knowledge and/or in-

formation.

45. Whether attorneys and their client(s) are al-

lowed to engage in criminal and civil wrongs

for purposes of obstructing the administration

of justice.

46. Whether the EXTRAORDINARY and EX-

CEPTIONAL circumstances surrounding this

lawsuit supports the establishment of special

court(s) to litigate matters. Whether the

SPECIAL relationships of Judges/Justices to

opposing party(s) in litigation involving New-

some warrant the creation of special court(s) to

xii

afford Newsome rights secured and guaran-

teed under the United States Constitution and

laws of the United States – i.e. equal protec-

tion of the laws, equal privileges and immuni-

ties of the laws and due process of laws.

47. Whether attorneys and their client(s) are al-

lowed to engage in criminal and civil wrongs

for purposes of obstructing the administration

of justice.

48. Whether the EXTRAORDINARY and EX-


lawsuit supports the establishment of special

court(s) to litigate matters. Whether the

SPECIAL relationships of Judges/Justices to

opposing party(s) in litigation involving New-

some warrant the creation of special court(s) to

afford Newsome rights secured and guaran-

teed under the United States Constitution and

laws of the United States – i.e. equal protec-

tion of the laws, equal privileges and immuni-

ties of the laws and due process of laws.

xiii

II. 2LIST OF PARTIES

All parties appear in the caption of the case on the

cover page and the following is the contact information for

each of their counsel/representative of record:

Honorable Tom S. Lee – Judge J. T. Noblin – Clerk

USDC-Southern District Mississippi (Jackson)

501 E. Court Street – Suite 2.500

Jackson, Mississippi 39201

PHELPS DUNBAR LLP

c/o W. Thomas Siler, Jr., Esq.

Jason T. Marsh, Esq.

4270 I-55 North

Jackson, Mississippi 39211-6391

Post Office Box 16114

Jackson, Mississippi 39236-6114

At all times relevant to this instant action, Respond-

ent Does 1 through 100 served in respective positions with

their employer and/or in their individual capacity. New-

some is ignorant of the true names and capacities of Does 1

through 100, inclusive, and therefore sue these Respond-

ents by such fictitious names. Newsome is informed and

believes and thereon alleges that Respondent Does so

named (and/or to be named) is responsible and/or partici-

2 BOLDFACE, ITALICS, UNDERLINE, CAPS, etc. of text in this Peti-

tion is for purposes of emphasis.

xiv

pated in the conspiracy(s)3 against Newsome and in such

manner is responsible for the injuries and damages suf-

fered by Newsome as set forth in this instant pleading.

Newsome will amend Petition(s) for: ORIGINAL WRIT –

WRIT OF MANDAMUS – WRIT OF PROHIBITION – WRIT OF CON-

SPIRACY – WRIT OF EXIGI FACIAS - WRIT OF INJUNCTION -

WRIT OF MANDAMUS - WRIT OF REVIEW - WRIT OF SUPER-

SEDEAS - WRIT OF SUPERVISORY CONTROL - WRIT OF SECURI-

TATE PACIS - EXTRATERRITORIAL WRITS (“OW-WOM, ET AL”)

to state the true names and capacities of Respondents Does

1 through 100, inclusive, when they have been identified

and/or ascertained. Due to the extraordinary circumstanc-

es and scope of CONSPIRACIES leveled against Newsome

at the time of the filing of this “OW-WOM, ET AL,” she is

ignorant of the names and capacities of Respondent Does –

i.e. believing that during the course of litigation of this mat-

ter and/or investigation by this Court into this matter, the

identity(s) of Respondent Does may become known. By en-

gaging in the conduct described in this “OW-WOM, ET AL”

Respondent Does acted under the course and scope of their

employment with their respective employer as well as may

have acted within their individual capacity. By engaging in

the discriminatory conduct described in this “OW-WOM, ET

AL,” Respondent Does exceeded the authority vested in

them as an employee of their respective employer and

committed acts of a personal nature, personal bias and/or

for personal and financial interest and gain.

3 Respondent (conspirator) becomes the agent of the other conspirator

(s), and any act done by one of the combination is regarded under the law as the act of both or all. In other words, what one does, if there is this combination,

becomes the act of both or all of them, no matter which individual may have done it. This is true as to each member of the conspiracy, even those whose involvement was limited to a minor role in the unlawful transaction, and it makes no difference whether or not such individual shared in the profits of the actions. (Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Conspiracy § 9).

xv

III. TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW .......................... i

II. LIST OF PARTIES .............................................................. xiii

III. TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................... xv

IV. INDEX TO APPENDICES ................................................. xvi

V. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ............................................ xxiii

VI. CONCISE STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ................ 1

VII. CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS, TREATIES,

STATUTES, ORDINANCES and REGULATIONS

INVOLVED IN CASE ........................................................................ 6

VIII. CONCISE STATEMENT OF THE CASE ...................... 7

IX. REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION .............. 12

X. CONCLUSION and RELIEF SOUGHT ........................... 79

XI. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ............................................ 80

XII. APPENDIX ............................................................................... 1

NOTICE OF FILING ........................................................................ 12

OF AN “ORIGINAL” ACTION/APPEAL IN THE ...................... 12

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ...................... 12

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, please docket

this instant NOTICE OF FILING OF AN “ORIGINAL”

ACTION/APPEAL IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE

UNITED STATES. ............................................................................ 20

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR CONFLICT OF INTEREST

INFORMATION, NOTICE OF OPPOSITION TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE ASSIGNMENT; AND .......................... 21

NOTICE OF ADDRESS .................................................................. 21

VOGEL DENISE NEWSOME’S AFFIDAVIT OF ..................... 22

xvi

DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE TOM S. LEE ..................... 22

IV. INDEX TO APPENDICES

In compliance with the Rules of the Supreme Court

of the United States and in good faith of mitigating costs

because Appendix is VOLUMINOUS, the documents that is

to be included in the JOINT APPENDIX are provided at

APPENDIX “6” – Appendix Chart may be found at the fol-

lowing link as well:

https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=

8a72648b595e7377b06e

APPX DESCRIPTION

1 08/20/12 - Judgment DISMISSING Newsome’s

Complaint WITH prejudice

2 08/20/12 - Order DENYING Newsome’s Motion to

Disqualification and DEMAND for Jury Trial

3 08/20/12 - Memorandum Opinion GRANTING

Named Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for “failure to state a claim”

4 09/20/12 – Notice of Filing of an “ORIGINAL” Ac-tion/Appeal in the Supreme Court of the United States

5 Affidavit of DISQUALIFICATION [ONLY] and

Link for: OBJECTION(S) To August 2, 2012 Or-der Of Judge Tom S. Lee; Motion For DISQUAL-IFICATION; AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a72648b595e7377b06e


xvii

(“OBJECTION(S) TO 08/02/12 ORDER”) https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a7

2648b595e75bc719a

APPENDIX “6” – APPENDIX CHART CONTAINS THE FOLLOW-

ING:

NO.

6 DOCKET SHEET – Newsome v. Page Kruger & Holland P.A., et al https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a7

2648b595f6d7d6b9b

7 Recusal Orders by Tom S. Lee

https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a7

2648b595f6ea56c9c

8 Docket Sheet – Newsome v. Entergy


2648b595f71b3b26a

9 Bradley S. Clanton – Baker Donelson Information


2648b595f72ae9ca5

10 Judge G. Thomas Porteous Impeachment Articles


2648b595f76ae9ca5

11 09/24/04 - Request for Department of Justice's In-

tervention/ Participation in this Case


2648b59606eb2a1aa

12 05/15/12 - Request for Conflict of Interest Infor-mation, Notice of Opposition to Magistrate Judge

https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a72648b595e75bc719a


https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a72648b595f6d7d6b9b


https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a72648b595f6ea56c9c


https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a72648b595f71b3b26a


https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a72648b595f72ae9ca5




https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a72648b59606eb2a1aa


xviii

Assignment; and Notice of Address https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a7

2648b596070b8a6af

13 08/15/12 - OBJECTION(S) To August 2, 2012 Or-der Of Judge Tom S. Lee; Motion For DISQUAL-IFICATION; AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a7

2648b596075b96e97

14 07/17/12 - Motion to Strike Motion To Dismiss and Memorandum In Support Of Motion To Dis-miss; Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions of and Against Defendants; and Motion for Default Judgment (Jury Trial Demanded in this Action) https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a7

2648b59616dae9ca5

15 07/17/12 – Cover Letter to Court Filing


2648b59616ebca99b

16 07/30/12 - 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; Mo-tion for Rule 11 Sanctions of and Against Defend-ants; and Motion for Default Judgment (Jury Tri-al Demanded in this Action) https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a7

2648b59616fb1a0a9

17 08/02/12 – Order GRANTING Motion to Stay


2648b596170afaf67

https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a72648b596070b8a6af


https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a72648b596075b96e97


https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a72648b59616dae9ca5


https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a72648b59616ebca99b


https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a72648b59616fb1a0a9


https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a72648b596170afaf67


xix

18 08/14/12 - Motion to Strike Defendants’ Response In Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion To Strike Mo-tion 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 Sanc-tions of and Against Defendants; and Motion for Default Judgment (Jury Trial Demanded in this Action) https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a7

2648b5961717d6c9b

19 Baker Donelson - Listing of Government Posi-

tions


2648b59617275ae6d

20 Baker Donelson – Listing of Government Posi-

tions (09/11/04)


2648b5961747aa0a2

21 Baker Donelson’s Website Listing of Government

Positions


2648b596176b3a06b

22 07/18/11 – Newsome’s Letter to Supreme Court of

United States


2648b59626db3b36a

23 Conduct or Bias of Law Clerk or Other Judicial Support Personnel As Warranting Recusal of

https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a72648b5961717d6c9b


https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a72648b59617275ae6d


https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a72648b5961747aa0a2


https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a72648b596176b3a06b


https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a72648b59626db3b36a


xx

FEDERAL Judge or Magistrate https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a7

2648b59626fb19fa8

24 DISQUALIFICATION of Supreme Court Justic-es: The Certiorari Conundrum https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a7

2648b596270769c9e

25 HOOD vs. HOFFMAN-LAROCHE, LTD, District

of Columbia District Court, Case No. 1:06-cv-

01484


2648b596271bcaa69

26 Phelps Dunbar and Page Kruger & Holland Cli-

ent Listings:


2648b596272b19fa8

27 W. Lee Rawls Information


2648b596273bdac6a

28 President Barack Obama’s “Secret Kill List” Arti-

cle


2648b596275b8a7af

29 David Addington Information


2648b59636db6a4ad

30 28 USC § 1651


2648b59636eb2b169

https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a72648b59626fb19fa8


https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a72648b596270769c9e


https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a72648b596271bcaa69


https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a72648b596272b19fa8


https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a72648b596273bdac6a




https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a72648b59636db6a4ad


https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a72648b59636eb2b169


xxi

31 Morrow v. District of Columbia https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a7

2648b596370a66ca8

32 Platt v. Minnesota Min. & Mfg. Co. https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a7

2648b596372b0af67

33 De Beers Consol. Mines v. U.S. https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a7

2648b596374aead67

34 Google Search Information Regarding Vogel

Newsome


2648b596375a76eaa

35 Adams v. U.S. ex rel. McCann https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a7

2648b596376bcab6a

36 Ex parte Milwaukee R. Co. https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a7

2648b59646ea66d9d


2648b596471bead6c

38 Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp. https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a7

2648b596474769c9e

39 COMPLAINT – Newsome v. Page Kruger & Hol-

land et al.


2648b596476759b9d

https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a72648b596370a66ca8


https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a72648b596372b0af67


https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a72648b596374aead67


https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a72648b596375a76eaa


https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a72648b596376bcab6a


https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a72648b59646ea66d9d


https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a72648b596471bead6c




https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a72648b596476759b9d


xxii

40 Hare v. City of Corinth, Miss. https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a7

2648b59656fbba968

41 05/16/06 – TERMINATION Email (Page Kruger

& Holland)


2648b596571769c9e

42 Salinas v. U.S https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a7

2648b596573aa72a2

43 Porter v. Lee https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a7

2648b596574b5b46c

44 Heckler v. Ringer https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a7

2648b596576b96e99

45 U.S. ex rel. McLennan v. Wilbur https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a7

2648b59666fa8709f

46 U.S. v. Hoffman https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a7

2648b596671b0af67

47 La Buy v. Howes Leather Company https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a7

2648b59676d79b197

48 Fisher v. District Court of Sixteenth Judicial Dist. of Montana, in and for Rosebud County https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a7

https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a72648b59656fbba968






https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a72648b596574b5b46c




https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a72648b59666fa8709f




https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a72648b59676d79b197


https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a72648b59676ea5a56c

xxiii

2648b59676ea5a56c

V. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Adams v. U.S. ex rel. McCann, 63 S.Ct. 236 (1942) .................. 47

Albert v. R.P. Farnsworth & Co., 176 F 2d 198 (5th Cir. 1949) ........................................................ 55

Aman v. Cort Furniture Rental Corp., 85 F.3d 1074, 1081-82 (3rd Cir. 1996) ....................................... 26

Anderson v. McLaughlin, 263 F.2d 723 (1959)........................... 38

Andrade v. Chojnacki, 338 F.3d 448 (5th Cir. 2003) .................. 52

Archibeque v. Wylie, 16 F.3d 415,

1994 WL 41272, *3 (10th Cir.(N.M.)) ........................................... 56

Bagley v. Byrd, 534 U.S. 1301,

122 S.Ct. 419, 419-420, 151 L.Ed. 2d 370 (2001) ............. 41, 66

Baylis v. Travellers’ Ins. Co., 113 US 316,

28 L Ed 989, 5 S Ct 494 ............................................................... 54

Benjamin J. Shipman, Handbook of Common-Law Pleading § 341, at 542

(Henry Winthorp Ballantine ed., 3d ed. 1923) ....................... 75

Bennett v. Schmidt, 153 F3d 516 (7th Cir. 1998) ....................... 53

Brown v. Gilmore, 533 U.S. 1301,

122 S.Ct. 1, 2-3, 150 L.Ed. 2d 782 (2001) ................................ 64


xxiv

Bryant v. Military Department of Mississippi, 597 F.3d 678 (5th Cir. Miss. 2010) ............................................. 61

Chessman v. Teets, 354 U.S. 156,

77 S.Ct. 1127, 1 L.Ed.2d 1253 (1957) ....................................... 44

Citizens United v Federal Election Commission,

558 U.S. 50 (2010) ........................................................................... v

Conduct or Bias of Law Clerk or Other Judicial Support Personnel As Warranting Recusal of FEDERAL Judge or Magistrate....................................................................... xix, 16, 4

Connor v. Coleman, 440 U.S. 612, 624,

99 S.Ct. 1523, 59 L.Ed. 2d 619 (1979) .......................... 40, 65, 70

Cox v. C. H. Masland & Sons, Inc., 607 F 2d 138 (5th Cir. 1979) ........................................................ 55

Davis v. Board of School Comm’rs,

517 F2d 1044 (5th Cir. 1975) ....................................................... 51

De Beers Consol. Mines v. U.S., 65 S.Ct. 1130,

325 U.S. 212, 89 L.Ed. 1566 (1945) ........................................... 39

DISQUALIFICATION of Supreme Court Justices: The Certiorari Conundrum ............................ 17

Estate of Cole by Pardue v. Fromm, 94 F.3d 254, 260 (7th Cir.1996) ................................................. 56

Ex parte Fahey, 332 U.S. 258, 260,

67 S.Ct. 1558, 91 L.Ed. 2041 (1947) .............................. 36, 41, 66

Ex parte Harding, 219 U.S. 363, 374;

31 S.Ct. 324, 55 L.Ed. 252 (1911) ........................................ 41, 67

Ex parte Hung Hang, 108 U.S. 552, 553,

xxv

2 S.Ct. 863, 27 L.Ed. 811 (1883) .................................... 40, 65, 69

Ex parte Milwaukee R. Co., 72 U.S. 188 (1866) ......................... 48

Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371, 374,

25 L.Ed. 717 (1879) ........................................................... 40, 65, 69

Ex parte United States, 242 U.S. 27, 52,

37 S.Ct. 72, 61 L.Ed. 129 (1916) .................................... 40, 65, 70

Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 165,

28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908) .................................... 1, 42, 67

Fisher v. District Court of Sixteenth Judicial Dist. of Montana, in and for Rosebud County, 96 S.Ct. 943 (1976) ....................................... 77

Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc., 518 U.S. 415, 116 S.Ct. 2211,

135 L.Ed.2d 659 (1996) (quoting Byrd v.

Blue Ridge Rural Elec. Cooperative, Inc.,

356 U.S. 525, 537, 78 S.Ct. 893, 901,

2 L.Ed.2d 953 (1958)) ................................................................... 57

Greason v. Kemp, 891 F.2d 829, 835 (11th Cir.1990) ............... 56

Hall v. Doering, 185 FRD 639 (1999) ........................................... 48

Hare v. City of Corinth, Miss., 949 F.Supp. 456

(N.D.Miss.E.Div.,1996) ................................................................ 55

Heckler v. Ringer, 104 S.Ct. 2013 (1984) .................................... 74

Hendrix v. City of Yazoo City, Miss., 911 F.2d 1102 (5th Cir. Miss. 1990) ........................................... 59

Hodges v. Easton, 106 US 408, 16 Otto 408,

27 L Ed 169, 1 S Ct 307 ............................................................... 54

In re Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.,

xxvi

919 F2d 1136 (6th Cir. 1990) ....................................................... 51

In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180, 109 S.Ct. 993 (1989)................. 43

In re Michael Sindram, 498 U.S. 177, 179,

111 S.Ct. 596, 112 L.Ed. 2d 599 (1991) .............................. 41, 66

In re Murchison, 75 S.Ct. 623 (1955) ............................................ 52

Ir re Parmalat Sec. Litig., 375 F.Supp. 2d 278 (2005) .............. 53

Kirk v. Simpson, 35 F.3d 566,

1994 WL 443461, *1 (6th Cir.(Tenn.)) ...................................... 56

La Buy v. Howes Leather Company, 77 S.Ct. 309 (U.S.,1957)............................................................... 76

Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 US 847, 100 L Ed 2d 855, 108 S Ct 2194 (1988) ............ 49

Lyon v. Mutual Ben. Health & Acci. Asso., 305 US 484, 83 L Ed 303, 59 S Ct 297,

reh den (1939) 306 US 667 .......................................................... 54

Macklin v. Spector Freight Systems, Inc., 478 F.2d 979 (1973) ...................................................................... 59

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 147,

2 L.Ed. 60 (1803) ........................................................... 4, 40, 65, 69

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 801 (1973) .............................................................. 26

MCullough v. Cosgrave, 309 U.S. 634, 635,

60 S.Ct. 703, 84 L.Ed. 992 (1940) .................................. 40, 65, 70

Miller v. Schoenen, 75 F.3d 1305, 1311 (8th Cir.1996) ............ 56

Mongelli v. Mongelli, 849 F.Supp. 215 (1994) ............................ 47

xxvii

Morrow v. District of Columbia, 417 F.Ed 728, 135 U.S.

App.Dc. 160 on remand 259 A.2d 592 (1969) .......................... 37

Parliament Ins. Co. v. Hanson, 676 F.2d 1069 (5th Cir. 1982) ...................................................... 52

Pennsylvania v. Wheeling Belmont Bridge Co., 59 U.S. 421, 431, 15 L.Ed. 435 (1885) .......................... 40, 65, 69

Platt v. Minnesota Min. & Mfg. Co., 84 S.Ct. 769, 376 U.S. 240, 11 L.Ed.2d 674 (1964) .......... 38, 48

Porter v. Lee, 66 S.Ct. 1096 (U.S.Ky.,1946) ................................ 73

Potashnick v. Port City Const. Co., 609 F.2d 1101 (1980) ....... 22

Randolph v. Lambert, 926 So.2d 941 (Miss.App.,2006) ........... 60

Reeside v. Walker, 52 U.S. 272 (1850) ......................................... 74

Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass’n, 319 U.S.21, 25,

63 S.Ct. 938, 941, 87 L.Ed. 1185 ................................................ 39

Sable v. General Motors Corp., 90 F.3d 171 (1996) ................... 46

Salinas v. U.S., 118 S.Ct. 469 (1997) ............................................ 70

Stevens v. Lake, 615 So.2d 1177 (Miss.,1993) ............................ 60

Supervisors v. U.S., 85 U.S. 71 (1873) ......................................... 74

U.S. ex rel. McLennan v. Wilbur, 51 S.Ct. 502 (1931) .............. 74

U.S. v. Comstock, 130 S.Ct. 1949 (U.S.,2010) ............................ 77

U.S. v. Denedo, 129 S.Ct. 2213 ...................................................... 36

U.S. v. Hoffman, 71 U.S. 158 (1866) ............................................. 75

xxviii

U.S. v. International Broth. Of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO, 911 F.Supp. 743 (1996) ........................... 46

U.S. v. New York Tel. Co., 98 S.Ct. 364,

434 U.S. 159, 54 L.Ed.2d 376 ..................................................... 46

U.S. v. Oregon State Medical Soc., 72 S.Ct. 690 (1952) ........... 72

U.S. v. Schaffer, 586 F.3d 414 (C.A.6.Ohio,2009) ...................... 71

United States v. Brown, 539 F2d 467 (5th Cir. 1976) ................ 50

United States v. IBM Corp., 475 F.Supp. 1372 affd 618 F2d 923 (2nd Cir. 1980) ............... 50

Wagner, Original Jurisdiction of National Supreme Courts, 33 St. John’s L. Rev. 217 (1959) ..................................... 40, 65, 69

Walden's Lessee v. Craig's Heirs, 39 U.S. 147 (U.S.Ky.,1840) ......................................................... 72

Wayman v. Southard, 23 U.S. 1 (U.S.Ky.,1825) ........................ 72

Weber v. Henderson, 275 F.Supp.2d 616 (2003) ........................ 43

Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90, 95,

88 S.Ct. 269, 19 L.Ed. 305 (1967) ........................................ 41, 66

Winters v. AmSouth Bank, 964 So.2d 595 (Miss.App.,2007) ................................................. 60

Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. Federal Election Comm’n., 542 U.S. 1305,

125 S.Ct. 2, 159 L.Ed. 2d 805, 807 (2004).......................... 37, 64

Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 US 265,

32 L Ed 239, 8 S Ct. 1370 (1888) (ovrld in part

on other grounds by Milwaukee County v

xxix

M.E. White Co. (1935) 296 US 268,

80 L Ed 220, 56 S. Ct. 229)) ........................................................ 78

Woodard v. Atlantic C.L. R. , 57 F 2d 1019 (5th Cir. 1932). ..... 55

WW, Inc. v. Rainbow Casino-Vicksburg Partnership, L.P., 2011 WL 4037024 (Miss. 2011) ................ 61

Zuber v. Allen, 90 S.Ct. 314 (1969) ............................................... 76

Statutes

28 U.S.C. § 455 ...................................................................... 22, 23, 24

28 U.S.C. § 1251 .................................................................................. 3

28 U.S.C. § 1257 ...................................................................... 3, 77, 78

28 U.S.C. § 1651 .............................................................. 35, 40, 64, 65

42 U.S.C.A. § 1981 ............................................................................ 60

28 U. S. C. § 2403 ............................................................................ 5, 6

80th Congress House Report No. 308 ............................................ 40

Vol. 22 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 400.04

Supervisory Authority of Supreme Court Over Inferior Federal Courts ....................................................... 5

§ 402.02 Article III Jurisdiction and Its Limitations .................. 4

___ , § 520.02 Considerations Governing Issuance Of Extraordinary Writ ....................................................................... 64

Vol. 23 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 520.02[2]

(Matthew Bender 3d ed.) ................................................. 41, 66, 70

80th Congress House Report No. 308 ............................................ 40

Other Authorities

Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms,

Conspiracy § 9 ......................................................................... xiv, 70

xxx

Article III, § 2, United States Constitution................................... 4

H.R.Rep.No.93-1453, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. (1974),

Reprinted in 1974 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.

News, pp. 6351, 6352-54 .............................................................. 23

Vol. 23 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 520.02

Considerations Governing Issuance Of Extraordinary Writ ....................................................................... 64

Rules

Rule 14.1(e)(v) ...................................................................................... 6

Supreme Court of United States Rule 20 ...................................... 3

U.S. Supreme Court Rule 29(b) ....................................................... 5

United States Supreme Court Rule 17(1) ...................................... 3

United States Supreme Court Rule 20 .......................................... 3

United States Supreme Court Rule 29(b) ...................................... 5

VI. CONCISE STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 165, 28

S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908) - [HN1]

The Supreme Court of the United States

will not take jurisdiction if it should not;

but it is equally true that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary

cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the con-fines of the Constitution. The court

cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever

difficulties, a case may be attended, the

court must decide it, if it is brought be-fore it. The court has no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction,

which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would

be treason to the Constitution. Ques-tions may occur which the court would gladly avoid, but the court cannot avoid them. All the court can do is to exercise

its best judgment, and conscientiously

perform its duty.

This is a matter that is birthed out of the United

States District Court – Southern District of Mississippi

(Jackson Division) denial of Newsome’s Affidavit of Dis-

qualification and DEMAND for JURY Trial on ALL issues

triable by jury. Because of the EXTRAORDINARY and

EXCEPTIONAL circumstances surrounding this matter,

Newsome seeks the Supreme Court of the United States’

(“U.S. Supreme Court”) Original Jurisdiction through Ex-

traordinary Writ(s) Newsome believes that the role of a sit-

ting United States President (Barack H. Obama), his legal

of 80

counsel/advisor Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell &

Berkowitz (“Baker Donelson”), his Administration as well

as his SPECIAL INTEREST Groups’, Lobbyists’, etc. role in

the lower courts’ actions (which are clearly prohibited by

law) supports the extraordinary and exceptional circum-

stances which exist warranting the relief sought through

Extraordinary Writ(s) and/or applicable action the U.S. Su-

preme Court deems appropriate. In further support of said

Court’s Original Jurisdiction, Newsome states:

a. On or about May 15, 2012, Newsome’s Com-

plaint (i.e. with TIMELY JURY DEMAND)

styled, Vogel Denise Newsome v. Page Kruger & Holland P.A., et al., Civil Action No. 3:12-cv-

00342 was filed in the United States District

Court – Southern District of Mississippi (Jack-

son Division). See APPX CHT No. “6” – Dock-

et Sheet at No. 1 incorporated herein by refer-

ence as if set forth in full herein.

b. On or about May 15, 2012, a TIMELY plead-

ing entitled, “Request for Conflict of Interest Information, Notice of Opposition to Magis-trate Judge Assignment; and Notice of Ad-dress.” See APPX CHT No. “12” incorporated

by reference as if set forth in full herein. Low-

er Court FAILED to address the ALL issues

raised therein.

c. On or about August 15, 2012, Newsome’s

pleading entitled, “OBJECTION(S) To August 2, 2012 Order Of Judge Tom S. Lee; Motion For DISQUALIFICATION; AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL” was filed in the lower

court. See APPX CHT No. “13” incorporated

herein by reference as if set forth in full here-

in.

of 80

d. Because of the EXTRAORDINARY and EX-


action, pursuant to Rule 17 – Procedure in an Original Action - of the U.S. Supreme Court,

“A petition for an extraordinary writ in aid of the Court’s appellate jurisdiction shall be filed as provided in Rule 20” of this Court.

e. Pursuant to U.S. Supreme Court Rule 20 –

Procedure on a Petition for an Extraordinary Writ – issuance by the Court of an extraordi-

nary writ is authorized by 28 USC § 1651(a).

f. The jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court is

invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1257(a).

g. The jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court is

invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1251 – Original Ju-

risdiction:

(a) The Supreme Court shall have

original and exclusive jurisdiction

of all controversies between two

or more states. . . .

h. Jurisdiction is invoked under U.S. Supreme

Court Rule 17(1) – Procedure in an Original Action:

This Rule applies only to an ac-

tion invoking the Court's original

jurisdiction under Article III of the Constitution of the United States. See also 28 U. S. C. §1251

and U. S. Const., Amdt. 11. A pe-

tition for an extraordinary writ in

aid of the Court's appellate juris-

of 80

diction shall be filed as provided

in Rule 20.

i. The jurisdiction of this Court is further in-

voked pursuant to Article III, § 2, United

States Constitution - - Section 2: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority

. . .

§ 402.02 Article III Jurisdiction and Its Limi-

tations

[1] – Original Jurisdiction of Supreme Court

Under Article III

[a] Nature of Original Jurisdiction:

The Supreme Court is generally a source of

appellate review, but it can act as a trial court in certain instances. Original juris-

diction means the following, as Justice

Marshall explained in Marbury v. Madison;

5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 174, 2 L.Ed. 60

(1803):

[The Court has] the power to

hear and decide a lawsuit in the

first instance . . . [A]ppellate ju-

risdiction means the authority

to review the judgment of an-

other court which has already

heard the lawsuit in the first

instance. Trial courts are

courts that exercise original ju-

risdiction; courts of appeals. . .

of 80

exercise appellate jurisdiction.

Id.

Article III of the U.S. Constitution pre-

scribes the Supreme Court’s original ju-

risdiction (See U.S. Constitution, Article

III, § 2 cl. 2). Under the first clause of

Section 2 of Article III, federal courts

have jurisdiction over the following: [A]ll Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority.

j. Vol. 22 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 400.04 Su-pervisory Authority of Supreme Court Over Inferior Federal Courts

[1] SUPREME COURT HAS EXTENSIVE RULEMAK-

ING POWER: The Supreme Court has powers beyond its duty to entertain cases within its original and appellate jurisdiction. The Court

has extensive power to prescribe rules of prac-

tice and procedure for civil actions. . . The Su-

preme Court, of course, has the power to promulgate rules governing practice and pro-cedure before itself, and has done so.

k. Pursuant the U.S. Supreme Court Rule 29(b),

28 USC § 2403(a) may apply.4

4 U.S. Supreme Court Rule 29(b): In any proceeding in this Court in

which the constitutionality of an Act of Congress is drawn into question, and

neither the United States nor any federal department, office, agency, officer, or

employee is a party, the initial document filed in this Court shall recite that 28

U. S. C. § 2403(a) may apply and shall be served on the Solicitor General of the

United States, Room 5614, Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.

W., Washington, DC 20530-0001. In such a proceeding from any court of the

United States, as defined by 28 U. S. C. § 451, the initial document also shall

state whether that court, pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2403(a), certified to the At-

of 80

l. The following statute may further apply: 28

USC §2403 - Intervention by United States or a State; Constitutional Question: (a) In any

action, suit or proceeding in a court of the

United States to which the United States or

any agency, officer or employee thereof is not a

party, wherein the constitutionality of any Act of Congress affecting the public interest is drawn in question, the court shall certify such fact to the Attorney General, and shall permit the United States to intervene for presentation of evidence, if evidence is otherwise admissible in the case, and for argument on the question of constitutionality. The United States shall,

subject to the applicable provisions of law,

have all the rights of a party and be subject to

all liabilities of a party as to court costs to the

extent necessary for a proper presentation of

the facts and law relating to the question of

constitutionality.

VII. CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS, TREATIES,

STATUTES, ORDINANCES and REGULATIONS

INVOLVED IN CASE

CONSTITUTION:

a. United States Constitution

b. United States Constitution –

Amendments 1, 7, 13 through 15

c. Article III, § 2, United States

Constitution

torney General the fact that the constitutionality of an Act of Congress was

drawn into question. See Rule 14.1(e)(v).

of 80

STATUTES:

d. 28 USC § 144 -Bias or prejudice of judge

e. 28 USC § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge

f. 28 USC § 1651 - Writs

g. 28 USC § 1915 - Proceedings in forma pauperis

h. 28 USC § 1257 - State courts; certi-orari

i. 42 USC § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights

j. 42 USC § 1985 - Conspiracy to in-terfere with civil rights

k. 42 USC § 1986 - Action for neglect to prevent 5

VIII. CONCISE STATEMENT OF THE CASE

(1) On or about May 15, 2012, Newsome’s Com-

plaint styled, Vogel Denise Newsome v. Page Kruger & Holland P.A., et al., Civil Action No.

3:12-cv-00342 was filed in the United States

District Court – Southern District of Missis-

sippi (Jackson Division). See APPX CHT No.

5 Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs con-

spired to be done, and mentioned in section 1985 of this title, are about to be

committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of

the same, neglects or refuses so to do, if such wrongful act be committed, shall

be liable to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages

caused by such wrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could

have prevented; and such damages may be recovered in an action on the case;

and any number of persons guilty of such wrongful neglect or refusal may be

joined as defendants in the action; . . .

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00001985----000-.html

of 80

“6” – Docket Sheet at No. 1 incorporated here-

in by reference as if set forth in full herein.

(2) On or about May 15, 2012, the lower court

filed Newsom’e pleading entitled, “Request for Conflict of Interest Information, Notice of Op-position to Magistrate Judge Assignment; and Notice of Address” See APPX CHT No. “12” in-

corporated herein by reference as if set forth in

full herein.

(3) On or about July 5, 2012, lower court Defend-

ants (Page Kruger & Holland P.A., Thomas Y.

Page, Louis G. Baine III, Linda Thomas

[“Named Defendants”]) submitted for filing

their pleadings entitled, “Motion To Dismiss” and “Memorandum In Support Of Motion To Dismiss.” See APPX CHT No. "6” at Docket

Nos. 5 and 6.

(4) On or about July 16, 2012, in FURTHER

ABUSE of the lower court’s electronic filing

system Named Defendants filed pleadings en-

titled, “Motion to Stay All Proceedings Pend-ing a Ruling on Defendants’ Motion to Dis-miss” and “Memorandum in Support of Motion to Stay All Proceedings Pending a Ruling on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.” See APPX

CHT No. “6” – Doc. Nos. 9 and 10 respectively.

(5) On or about July 17, 2012, Newsome’s plead-

ing entitled, “Motion to Strike Motion To Dis-miss and Memorandum In Support Of Motion To Dismiss; Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions of and Against Defendants; and Motion for De-fault Judgment (Jury Trial Demanded in this Action)” was filed with the lower court. See

of 80

APPX CHT No. “14” incorporated herein by

reference as if set forth in full herein.

(6) On or about July 17, 2012, the lower court

filed a copy of Newsome’s cover letter which

addresses the PUBLIC/GLOBAL/INTER-

NATIONAL interests in documents posted in

SOCIAL Forums by her. See APPX CHT No.

“15” incorporated herein by reference as if set

forth in full herein.

(7) On or about July 30, 2012, Newsome’s plead-

ing entitled, Motion to Strike Motion To Stay All Proceedings Pending A ruling On Defend-ants’ 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 Ac-tion) was filed in the lower court. See APPX

CHT No. “16” incorporated by reference as if

set forth in full herein.

(8) On or about August 2, 2012, Judge Tom S. Lee

entered Order GRANTING Named Defend-

ants’ Motion to Stay and DENYING New-

some’s Motion to Strike the Motion to Stay –

i.e. in which Newsome TIMELY demanded a

JURY TRIAL on issues raised. See APPX

CHT No. “17.”

(9) On or about August 14, 2012, Newsome’s

pleading entitled, Motion to Strike Defend-ants’ Response In Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss and Memorandum In Support Of Motion To Dis-miss; Motion To Strike Defendants’ Response

of 80

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 Sanc-tions of and Against Defendants; and Motion for Default Judgment (Jury Trial Demanded in this Action) was filed in the lower court.

See APPX CHT No. “18” incorporated herein

by reference as if set forth in full herein.

(10) On or about August 15, 2012, Newsome’s

pleading entitled, “OBJECTION(S) To August 2, 2012 Order Of Judge Tom S. Lee; Motion For DISQUALIFICATION; AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL” was filed in the lower

court. See APPX CHT No. “5” incorporated

herein by reference as if set forth in full here-

in.

(11) On or about August 20, 2012, Judge Tom S.

Lee entered ORDER DENYING Newsome’s

Motion to Disqualification and DEMAND for

Jury Trial. See APPX “2.”


Lee entered Memorandum Opinion GRANT-

ING Named Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for

“failure to state a claim” - defense based on

42 USC § 1983 claims when NO such claim(s)

under § 1983 is raised at all in Newsome’s

Complaint [EMPHASIS ADDED] - and

DENYING Newsome’s Motion to Strike Mo-

tion to Dismiss. See APPX “3.”


Lee entered Judgment DISMISSING New-

of 80

some’s Complaint WITH prejudice. See APPX

“1.”

(14) On or about September 20, 2012, Newsome’s

pleading entitled; “Notice of Filing of an “ORIGINAL” Action/Appeal in the Supreme Court of the United States” was filed in the

lower court. See APPX “4” incorporated herein


This is a matter that involves a sitting United States of

America President (Barack H. Obama)/his Administra-

tion/his Legal Counsel (Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell

& Berkowitz) and their SPECIAL Interest Groups who all

have interests (i.e. financial/personal) in the outcome of this

lawsuit. This is a matter of EXTRAORDINARY and EX-CEPTIONAL circumstances in which Newsome is not aware whether the Supreme Court of the United States has seen anything like it. In preservation of rights secured to

Newsome under the United States of America Constitution,

Laws of the United States of America (“United States”) and

other governing statutes/laws, she submits her Petition(s)

for: ORIGINAL WRIT – WRIT OF MANDAMUS – WRIT OF PRO-

HIBITION – WRIT OF CONSPIRACY – WRIT OF EXIGI FACIAS -

WRIT OF INJUNCTION - WRIT OF MANDAMUS - WRIT OF RE-

VIEW - WRIT OF SUPERSEDEAS - WRIT OF SUPERVISORY CON-

TROL - WRIT OF SECURITATE PACIS - EXTRATERRITORIAL

WRITS (hereinafter, “OW-WOM, ET AL”) and states the fol-

lowing in support thereof:

a. Also see facts set forth at Concise State-ment of Jurisdiction above of this instant

pleading.

of 80

IX. REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

A. CONFLICT OF INTEREST REQUEST:

Prior to addressing the reasons for granting the

“OW-WOM, ET AL,” Newsome, in the interest of justice as

well as for PUBLIC/WORLDWIDE interest, Newsome re-

quest that the U.S. Supreme Court Jus-

tice(s)/Administration advise her of whether or not “CON-FLICT OF INTEREST” exists in the handling of this mat-ter.

Newsome has obtained information which will sup-

port that Respondents engage in conspiracies with THIRD-

Parties - i.e. for instance, Baker Donelson Bearman Cald-well & Berkowitz [“Baker Donelson”] who advertises its

SPECIAL relationships/ties to “highly distinguished indi-viduals, people who have served as:”

Chief of Staff to the President of the United States

United States Secretary of State

United States Senate Majority Lead-

er

Members of the United States Sen-ate

Members of the United States House of Representatives

Director of the Office of Foreign As-sets Control for United States

Department of Treasury

Director of the Administrative Office of the United States

of 80

Chief Counsel, Acting Director, and

Acting Deputy Director of United

States Citizenship & Immigration

Services within the United States Department of Homeland Security

Majority and Minority Staff Director

of the Senate Committee on Appro-priations

Member of United States President’s Domestic Policy Council

Counselor to the Deputy Secretary for the United States Department of HHS

Chief of Staff of the Supreme Court of the United States

Administrative Assistant to the

Chief Justice of the United States

Deputy under Secretary of Interna-tional Trade for the United States Department of Commerce

Ambassador to Japan

Ambassador to Turkey

Ambassador to Saudi Arabia

Ambassador to the Sultanate of

Oman

Governor of Tennessee

Governor of Mississippi

Deputy Governor and Chief of Staff for the Governor of Tennessee

of 80

Commissioner of Finance & Admin-istration (Chief Operating Officer) -

State of Tennessee

Special Counselor to the Governor of

Virginia

United States Circuit Court of Ap-peals Judge

United States District Court Judges

United States Attorneys

Presidents of State and Local Bar Associations

EMPHASIS ADDED in that this information is pertinent

to establish - “though not parties to original action . . .are in position to frustrate implementation of court order or proper administration of justice” - the CONSPIRACY and

PATTERN-OF-CRIMINAL/CIVIL wrongs leveled against

Newsome out of which this instant relief is sought. This

information was originally located at:

http://www.martindale.com/Baker-Donelson-

Bearman-Caldwell/law-firm-307399.htm

See APPX CHT No. “19” attached hereto and incorporated

by reference as if set forth in full herein. It is such infor-

mation which had been posted for several years. See AP-

PENDIX “20” of listing pulled approximately September 11,

2004. However, Baker Donelson moved SWIFTLY for DAMAGE-CONTROL purposes and SCRUBBED this in-formation from the Internet. It is a GOOD THING NEW-

SOME RETAINED HARD COPIES so that the PUB-

LIC/WORLD can see the COVER-UP and COWARDLY tac-

tics of one of the most Powerful Leaders (Barack

Obama)/Countries (United States) attempting to

HIDE/MASK their CRIMES/CIVIL WRONGS leveled

against Newsome, members of her class and/or citizens of

http://www.martindale.com/Baker-Donelson-Bearman-Caldwell/law-firm-307399.htm

http://www.martindale.com/Baker-Donelson-Bearman-Caldwell/law-firm-307399.htm

of 80

the United States of America. From research, Baker Do-

nelson’s LISTING of GOVERNMENT positions

held/controlled may also be found on its website. See APPX

CHT No. “21.”

Newsome hereby DEMANDS that this Court advise

her of any/all CONFLICTS-Of-Interest that exist. CON-

FLICTS are MANDATORILY required to be made KNOWN

to Newsome as a matter of statutes/laws governing said

matters. It is a matter of PUBLIC/GLOBAL/ INTERNA-

TIONAL interests in that this Court is the HIGHEST

Court of the ONCE MOST powerful Country (United States of America) in the World. The HIGHEST Court in which it

appears one has to be either CATHOLIC or JEWISH to be

appointed to the Bench – i.e. DISCIMINATORY and UN-

CONSTITUTIONAL practices in themselves. The United

States of America in which its CONGRESS (at the time of this filing) consist of approximately an 100% ALL WHITE Senate and approximately 90% ALL WHITE House of Rep-resentatives as recent as the YEAR 2012!

The record evidence of this Court will support that

Newsome on or about July 18, 2011, demanded that the

Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court STEP DOWN, be RE-

MOVED and/or IMPEACHED:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: . . .Newsome's

REQUEST that ALL Justices of the United

States Supreme Court be IMMEDIATELY

REMOVED from the BENCH (by FRIDAY,

July 22, 2011) - i.e. IMPEACHED, or in ac-

cordance with the applicable laws governing

REMOVAL and/or IMPEACHMENT! While

such request(s) may be UNPRECEDENT it

is one of URGENT and NATIONAL SECU-

RITY; as well as in PUBLIC/WORLDWIDE

Interest that the Supreme Court of the Unit-

ed States be PURGED of such CRIMINALS

of 80

so that JUSTICE may be rendered UNBIAS

and IMPARTIALLY - i.e. rather than

TAINTED with the likes of this Court's pre-

sent Judicial Panel.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: That the PUB-

LIC/WORLD would be better served and the

United States may be SPARED further EM-

BARRASSMENT (sic) and HUMILIA-

TION/DISGRACE/DISHONOR if the Justic-

es of this Court and those involved in the

CORRUPTION, COVER-UP of Criminal Civ-

il wrongs leveled against Newsome STEP

DOWN IMMEDIATELY!

See APPX CHT No. “22” attached hereto and incorporated


It appears this Court is FULLY AWARE and is al-

lowing its RELATIONSHIPS with Baker Donelson Bear-

man Caldwell & Berkowitz to CONTROL and MANIPU-LATE “Supreme Court DECISIONS” through CRIMINAL

acts and practices. Moreover, the Justices and the Staff of

this Court are WILLING PARTICIPANTS in Baker Donel-

son’s CONSPIRACIES and CRIMINAL activities, and,

therefore, present CONFLICTS-Of-Interest warranting

RECUSAL. See APPX CHT No. “23” – Conduct or Bias of Law Clerk or Other Judicial Support Personnel As War-ranting Recusal of FEDERAL Judge or Magistrate (i.e.

which INCLUDE Justice(s) of the U.S. Supreme Court, at-

tached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth

in full herein. The Justices of this Court having

KNOWLEDGE that it is Baker Donelson’s ACCESS and

CONTROL of the EXECUTIVE Branch/White

House/United States of America Presidents and LEGISLA-

TIVE Branch/Congress/United States Senators as their Le-gal Counsel/Advisor that led to their NOMINATION and APPOINTMENT of Justices Baker Donelson wanted on

of 80

this Court’s Bench for purposes of PROMOTING its and its clients’ PERSONAL/BUSINESS!

During Newsome’s research on said matter(s), she

came across an article in the Minnesota Law Review enti-

tled, “DISQUALIFICATION of Supreme Court Justices: The Certiorari Conundrum,” in which for instance, provide

an example:

. . .the recent nomination of Stephen

Breyer to the Supreme Court of the

United States raised the question of his participation as a “name” in a Lloyd’s of London insurance syndicate.

During the confirmation hearings,

Justice Breyer pledged that he would not participate in any cases that im-plicated Lloyd’s financial interests. As

a member of the Court, he has de-

clined to sit on cases involving Lloyd’s

either directly or indirectly. Other

nominees in less controversial circum-

stances have made similar disqualifi-cation commitments. Since 1992,

there have been OVER 350 cases, peti-

tions, motions or applications in which

one or more Supreme Court Justices

“took NO part. . .”

at Page 659 See APPENDIX “24” – attached hereto and in-

corporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. Never-

theless, when Newsome comes before this Court, its Justic-

es CLEARLY having KNOWLEDGE of the CONFLICTS-

Of-Interest that exist FAIL to recuse themselves and pro-

ceed on to ENGAGE in CRIMINAL wrongdoing and ful-

filling their ROLES in Conspiracies to DEPRIVE Newsome

EQUAL protection of the laws, immunities and privileges

of 80

and DUE PROCESS of laws secured/guaranteed under the

United States Constitution.

While Baker Donelson’s name may not appear as Le-

gal Counsel in this Lawsuit, PROVISIONS have been made

to add them and their Client(s) as a party when applicable

and upon receipt of DISCOVERY evidence which will pro-

vide additional evidence as to the ROLE it has played and

is playing in the CONSPIRACIES leveled against New-

some– and their INTERESTS in this instant lawsuit. Sable v. General Motors Corp., 90 F.3d 171 (1996); U.S. v. New York Tel. Co., 98 S.Ct. 364, 434 U.S. 159, 54 L.Ed.2d 376

and Mongelli v. Mongelli, 849 F.Supp. 215 (1994)

Under All Writs Act, federal courts

has authority to issue commands as

necessary to effectuate orders it has

previously issued and extends to per-

sons who were not parties to original

action but are in position to frustrate

implementation of court order.

Furthermore, Newsome’s RESEARCH has yielded infor-

mation wherein Baker Donelson engages in “TAG-TEAM Litigation” – i.e. lawsuits in which Baker Donelson COW-

ARDLY SHIELDS/HIDES its role in lawsuits involving

Newsome by relying upon what are known as “FRONTING

Firms” wherein it SHARE Clients and interests of these

other Law Firms and SHARE in the expenses and PROF-

ITS from representation of clients for purposes of REMAIN-

ING UNDETECTED! In this instant “OW-WOM, ET AL”

the “FRONTING” law firm being used by Baker Donelson is

Phelps Dunbar LLP. For instance, see HOOD vs. HOFF-MAN-LAROCHE, LTD, District of Columbia District Court,

Case No. 1:06-cv-01484 – APPENDIX “25” attached hereto

and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein –

where Baker Donelson TAG-TEAMS with Law Firms as Butler Snow O’Mara Stevens & Cannada PLLC (“Butler

of 80

Snow”) and Phelps Dunbar LLP (“Phelps Dunbar”). Of

course, like Baker Donelson, their associating law firms en-

joy sharing their CLIENT LISTINGS with the PUBLIC.

See for instance APPX CHT No. “26” – Phelp Dunbars List-

ing and that of Page Kruger & Holland attached hereto and

incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. List-

ing such clients as those provided in document at the fol-

lowing link:

https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.a

spx?v=8a72648b596272b19fa8

Information that is relevant in that it provides information

to further support RECUSAL and CONFLICT-OF-

INTEREST requests of Newsome. SUBSTANTIAL EVI-

DENCE is apparent through lawsuits in which Newsome

engages. For instance:

In Newsome vs. Mitchell McNutt & Sams, Butler Snow at-

tempted to enter that lawsuit WITH-

OUT making an appearance. New-

some TIMELY, PROPERLY and AD-

EQUATELY objected to these CRIM-

INAL and CIVIL violations! To date that lawsuit sits DORMANT as the CRIMINAL CONSPIRACIES leveled against Newsome ESCALATES!

Newsome believes that Baker Donel-

son is involved and merely using But-

ler Snow as a FRONTING Firm to

HIDE/SHIELD its ROLE and person-

al, business and financial INTER-

ESTS in lawsuit. This case is just sit-

ting DORMANT as Baker Donelson

and its CONSPIRATORS and

BRIBED/TAINTED and CORRUPT Judge(s) OBSTRUCT the administra-tion of justice and CONTINUE to en-



of 80

gage in CRIMINAL and CIVIL viola-tions leveled against Newsome.

www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/0519

12-docket-sheet-mms

A lawsuit in which one of Phelp

Dunbar’s Employees (F. Keith Ball)

has been assigned as the Magistrate

Judge:www.slideshare.net/VogelDenis

e/071812-fax-to-phelps-dunbar-w-

thomas-siler-jr-jason-t-marsh This is a

lawsuit in which it appears Baker Do-

nelson had Magistrate Ball ABUSE

his Authority and WITHOUT Juris-

diction, etc. enter a NULL/VOID Or-

der STAYING the lawsuit. Now it ap-

pears a matter which may also have to

be brought before this Court as an ORIGINAL action pursuant to Rules 17 and 20 of the Supreme Court of the United States and other statutes/laws governing said matters.

In Newsome vs. Page Kruger & Holland, et al., Phelps Dunbar has ap-

peared as counsel and is acting as the

FRONTING Firm for Baker Donelson

and their personal, business and fi-

nancial INTERESTS. Judge Tom S.

Lee is assigned this matter. Judge

Lee appears on Baker Donelson’s

LISTING of Judges:

www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/bake

r-donelson-ties-to-judgesjustices-as-

of120911-11566964

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/051912-docket-sheet-mms

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/051912-docket-sheet-mms

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/071812-fax-to-phelps-dunbar-w-thomas-siler-jr-jason-t-marsh



http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/baker-donelson-ties-to-judgesjustices-as-of120911-11566964



of 80

As well as Baker Donelson appearing

on Judge Lee’s List of Law Firms RE-

QUIRING his recusal:

www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/lee-

judge-recusal-orders-11574531

For instance, Newsome TIME-

LY, PROPERLY and ADEQUATELY

made her OBJECTIONS KNOWN in

the lower court. However, it appears

that as recent as August 20, 2012,

Judge Tom S. Lee too has ABUSED

his authority, USURPED jurisdiction

over this lawsuit in which he lacks

and, as a matter of law, is required to

RECUSE himself. Nevertheless,

Judge Tom S. Lee is ADAMANT about

staying in the lawsuit for CRIMINAL

intent and the FULFILLMENT of his

ROLE in the CONSPIRACIES leveled

against Newsome that CONTINUES

to date. A matter which is now being

brought before this Court as an ORIG-INAL action pursuant to Rules 17 and 20 of the Supreme Court of the United States and other statutes/laws govern-ing said matters.

It appears this instant “OW-

WOM, ET AL” is before this Court be-

cause of the CONSPIRACIES and

CRIMINAL acts of Baker Donelson

and TOP/KEY Clients (i.e. as LIBER-

TY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPA-

NY). It appears Baker Donelson

CONTROLS and RUN the entire JU-

DICIAL system. Moreover, engage in

CRIMINAL activities for purposes of

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/lee-judge-recusal-orders-11574531

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/lee-judge-recusal-orders-11574531

of 80

obtaining decisions in their favor and

that of PARTNERING law firms as

PHELPS DUNBAR and their clients

(i.e. in this instant lawsuit Judge Tom

S. Lee, Named Defendants, etc.).

Wherefore, Newsome believes this request is made in

good faith in that the record evidence will support that in

approximately a one-year period, Judges and/or their Aides

associated in legal matters regarding Newsome have been

“INDICTED” and/or “IMPEACHED” – i.e for instance

Judge John Andrew West’s (Judge in the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas matter former Bailiff, Damon Rid-ley, was found GUILTY for attempted bribery for taking monies for purposes of getting cases dismissed as Judge West and opposing parties in that action are attempting to do without legal authority and cause).6 Furthermore, two

6 Potashnick v. Port City Const. Co., 609 F.2d 1101 (1980) - [n.4] A

judge faced with a potential ground for disqualification ought to consider how his participation in a given case looks to the average person on the street; use of

the word “might” in statute was intended to indicate that disqualification

should follow if reasonable man, were he to know all the circumstances, would harbor doubts about judge's impartiality. 28 U.S.C.A. § 455(a).

Our first ground for reversal results from the trial court judge's failure to disqualify himself from participation in the proceeding before him. . . . The parties do not allege that the judge exhibited any actual bias or

prejudice in the case; they assert only that under the circumstances his impar-

tiality might reasonably be questioned.

. . . The Applicable Statute

At the time this lawsuit was instituted, the . . . statute relating to judi-

cial disqualification provided:

*1108 Any justice or judge . . . shall

disqualify himself in any case in which he

has a substantial interest, . . . as to render it

improper, in his opinion, for him to sit on the

trial, appeal, or other proceeding therein.

28 U.S.C. § 455 (1970). While the case was pending, but prior to the

commencement of trial, 28 U.S.C. § 455 was amended to bring the statutory

grounds for disqualification of judges into conformity with the recently adopted

of 80

other Judges (i.e. Judge Bobby DeLaughter was INDICTED

and pled GUILTY and Judge G. Thomas Porteous as of ap-

proximately December 8, 2010, has been IMPEACHED ac-

cording to proceedings before the United States Senate)

have been prosecuted for their unlawful/illegal practices.

All acts in which the United States Department of Justice

was fully aware of and clearly having knowledge of NEXUS

and/or relationship of Judge(s) in matters involving New-

some because she reported concerns of criminal/civil wrongs

by Judge(s) and/or their conspirators/co-conspirators (i.e. as

Baker Donelson). To no avail.

Court records will support for instance that New-

some had concerns regarding “conflict of interest” and re-

quested RECUSAL of Judge Tom S. Lee and Magistrate

Judge in Newsome vs. Melody Crews, et al; USDC South-

ern District of Mississippi (Jackson); Case No. 3:07-cv-

00099 (see Docket Nos. 110, 104 and 160) due to relation-

ship to opposing parties and/or their attorneys/attorneys’

law firms. To no avail. Then Newsome finds that Judge

Tom S. Lee (i.e. judge assigned her lawsuits) recused him-

self based upon his relationship to Baker Donelson; never-

theless FAILED to RECUSE in matters involving New-

some:

“Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §455(a), the under-

signed is compelled to disqualify himself in

the above styled and numbered proceedings

for the reason that the law firm of Baker,

Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz,

canon of the Code of Judicial Conduct [FN2] relating to disqualification of judges

for bias, prejudice, or conflict of interest. See H.R.Rep.No.93-1453, 93d Cong.,

2d Sess. (1974), Reprinted in 1974 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News, pp. 6351,

6352-54 (hereinafter cited as 1974 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News). . . .

FN2. Canon 3C of the Code of Judicial Conduct was

adopted by the Judicial Conference of the United

States in April, 1973.

of 80

PC, counsel for the defendants, is on the

recusal list of the undersigned United States

district judge.

Accordingly, the undersigned does

hereby recuse himself in this cause.”

information which is of PUBLIC record and can be found

on the INTERNET and/or in court records for instance in

Joni B. Tyler, et al. vs. JPF1, LLC, et al.; Civil Action No.

3:09-cv-338 TSL-FKB (Recusal Order dated March 25,

2010); and Joyce Walker vs. Captain D’s LLC, et al., Civil

Action No. 3:09-cv-679 TSL-JCS (Recusal Order dated No-

vember 13, 2009); however, Judge Lee failed to recuse him-

self when presiding over said lawsuit with KNOWLEDGE

that Baker Donelson was and its client(s) were involved.

See APPX CHT No. “7” - Recusal Orders attached hereto

and incorporated by reference.

In the Newsome vs. Spring Lake Apartments, et al. matter, Newsome TIMELY had this case PULLED and

submitted to the United States of America Congress for

handling. However, it appears that Baker Donelson is AL-

SO legal counsel for the LEGISLATIVE Branch/Congress

as well. See APPX CHT No. “19.” What a MESS!

Newsome further believes that a reasonable per-

son/mind may conclude that the assignments to the U.S.

Supreme Court of Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Ka-

gen were recommended for appointment for vacancies

which arose with this Court by United States President

Barack Obama appears to have been done under the DI-

RECTION, LEADERSHIP and GUIDANCE of Baker Do-

nelson; therefore, leaving Newsome and/or a reasonable

person/mind with valid concerns whether the Justices of

this Court can remain impartial in deciding this matter.

Why are such FACTS and EVIDENCE relevant?

of 80

MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE: It

goes to the VALIDITY of U.S. Supreme

Court’s Decisions regarding the Health

Care Reform Bill (a/k/a ObamaCare) as

well as its decision in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 50

(2010) - in that these decisions as well as

any/all other decisions by the U.S. Supreme

Court may be NULL/VOID and properly

CHALLENGED due to such CRIMINAL and UNETHICAL violations of the Justices

and the Administration of said Court.

Furthermore, it is FACTUAL evidence to

support just how TAINTED and CORRUPT

the JUDICIAL system has become and the

CONSTITUTIONAL and LEGAL rights of

Americans have been HEAVILY

BREACHED and/or COMPROMISED!

The Extraordinary Writs that Newsome seek to bring

will further provide additional facts, evidence and legal

conclusions to support matters such as the following which

are of PUBLIC/GLOBAL/INTERNATIONAL interests – i.e.

matters which will EXPOSE CRIMINAL Acts WORSE than

the U.S. President Richard Nixon “WATERGATE Scandal!”

of 80

Conducting a Thorough Investigation7

Because discrimination often is subtle,

and there rarely is a “smoking gun,” [Fn.

45 - See Aman v. Cort Furniture Rental Corp., 85 F.3d 1074, 1081-82 (3rd Cir.

1996)(“It has become easier to coat vari-ous forms of discrimination with the ap-pearance of propriety, or to ascribe some other less odious intention to what is in reality discriminatory behavior. In other

words, while discriminatory conduct per-

sists, violators have learned not to leave the proverbial ‘smoking gun’ behind.”); cf. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411

U.S. 792, 801 (1973). . .] determining

whether race played a role in the deci-

sionmaking requires examination of all of

the surrounding facts and circumstances.

The presence or absence of any one piece

of evidence often will not be determina-

tive. Sources of information can include

witness statements, including considera-tion of their credibility; documents; direct

observation; and statistical evidence such

as EEO-1 data, among others . . .

Yes ObamaFraudGate is WORSE than the Richard Nixon

matter and it appears that President Barack Obama’s Le-

gal Counsel Baker Donelson is RIGHT-IN-THE-THICK of

the CRIMINAL and FRAUDULENT acts that have been

PERPETRATED on the Citizens of the United States of

America as well as those committed against Citizens of

Foreign Nations. It is time to FOLLOW the SMOKING

7 Taken from EEOC’s Compliance Manual Section 15: Race and Color Dis-

crimination

of 80

GUN TRAIL left by Baker Donelson and its CONSPIRA-

TORS/CO-CONSPIRATORS:

(a) President Barack Obama “Birther Issue” – i.e in which Baker Donelson advertises

position as Chief Counsel, Acting Direc-

tor, and Acting Deputy Director of United

States Citizenship & Immigration Ser-

vices within the United States Depart-ment of Homeland Security

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/

devine-robert-chowobamagotcolb

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/

devine-robertbio-infocolb

WHAT DOES THIS

MEAN? That the last FOUR years of

President Barack Obama may have to be

ERASED from the HISTORY BOOKS.

ALL those bills that he allegedly signed

into law are VOID – MEANINGLESS!

That’s just HOW SCANDALOUS and

SERIOUS these criminal acts of Re-

spondents and their Conspirators/ Co-

Conspirators are.

(b) Alleged Killing/Murder of Osama Bin

Laden;

(c) United States Of America’s EXECUTIVE

Branch, LEGISLATIVE Branch and JU-

DICIAL Branch (U.S. Supreme Court) role

in the CRIMINAL acts, CORRUPTION and

COVER-UP of the September 11, 2001

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/devine-robert-chowobamagotcolb

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/devine-robert-chowobamagotcolb

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/devine-robertbio-infocolb

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/devine-robertbio-infocolb

of 80

“DOMESTIC” Terrorist Attacks carried out

by CORRUPT Government Officials and

their counsel/advisor Baker Donelson and

its Conspirators/Coconspirators;

(d) Role United States of America President

Barack Obama and his Administration

with the advice of their Legal Coun-

sel/Advisor Baker Donelson appears to

have played in the recent attacks and

KILLING/MURDER of U.S. Ambassador

to Libya (Christopher Stevens) and three

others in that attack – i.e. and the at-

tempts by President Barack Obama and

Baker Donelson to COVER-UP their

crimes through the SPREADING and

PROMOTION of the “Muhammad Movie.”

(e) “Pattern-Of-Criminal/Murderous Sprees”

for this Court’s, the United States of

America’s CONGRESS and United States

of America’s WHITE HOUSE to act on

Complaints filed by Newsome in efforts of

COVERING UP Corrupt Government Of-

ficials and their Lawyers/Attorneys and

their CONSPIRATORS criminal and civil

violations leveled against Newsome as

well as other citizens here and abroad!

For instance, after Newsome’s October

2010 filing entitled, “Emergency Motion to Stay; Emergency Motion for Enlarge-ment of Time and Other Relief The Su-preme Court of the United States Deems Appropriate To Correct The Legal Wrongs/Injustices Reported Herein,” in

the Stor-All Alfred v. Newsome matter, it

appears President Barack Obama, his

Administration (i.e. which includes Secre-

of 80

tary of State Hillary Clinton) and their

Legal Counsel/Advisor Baker Donelson

moved SWIFTLY it appears to “CLEAN

HOUSE” of those individuals they be-

lieved to be a THREAT and EXPENDA-

BLE – i.e for instance:

On or about December 5, 2010

– W. Lee Rawls (Employee of

Baker Donelson, Chief of

Staff/Senior Counsel to Feder-

al Bureau of Investigation

Robert Mueller) – See APPX

CHT No. “27” W. Lee Rawls

information. Approximately

EIGHT days later;

(ii) On or about December 13,

2010 – Richard Holbrooke

(Special Envoy to Pakistan

and Afghanistan) who just co-

incidentally was in a meeting

with Secretary of State Hilla-

ry Clinton when this meeting

ENDED on a DEATH NOTE –

Approximately EIGHTEEN

days later;

http://www.slideshare.net/

Vo-

gelDenise/holbrookerichard

-deathmeeting-with-

hillary-clinton

(iii) On or about December 31,

2010 – John Wheeler III (U.S.

Military Expert who served

THREE Republican Presi-

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/holbrookerichard-deathmeeting-with-hillary-clinton





of 80

dents) who was

KILLED/MURDERED and

body dumped in a Waste

Landfill – Approximately

FOUR Months later;

http://www.slideshare.net

/VogelDenise/wheeler-

john-parsons-iii

(iv) On or about May 1, 2011, al-

leged KILLING/MURDER of

Osama Bin Laden; however,

NO PROOF to support

death/killing has been made

PUBLIC as required under

the Freedom of Information

Act (“FOIA”); however, this

instant lawsuit by Newsome

will provide the PUB-

LIC/WORLD with the long

sought after information re-

quested – Approximately ONE

Month later;

(v) On or about June 4, 2011,

Lawrence Eagleburger (Em-

ployee of Baker Donelson,

Secretary of State to U.S.

President George H.W. Bush,

Under Secretary of State to

U.S. President Ronald

Reagan, Member on the Board

of Directors for Halliburton) –

Approximately TWO Months

later;

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/wheeler-john-parsons-iii



of 80


VogelDenise/lawrence-

eagleburger-wikipedia-

information

(vi) On or about August 6, 2011,

the KILLING/MURDER of

U.S. Navy Seals. It appears

members in the same Seal 6

Unit allegedly used to

kill/murder Osama Bin Laden.

Most likely Navy Seals

killed/murdered to SILENCE

them.


/VogelDenise/navy-seal-

helicopter-down-080611


/VogelDenise/navy-seal-

helicopter-shot-down-

080611

Who is the SECRETARY of

Navy? None other than

BAKER DONELSON’S em-

ployee Raymond Mabus;

http://www.slideshare.ne

t/VogelDenise/mabus-

raymondemploy-ties


t/VogelDenise/baker-

donelson-wikipedia-

information-

withraymondmabusinfo

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/lawrence-eagleburger-wikipedia-information




http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/navy-seal-helicopter-down-080611



http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/navy-seal-helicopter-shot-down-080611




http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/mabus-raymondemploy-ties



http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/baker-donelson-wikipedia-information-withraymondmabusinfo





of 80


t/VogelDenise/baker-

donelson-wikipedia-info-

11566741

(vii) Now the recent killing/murder

of U.S. Ambassador to Libya

Christopher Stevens for what

appears to be a COVER-UP by

Secretary of State Hillary

Clinton, President Barack

Obama and their Legal Coun-

sel/Advisor Baker Donelson

for purposes of covering up

Hillary Clinton’s Interview

admitting to U.S. Wars being

implemented and the LEAV-ING of U.S. STINGERS and then LAUGHING about it:


/VogelDenise/082112-

hillary-clinton-dealing-

with-the-united-states-of-

americas-stingers

http://youtu.be/6Yxrsfhs

MDc or

https://secure.filesanywh

ere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a71

648d60616ea970a0

for Middle Eastern Nations to

deal with and threatening

Sanctions if they don’t like it.

Secretary Hillary Clinton

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/baker-donelson-wikipedia-info-11566741




http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/082112-hillary-clinton-dealing-with-the-united-states-of-americas-stingers





http://youtu.be/6YxrsfhsMDc

http://youtu.be/6YxrsfhsMDc

https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a71648d60616ea970a0



of 80

ADMITTING that she PER-

SONALLY sought to have

U.S. Ambassador Christopher

Stevens put in this position

and then despite “URGENT”

demands from Stevens regard-

ing the need for INCREASED

SECURITY, it appears Presi-

dent Barack Obama, Secre-

tary Hillary Clinton, their Le-

gal Counsel Baker Donelson

used such security request(s)

by Ambassador Stevens to

DISTRACT and OBSTRUCT

the EXPOSURE of their

CRIMINAL Acts and have

him placed on President

Barack Obama’s “SECRET KILL LIST!” APPX CHT No.

“28” – Secret Kill List Article

attached hereto and incorpo-

rated by reference as if set



VogelDenise/obama-secret-

kill-list-13166139

These are only a FEW facts and EVIDENCE to support

that had this Court as well as the United States of Ameri-

ca’s CONGRESS and DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE acted

on Newsome’s Complaints submitted for filing, such

WHITE SUPREMACIST/RACIST/TERRORIST Groups as

Baker Donelson, the September 11, 2001 attacks may have

been PREVENTED – i.e. in that according to INTERNET

postings regarding Newsome, this Court and other Gov-

ernment Branches began posting Newsome’s QUEST for

JUSTICE on the INTERNET for purposes of BLACKLIST-

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/obama-secret-kill-list-13166139



of 80

ING/BLACKBALLING her and to make her appear as a

LUNATIC, SERIAL LITIGATOR, CRAZY, PARANOID, etc.

The RECORD EVIDENCE of the U.S. Supreme

Court will further support that even PRIOR to the Septem-

ber 11, 2001 Attacks on the World Trade Center, through

Newsome’s pleadings involving Newsome vs. Entergy mat-

ter (in which Baker Donelson is opposing counsel), this

Court as well as other Courts and other Government Agen-

cies were TIMELY, PROPERLY and ADEQUATELY placed

on NOTICE of Baker Donelson’s HABITUAL criminal and

civil violations. Nevertheless, did NOTHING! Therefore,

as a DIRECT and PROXIMATE result Citizens of the Unit-

ed States of America as well as Foreign Nations and their

Citizens have suffered because this Court as well as other

United States Government Agencies (as CONGRESS and

the WHITE HOUSE) “DELIBERATELY” FAILED to act

because of their role in the CONSPIRACIES that led to the

September 11, 2001 World Trade Center Attacks and the

UNWARRANTED Wars in the Middle East.

IMPORTANT TO NOTE: A reasonable mind may

want to know exactly what are some of the positions Baker

Donelson’s employees held during the September 11, 2001

Attacks (911 Attacks). Well Newsome believes that it is of

PUBLIC/GLOBAL/INTERNATIONAL interest to EXPOSE

and share FACTS that while many were not far off as to

former U.S. Vice President Richard “Dick” Cheney’s RUN-

NING/CONTROLLING of the White House, it is of PUB-

LIC/GLOBAL/INTERNATIONAL interest to make known

that Baker Donelson’s employee David Addington (served

as Legal Counsel and Chief of Staff to U.S. Vice President

Dick Cheney) WAS WELL ROOTED in the White House

and appears to be the MASTERMIND behind the PLAN-

NING, ORCHESTRATING and CARRYING out of the 911

Attacks and the PUSH for the WARS in the Middle East.

David Addington according to some sources as “being the MOST POWERFUL man you’ve NEVER heard of.” See

of 80

APPIX “29” - Addington Articles attached hereto and incor-

porated by reference as if set forth in full herein.

As a matter of law, Newsome is required to make the

above concerns PUBLIC and to request DISCLOSURE by

the U.S. Supreme Court as to whether or not “Conflicts-of-

Interest” exists with its Justices and/or Court Administra-

tion in the handling of this instant action. Moreover, the

PUBLIC/WORLD has the right to know whether or not the

Supreme Court of the United States is being used to keep

the TRUTH behind ObamaFraudGate, the 9/11 attacks,

and other TERRORIST acts of CORRUPT government offi-

cials and their lawyers (i.e. as Baker Donelson) from COM-

ING-TO-LIGHT and being EXPOSED!

B. ALL WRITS ACT

This instant “OW-WOM, ET AL” has been brought

pursuant to 28 USC § 1651 and seeks any/all applicable re-

lief in accordance with the statutes/laws governing said

matters:

28 USC § 1651 Writs:

(a) The Supreme Court and all

courts established by Act of Congress

may issue ALL writs necessary or ap-propriate in aid of their respective ju-risdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.

Section 376 provided:

“. . . The Supreme Court. . .

shall have power to issue ALL writs

NOT specifically provided for by stat-ute, which may be NECESSARY for the exercise of their respective juris-

of 80

dictions, and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.”

See APPX CHT No. “30” attached hereto and

incorporated by reference as if set forth in full

herein (remaining phrase hereafter “attached

hereto . . .”).

Ex parte Fahey, 67 S.Ct. 1558 (1947) -

Supreme Court of the United States has

power to issue extraordinary writs . .

.but such remedies should be resorted to

only where appeal is clearly inadequate,

and they are reserved for really ex-

traordinary causes.

Black’s Law Dictionary (8th Edition):

All Writs Act – A federal statute that

gives the U.S. Supreme Court and all

courts established by Congress the pow-er to issue writs in aid of their jurisdic-

tion and in conformity with the usages

and principles of law.

Black’s Law Dictionary – Second Pocket

Edition:

Writ: A court’s written order, in

the name of a state or other competent

legal authority, commanding the ad-

dressee to do or refrain from doing some

specified act.

Extraordinary Writ: A writ is-

sued by a court exercising unusual or

discretionary power.

U.S. v. Denedo, 129 S.Ct. 2213

(U.S.,2009) - Under the All Writs Act, a

of 80

court's power to issue any form of relief, extraordinary or otherwise, is contin-

gent on that court's subject-matter ju-

risdiction over the case or controversy.

28 U.S.C.A. § 1651(a).

Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. Federal Election Com'n, 125 S.Ct. 2 (U.S.,2004) -

Authority granted to courts under the

All Writs Act is to be used sparingly and

only in the most critical and exigent cir-

cumstances. (Per Chief Justice

Rehnquist, sitting as single Justice.) 28

U.S.C.A. § 1651(a).

. . .Authority granted to courts

under the All Writs Act is appropriately

exercised only: (1) when necessary or

appropriate in aid of court's jurisdiction;

and (2) when legal rights at issue are

indisputably clear. (Per Chief Justice

Rehnquist, sitting as single Justice.) 28

U.S.C.A. § 1651(a).

This instant action has been brought seeking the fil-

ing of ORIGINAL ACTION and issuance of EXTRAORDI-

NARY WRITS because of the extraordinary circumstances

sustained by the facts, evidence and legal conclusions pro-

vided in this “OW-WOM, ET AL” and the supporting Ap-

pendix – for purposes of confining the inferior courts and

Administrative Agency(s) addressed, to the lawful exercise

of their prescribed jurisdiction and to compel them to exer-

cise authority MANDATORILY required and GOVERNED

by statutes/laws.

Morrow v. District of Columbia, 417

F.Ed 728, 135 U.S. App.Dc. 160 on re-

mand 259 A.2d 592 (1969) – Among the

factors to be considered in determining

of 80

whether prerogative writs should issue

are whether the matter is of “PUBLIC IMPORTANCE,” whether the policy

against piecemeal appeals would be

frustrated, whether there has been a

WILLFUL disregard of legislative poli-

cy, or of rules of the higher court, and

whether refusal to issue the writ may

work a serious hardship on the parties.

See APPX CHT No. “31.”

Platt v. Minnesota Min. & Mfg. Co., 84

S.Ct. 769, 376 U.S. 240, 11 L.Ed.2d 674

(1964) – Extraordinary writs are re-

served for really extraordinary causes,

and then only to confine an inferior

court to a lawful exercise of its pre-

scribed jurisdiction or compel it to exer-

cise its authority when it is duty to do

so.


Newsome seeks any and all applicable relief KNOWN to

the U.S. Supreme Court to correct the injustic-

es/miscarriages of justice addressed herein and in the sup-

porting Appendix. Newsome believes that the record evi-

dence will further support Orders entered by Judge Tom S.

Lee with KNOWLEDGE that he LACKED jurisdiction to

act in legal action/lawsuit.

Anderson v. McLaughlin, 263 F.2d 723

(1959) – (n.2) Authority conferred by

statute authorizing courts to issue ALL

writs necessary is NOT confined to is-

suance of writs in aid of jurisdiction al-

ready acquired by appeal but extends to

of 80

those cases which are within court’s ap-

pellate jurisdiction although NO appeal

has yet been perfected. 28 U.S.C.A. §

1651. Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass’n, 319 U.S.21, 25, 63 S.Ct. 938, 941, 87

L.Ed. 1185.

(n. 3) Extraordinary writs author-

ized to be issued by courts established

by Act of Congress should be issued only

under unique and compelling circum-

stances.

De Beers Consol. Mines v. U.S., 65 S.Ct.

1130, 325 U.S. 212, 89 L.Ed. 1566

(1945) - . . . petitioners applied to this

court for certiorari under § 262. That

section provides in part: “The Supreme Court. . . shall have power to issue all writs not specifically provided for by statute, which may be necessary for the exercise of their respective jurisdictions, and agreeable to the usages and princi-ples of law.” . . . When Congress withholds in-terlocutory reviews, § 262 can, of course

be availed to correct a mere error in the

exercise of conceded judicial power. But

when a court has no judicial power to do

what it purports to do – when its action

is not mere error or usurpation of power

– the situation falls precisely within the

allowable use of § 262. We proceed,

therefore, to inquire whether the . . .

Court is empowered to enter the order

under attack.


of 80

Also see, 80th Congress House Report No. 308.

Newsome believes that this “OW-WOM, ET AL”

meets the REQUIRED prerequisites in that:

(1) the writ(s) will be in aid of the

Court’s appellate jurisdiction –

[28 U.S.C. § 1651(a)] “The U.S. Supreme Court has a continuing power to issue extraordinary writs in aid of either its original jurisdiction8 including as a part of jurisdiction(s) the exercise of gen-eral supervisory control over the court system – state or federal.”9

(2) exceptional circumstances war-

rant the exercise of the Court’s

discretionary powers - While

there need NOT be a laundry list

8 See Ex parte Hung Hang, 108 U.S. 552, 553, 2 S.Ct. 863, 27 L.Ed. 811

(1883) (Court has authority to issue writ); Pennsylvania v. Wheeling Belmont Bridge Co., 59 U.S. 421, 431, 15 L.Ed. 435 (1885) (“act of congress cannot have

the effect and operation to annul the decision of the court already rendered); Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371, 374, 25 L.Ed. 717 (1879) (“Having this general

power to issue the writ, the court may issue it in the exercise of original juris-

diction where it has original jurisdiction. . . “); see also Wagner, Original Juris-diction of National Supreme Courts, 33 St. John’s L. Rev. 217 (1959); cf. Mar-

bury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 147, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803) (“The term ‘ap-

pellate jurisdiction’ is to be taken in its larger sense, and implies in its nature

the right of superintending the inferior tribunals.”).

9See e.g., Connor v. Coleman, 440 U.S. 612, 624, 99 S.Ct. 1523, 59

L.Ed. 2d 619 (1979) (“When a lower. . .court refuses to give effect to, or miscon-strues our mandate, its actions are controlled by this Court. . .”); MCullough v. Cosgrave, 309 U.S. 634, 635, 60 S.Ct. 703, 84 L.Ed. 992 (1940) (Court directed . . . Court judge to vacate order and retry cases expediently); Ex parte United

States, 242 U.S. 27, 52, 37 S.Ct. 72, 61 L.Ed. 129 (1916) (mandamus proper

remedy for enforcing . . . when. . . Court that passed it has defeated its execu-

tion). - - Vol. 23 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 520.02[2] (Matthew Bender 3d ed.).

of 80

of “exceptional circumstances,”

the U.S. Supreme Court has re-

peatedly asserted that the per-

emptory writs are drastic and ex-

traordinary remedies that must

be reserved for only truly ex-

traordinary cases (as the extraor-

dinary circumstances in this in-

stant lawsuit).10

(3) adequate relief cannot be had in

any other form - Newsome seeks

to bring, the writ sought in that it

is permissible and warranted as a

matter of law - Ex parte Har-ding, 219 U.S. 363, 374; 31 S.Ct.

324, 55 L.Ed. 252 (1911) (writ on-

ly applicable to exceptional cases)

– and is sustained by facts, evi-

dence and legal conclusions of the

good-faith acts of Newsome to

seek adequate relief through ap-

propriate legal recourse – i.e. due

to no avail because of the con-

spiracy(s) leveled against her.

10 See Bagley v. Byrd, 534 U.S. 1301, 122 S.Ct. 419, 419-420, 151 L.Ed.

2d 370 (2001) (Stevens, J., in chambers) (Court will deny applications for stay of

lower-court proceedings pending Court’s disposition of . . . petition unless appli-

cation demonstrates that denial of stay will either cause irreparable harm or

affect Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to act on . . . petition); In re Michael Sin-dram, 498 U.S. 177, 179, 111 S.Ct. 596, 112 L.Ed. 2d 599 (1991) (petitioner

“identifies no ‘drastic’ circumstances to justify extraordinary relief” as required

by Sup. Ct. R. 20.1); Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90, 95, 88 S.Ct. 269, 19

L.Ed. 305 (1967) (“only exceptional circumstances amounting to a judicial ‘usurpation of power’ will justify the invocation of this extraordinary remedy”); Ex parte Fahey, 332 U.S. 258, 260, 67 S.Ct. 1558, 91 L.Ed. 2041 (1947) (“These

remedies should be resorted to only where appeal is a clearly inadequate reme-

dy.”).

of 80


any other court below – the rec-

ord evidence, facts and legal con-

clusions will support a PATTERN of unlawful/illegal acts leveled against Newsome (i.e. moreover,

CONSPIRACIES). The record ev-

idence will further support efforts

by lower courts to “CLOSE

DOORS OF COURT(S) to New-

some.” Thus, warranting and

supporting the relief Newsome

seeks through bringing Extraor-

dinary Writ. [Ex parte Young,

209 U.S. 123, 165, 28 S.Ct. 441,

52 L.Ed. 714 (1908) (remedies at

law not inadequate).

as well as for reasons known to this Court to deter/prevent

the criminal/civil wrongs addressed herein.

It is of PUBLIC/WORLDWIDE interest for citizens to

see just how the courts in the United States of America op-

erate and then move to COVER-UP the CORRUPTION of

the United States Government/Government Officials, BIG

corporations, BIG law firms, BIG insurance companies,

SPECIAL INTEREST groups, their lobbyists, etc. who en-

gage in criminal/civil wrongs leveled against citizens such

as Newsome who OPPOSE such unlawful/illegal/unethical

practices as that raised and addressed in this instant plead-

ing and supporting Appendix. In fact, it is IMPORTANT

for the PUBLIC/WORLD to see just how far the United

States Government, WHITE employers, their lawyers, their

insurance companies, etc. will go to POST FALSE, MALI-

CIOUS and MISLEADING information known to be re-ceived through criminal acts on the INTERNET for purpos-

es of destroying citizens’ (i.e. such as Newsome) lives. See

of 80

APPX CHT No. “34” – Google Information regarding New-

some attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if

set forth in full herein. Furthermore, how the Government

and WHITE employers engage in criminal/civil wrongs

against citizens (i.e. such as Newsome) to see that the

“DOORS OF THE COURTS” are closed to citizens who have VALID and MERITABLE claims by either engaging

and/or condoning the criminal acts of judges/justices who

AID and ABET in the COVER-UP of CORRUPTION and

CRIMINAL behavior. In Newsome’s case, the United

States Government and White employers with their attor-

neys/lawyers (Baker Donelson) CONSPIRED to place in-

formation on the INTERNET they knew to be FALSE, MA-

LICIOUS and MISLEADING and obtained through

BRIBES, BLACKMAIL, EXTORTION, COERCION, etc. for

purposes of having Newsome BLACKLIST-

ED/BLACKBALLED and creating situation to see that Newsome is NEVER employable in EFFORTS of keeping

the CRIMINAL/TERRORIST/RACIST/WHITE SUPREM-

ACIST practices of Baker Donelson and its clients (as New-

some’s WHITE Racist employers) OUT of the

eyes/knowledge of CITIZENS and/or PUBLIC/WORLD.

Weber v. Henderson, 275 F.Supp.2d 616

(2003) – Postal employee who filed fif-

teen lawsuits in nine years against

United States Postal Service (USPS),

stemming from his removal from full-

service carrier duty, failed to raise

claims in any action relating to events

at issue that were neither meritless nor

frivolous, and thus any further pro se

pleadings submitted by employee on

same basis would be PROPERLY re-

viewed under ALL WRITS ACT . . .

In re McDonald, 489 U.S. 180,

109 S.Ct. 993 (1989) Jessie McDonald

of 80

may well have abused his right to file

petitions in this Court without payment

of the docketing fee; the Court's order

documents that fact. I do not agree,

however, that he poses such a threat to

the orderly administration of justice

that we should embark on the unprece-

dented and dangerous course the Court

charts today. . . . I am most concerned,

however, that if, as I fear, we continue

on the course we chart today, we will

end by closing our doors to a litigant

with a meritorious claim. It is rare, but it does happen on occasion that we

grant review and even decide in favor of a litigant who previously had presented

multiple unsuccessful*188 petitions on the same issue. See, e.g., Chessman v. Teets, 354 U.S. 156, 77 S.Ct. 1127, 1

L.Ed.2d 1253 (1957); see id., at 173-177,

77 S.Ct. at 1136-1138 (Douglas, J., dis-

senting).

"Petitioner is no stranger to us.

Since 1971, he has made 73 separate fil-ings with the Court, not including this

petition, which is his eighth so far this

Term. These include 4 appeals, 33 peti-

tions for certiorari, 99 petitions for ex-

traordinary writs, 7 applications for

stay and other injunctive relief, and 10

petitions for rehearing." Id. pp. 994-

995.

"But paupers filing pro se peti-

tions are not subject to the financial considerations - filing fees and attor-

ney's fees - that deter other litigants

from filing frivolous petitions." Id. p.

996.

of 80

The Supreme Court (even after

all of McDonald's filings) did not close

the door to McDonald. A litigant who is

identified as filing 73 separate filings in a one-year period; however, ruled, "Peti-tioner remains free under the present order to file in forma pauperis requests for relief other than an extraordinary writ, if he qualifies under the Court's Rule 46 and does not similarly abuse that privilege." Id. p. 996.

Newsome believes that a reasonable mind may conclude,

that based upon the facts, evidence and legal conclusions

provided in this instant pleading and supporting Appendix,

that the role the Respondents, United States Government

Agencies/Officials, courts, WHITE employers, etc. played in

the posting of PROTECTED ACTIVITIES involving New-

some on the INTERNET – see APPX CHT No. “34” - was

posted for unlawful/illegal/unethical/malicious/willful in-

tent to subject Newsome to irreparable injuries/harm. Mat-ters in which Judge Tom S. Lee was CLEARLY involved and played a KEY/MAJOR role in conspiracies leveled against Newsome!

Newsome believes that the record will sustain that

the facts, evidence and legal conclusions set forth in in this instant pleading, and their supporting Appendix will sus-

tain the RELIEF sought under the “All Writs Act” and will

sustain that there “are persons/parties, though not parties

to original action” - such as: (a) United States President

Barack Obama and members of his Administration, law-

yers, advisors, etc.; (b) Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell

& Berkowitz, PC (“Baker Donelson”) their client(s) (i.e.

such as LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, etc.); (c) and others that may be

identified through FACTUAL inquiries/INVESTIGATIONS

that engaged in CONSPIRACIES and criminal/civil wrongs

of 80

leveled against Newsome and citizens here in the United

States of America and abroad – that RELY upon their

DOMINENT/ PROMINENT positions to INFLUENCE and

FRUSTRATE the implementation of the laws, OBSTRUCT

the administration of justice, and implementation of Orders

issued by this Court.

Sable v. General Motors Corp., 90 F.3d

171 (1996) – Power conferred by All

Writs Act extends, under appropriate

circumstances, to persons who, though

not parties to original action . . . are in

position to frustrate implementation of

court order or proper administration of

justice.

U.S. v. New York Tel. Co., 98 S.Ct. 364,

434 U.S. 159, 54 L.Ed.2d 376 – Power

conferred by this section extends, under

appropriate circumstances, to persons

who though not parties to original ac-

tion . . . are in position to frustrate im-

plementation of court order or proper

administration of justice and encom-

passes even those who have not taken

any affirmative action to hinder justice.

See APPX CHT Nos. “19” – “21” incorporated by reference

as if set forth in full herein.

U.S. v. International Broth. Of Team-sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO, 911

F.Supp. 743 (1996) – Important feature

of All Writs Act is its grant of authority

to enjoin and bind nonparties to action

when needed to preserve court’s ability

of 80

to reach or enforce its decision in case

over which it has proper jurisdiction.

Mongelli v. Mongelli, 849 F.Supp. 215

(1994) - Under All Writs Act, federal

courts has authority to issue commands

as necessary to effectuate orders it has

previously issued and extends to per-

sons who were not parties to original ac-

tion but are in position to frustrate im-

plementation of court order.

Moreover, it is of PUBLIC IMPORTANCE for the CITI-

ZENS/WORLD to see the Terrorist/White Suprema-

cist/Racist Regime that appear to be running the United

States Government – Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz - and the positions it holds/held in the Govern-

ment for purposes of exposing how ONE law firm has been

ALLOWED to infiltrate the United States Government for

purposes of PROMOTING its RACIST/DISCRIMINATORY

ideas over their victims such as Newsome, other citizens

and Foreign Countries/Leaders.

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/bd-oilfield-patents

As a matter of law the U.S. Supreme Court has a DUTY to correct the miscarriage of justices made known to it through any/all legal means known to it. Newsome need NOT be specific because this Court has VAST legal re-sources and KNOWLEDGE and/or the TOOLS TO OBTAIN SUCH KNOWLEDGE on how to handle the EXTRAOR-DINRY, EXCEPTION and CRITICAL/EXIGENT circum-stances brought to its attention by Newsome.

Adams v. U.S. ex rel. McCann, 63 S.Ct.

236 (1942) - Unless appropriately con-

fined by Congress, a federal court may

avail itself of all auxiliary writs as aids

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/bd-oilfield-patents

of 80

in performance of its duties, when the

use of such historic aids is calculated in

its sound judgment to achieve the ends

of justice entrusted to it.

See APPX CHT No. “35”

Ex parte Milwaukee R. Co., 72 U.S. 188

(1866) - Where a case is properly in the

Supreme Court . . ., the Supreme Court

has a right under Judiciary Act § 14, 28

U.S.C.A. § 1651, to issue any writ which

may be necessary to render their . . . ju-

risdiction effectual.


Platt v. Minnesota Min. & Mfg. Co., 84

S.Ct. 769 (1964) - Extraordinary writs

are reserved for really extraordinary

causes, and then only to confine an infe-

rior court to a lawful exercise of its pre-

scribed jurisdiction or to compel it to ex-

ercise its authority when it is its duty to

do so. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1651(a).


C. MANDATORY DUTY TO RECUSE:

This instant action is brought before this Court to

have the lower court Judge Tom S. Lee ANSWER ALL

claims/issue raised in Newsome’s Recusal pleadings:

RECUSAL statute is meant to

SHIELD litigants from biased and

prejudiced judges. . . Hall v. Doering, 185 FRD 639 (1999). - - Purpose of 28

of 80

USCS § 455(b)(1) is to ENSURE delib-

erate, UNBIASED factfinding. id.

With respect to DISQUALIFICATION

of federal judges, 28 USCS § 455(c) re-

quires federal judges to STAY in-

formed of any PERSONAL or FINAN-

CIAL interest they may have in cases

in which they preside, notwithstand-

ing size and complexity of litigation.

Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisi-tion Corp., 486 US 847, 100 L Ed 2d

855, 108 S Ct 2194 (1988).

Goal of 28 USCS § 455(a), which DIS-

QUALIFIES judge from acting in pro-

ceeding in which is IMPARTIALITY

might reasonably be QUESTIONED,

is to AVOID even APPEARANCE of

PARTIALITY; if it would appear to

reasonable person that judge has

knowledge of facts which would give

him INTEREST in litigation, then

APPEARANCE of PARTIALITY is

created even though no actual partial-

ity exists because the judge does not

recall the facts, actually has no inter-

est in the case, or is pure in heart and

incorruptible. Liljeberg v. Health Ser-vices Acquisition Corp., 486 US 847,

100 L Ed 2d 855, 108 S Ct 2194

(1988). – See APPX CHT No. “38.”

RECUSAL statute, 28 USCS 455(a)

and (b), requires mandatory disquali-

fication of judge in any proceeding in

which his impartiality might reasona-bly be QUESTIONED or where he has

of 80

PERSONAL BIAS or PREJUDICE

concerning party. United States v. Brown, 539 F2d 467 (5th Cir. 1976)

28 USCS §§ 144, 455 give life to DUE

PROCESS requirement of FAIR trial

BEFORE FAIR tribunal, and claim of

bias and prejudice that survives rigid

scrutiny under §§ 144, 455 will neces-

sarily pass constitutional muster.

United States v. IBM Corp., 475

F.Supp. 1372 affd 618 F2d 923 (2nd

Cir. 1980)

The record evidence in the in the lower court action

will support that Newsome TIMELY, PROPERLY and AD-

EQUATELY submitted the required pleadings warranting

the RECUSAL of Judge Tom S. Lee. Moreover, that New-

some NEVER consented, NOR waived recusal issue and

REPEATEDLY provided pleadings in support of said de-

fense for RECUSAL.

The record evidence will support that Newsome has

sustained irreparable injury/harm which CONTINUES to

date to from the role that Judge Tom S. Lee is playing in

the CONSPIRACIES leveled against Newsome.

The record evidence will support that although New-

some pursuant to Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Federal

Procedure set forth in NUMBERED paragraphs SHORT

(i.e. some warranting additional comments for clarity) and

PLAIN statements with supporting EXHIBITS/Evidence

and Legal Conclusions, the lower court record is VOID of

address ALL ISSUES raised in the May 15, 2012 – 17 Pag-

es and 4 Numbered Paragraphs:

Request for Conflict of Interest Infor-mation, Notice of Opposition to Magis-

of 80

trate Judge Assignment; and Notice of Address – See APPX CHT No. “12” at

Doc. No. 2.

28 USCS § 455 is self-enforcing on

part of judge; it may be asserted by

party by motion in trial court, through

assignment of error on appeal, by in-

terlocutory appeal, or by mandamus.

Davis v. Board of School Comm’rs, 517

F2d 1044 (5th Cir. 1975)

Court will consider petition for writ of

mandamus following District Court’s

denial of motion to disqualify based on

conflict of interest and appearance of

partiality. In re Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 919 F2d 1136 (6th Cir.

1990)

as well as is VOID of Judge Tom S. Lee’s ANSWER as to

each claim/issue raised in Newsome’s – 35 Pages and 79

Numbered Paragraphs with JURY DEMAND noted in the:

OBJECTION(S) To August 2, 2012 Or-der Of Judge Tom S. Lee; Motion For DISQUALIFICATION; AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL (“OBJECTION(S) TO 08/02/12 ORDER”)

and CLEARLY FAILS to address the ISSUES/CLAIMS

raised in Newsome’s supporting AFFIDAVIT OF DIS-

QUALIFICATION which was 6 pages and contained ap-

proximately 21 Numbered paragraphs:

VOGEL DENISE NEWSOME’S AFFI-DAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE TOM S. LEE - See APPX “5.”

of 80

The statutes/laws are clear governing Judge Tom S. Lee’s

MANDATORY requirement to recuse himself from lawsuit;

however, he is determined to place himself above the law

and OBSINATE/PIGHEADED in duty to stand as the

GATEKEEPER and fulfill his ROLE and OBLIGATIONS

in the ONGOING conspiracies leveled against Newsome.

This Court has found in Murchison:

In re Murchison, 75 S.Ct. 623 (1955) - No

man can be a judge in his own case, and no

man is permitted to try cases where he has

an interest in the outcome. . .

The interest which will disqualify a man

from trying a case depends on circumstances

and relationships.

The record evidence will not only support Judge Lee’s role

in conspiracies leveled against Newsome but FINANCIAL

and PERSONAL interests in the outcome this lawsuit and

others in which he is UNLAWFULLY presiding over.

Andrade v. Chojnacki, 338 F.3d 448

(5th Cir. 2003) - Judge abuses his or

her discretion in denying recusal

where reasonable person, cognizant of

relevant circumstances surrounding

judge's failure to recuse, would harbor

legitimate doubts about that judge's

impartiality. 28 U.S.C.A. § 455.

Parliament Ins. Co. v. Hanson, 676

F.2d 1069 (5th Cir. 1982) - Statutory

provision governing disqualification of

federal judges imposes a reasonable

man standard in determining whether

a judge should recuse himself. 28

U.S.C.A. § 455(a).

of 80

D. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED:

Plaintiff’s use of twelve pages to set

out claim that could have been stated

in six pages did not justify dismissal

under Rule 8(a), where complaint was

intelligible and gave defendants notice

of claim for relief, even though com-

plaint could have been improved.

Bennett v. Schmidt, 153 F3d 516 (7th

Cir. 1998).

Defendants’ motion to dismiss under

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) and (e)(1), as-

serting that, at 368 pages and 1,249

paragraphs, plaintiff’s complaint was

too long and confusing, was DENIED

because although plaintiffs’ was

lengthy, it did NOT overwhelm de-

fendants’ ability to understand or to

mount defense. Ir re Parmalat Sec. Litig., 375 F.Supp. 2d 278 (2005).

The record evidence will support Judge Tom S. Lee’s

KNOWLEDGE of Newsome’s TIMELY demand for JURY

Trial through his masked attack noting her “143-page com-

plaint.” – See APPX CHT No. “39” – which he DELIBER-

ATELY steers clear of noting the 25 SUPPORTING Exhib-

its accompanying it. Moreover, Newsome’s REPEAT de-

mand for JURY Trial:

Paragraph Page Paragraph Page

¶ 56 21 ¶ 178 75

¶ 99 39 ¶ 200

¶ 103 41 ¶ 218 87

¶ 108 43 ¶ 239 95

of 80

¶ 120 49 ¶ 262 109

¶ 141 62 ¶ 299 116

¶ 170 71 ¶¶ 310 thru 312 136

See APPX CHT No. “39” incorporated by reference as if

set forth in full herein.

The lower court record will sustain Newsome’s RE-

PEATEDLY REITERATING “JURY” Demand and did NOT

waive right to have issues presented to jury and allow

Judge Tom S. Lee and/or lower court to decide ISSUES in

DISPUTE! The Supreme Court of the United States’ deci-

sions and that of the FIFTH Circuit Court of Appeals are

clear on litigants’ rights to have matters tried by JURY and

NOT by the court as Judge Tom S. Lee has attempted to do

in his ROLE in the conspiracies leveled against Newsome:

Constitutional right to trial by jury in suits

at common law will be scrupulously safe-

guarded by Supreme Court. Lyon v. Mutu-al Ben. Health & Acci. Asso., 305 US 484,

83 L Ed 303, 59 S Ct 297, reh den (1939)

306 US 667

In absence of waiver of right to trial by ju-

ry, it is VIOLATION of Seventh Amend-

ment for federal court to substitute itself

for jury, pass upon effect of evidence, find

facts involved in case, and render judg-

ment. Baylis v. Travellers’ Ins. Co., 113 US

316, 28 L Ed 989, 5 S Ct 494.

Trial by jury is fundamental guaranty of

rights and liberties of people, and every

reasonable presumption should be indulged

against its waiver. Hodges v. Easton, 106

US 408, 16 Otto 408, 27 L Ed 169, 1 S Ct

307

of 80

Court should not take case from jury where

evidence is conflicting or different conclu-

sions may be drawn from undisputed facts.

Woodard v. Atlantic C.L. R. , 57 F 2d 1019

(5th Cir. 1932).

Upon motion for jury trial, court should

grant same in absence of compelling rea-

sons to contrary, even though time for de-

manding jury trial has expired. Albert v. R.P. Farnsworth & Co., 176 F 2d 198 (5th

Cir. 1949)

Right to jury trial in civil cases under Sev-

enth Amendment may be waived by failure

to make timely demand for it; however,

although judge is not required to allow

UNTIMELY request for jury trial, court

should grant trial in absence of strong and

compelling reasons to contrary. Cox v. C. H. Masland & Sons, Inc., 607 F 2d 138 (5th

Cir. 1979)

Because of the DISPUTED issues raised in Newsome’s

Complaint and her subsequent pleadings (i.e. which are to

be resolved through a jury trial), she has been deprived

DUE PROCESS, equal PROTECTION of the laws and priv-

ileges and immunities secured/guaranteed under the Con-

stitution of the United States and other governing stat-

utes/laws of the United States of America:

Hare v. City of Corinth, Miss., 949

F.Supp. 456 (N.D.Miss.E.Div.,1996) -

Essential characteristic of federal sys-

tem is the manner in which, in civil

common-law actions, it assigns trial

functions between judge and jury and,

of 80

under the influence if not the com-

mand of Seventh Amendment, assigns

decisions of disputed questions of fact

to jury. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 7.

[22] [23] As already noted by the

court in this case, this court has de-

termined that there remain genuine

issues of material fact as to whether

the actions of the . . . defendants

amount to deliberate indifference in

this case. These same defendants now

argue to the court that “[t]his court

made [its previous] holding based up-

on a set of undisputed facts leaving

only a legal question to be decided. If

this court cannot determine after dili-

gent research and the benefit of hind-

sight whether the defendants' actions

were deliberately indifferent based

upon a set of undisputed facts, then

the defendants should certainly could

not in July, 1989, . . . The ultimate

factual determination of whether or

not these defendants were deliberately

indifferent is itself a disputed question

of fact. See, e.g., Estate of Cole by Pardue v. Fromm, 94 F.3d 254, 260

(7th Cir.1996); Miller v. Schoenen, 75

F.3d 1305, 1311 (8th Cir.1996); Kirk v. Simpson, 35 F.3d 566, 1994 WL

443461, *1 (6th Cir.(Tenn.)); Archibe-que v. Wylie, 16 F.3d 415, 1994 WL

41272, *3 (10th Cir.(N.M.)); Greason v. Kemp, 891 F.2d 829, 835 (11th

Cir.1990). Its determination is the re-

sponsibility of the jury in this case,

and does not rest with this court as it

is a determination of fact:

of 80

The federal system is an inde-

pendent system for administering jus-

tice to litigants who properly invoke

its jurisdiction. An essential character-

istic of that system is the manner in

which, in civil common-law actions, it

distributes trial functions between

judge and jury and, under the influ-

ence—if not the command—of the

Seventh Amendment, assigns the de-

cisions of disputed questions of fact to

the jury. - See APPX CHT No. “40” –

incorporated by reference as if set


Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc., 518 U.S. 415, 116 S.Ct. 2211, 135

L.Ed.2d 659 (1996) (quoting Byrd v.

Blue Ridge Rural Elec. Cooperative,

Inc., 356 U.S. 525, 537, 78 S.Ct. 893,

901, 2 L.Ed.2d 953 (1958)). This court

is nevertheless fully capable of making

findings of fact as well as conclusions

of law if the parties wish to waive

their right to a jury trial in this case.

That it is not this court's place to make this factual determination at the summary judgment stage lends no de-

cisive weight to the determination of

whether the defendants are actually

entitled to the protection of qualified

immunity. There remain genuine is-

sues of material fact as to whether the

actions of the . . .defendants were ob-

jectively reasonable in light of existing

law. As such, an award of summary

judgment on the issue is inappropri-

of 80

ate. The defendants are not entitled to

the entry of a judgment as a matter of

law.

E. STATUTE OF LIMITATION FOR CONTINUING TORT

ACTIONS:

It is UNDISPUTED that the Named Defendants in

the lower court action sought DISMISSAL of Newsome’s

Complaint asserting 42 USC § 1983 Claims when it is

CLEAR Newsome’s Complaint does NOT allege and NEI-

THER assert any such § 1983 claims at all. – See APPEN-

DICES “14,” “16,” “18” and “39” incorporated by reference

as if set forth in full herein.

Newsome’s Complaint is premised on § 1981 claims

and other supporting statutes/laws governing said matters.

While the lower court/Judge Tom S. Lee wants to as-

sert that Newsome may have erred in the application of the

SIX-year statute of limitations to the claims/issues raised

in her Complaint, it is UNDISPUTED that Newsome’s

Complaint claims and provide supporting documentation of

the ONGOING civil rights violations leveled against her

and the ONGOING conspiracies which CONTINUES to

date by Respondents and those with whom they CON-

SPIRE and, therefore, are governed by the “CONTINUING

TORT” claims and, therefore, tolls any alleged statute of

limitations claimed to have expired. While it appears that

Judge Tom S. Lee mocks the “143-page complaint” and as-

serts that her claims are BARRED by the FOUR-year stat-

ute of limitation, this Court will find that through DECEP-

TIVE and FRAUDULENT practices in his role of fulfilling

conspiracy duties, it is CLEAR he CRAFTILY steers clear

of addressing the TIMELY defense of Newsome supporting

that CONTINUING TORT claims in which the statute of

of 80

limitation begins AFTER each/every OVERT act committed

until desisted – i.e. which to date CONTINUES and has

NOT stopped:

¶5 Pg. 21 ¶198-199 Pg. 87

¶(xii) Pg. 22 ¶l Pg. 89

¶105 Pg. 41 ¶214-216 Pg. 94

¶¶106, 107 Pg. 43 ¶217 Pg. 95

¶110 Pg. 47 ¶l Pg. 96

¶117 Pg. 48 ¶ 233-235 Pg. 108

¶119 Pg. 49 ¶237, 238 Pg. 109

¶ (xii) Pg. 51 ¶m Pg. 111

¶136 Pg. 60 ¶245 Pg. 112

¶138-139 Pg. 61 ¶253, 259 Pg. 114

¶140 Pg. 62 ¶260 Pg. 115

¶(xii) Pg. 63 ¶261 Pg. 116

¶165 Pg. 70 ¶l Pg. 117

¶170 Pg. 71 ¶278 Pg. 121

¶175 Pg. 73 ¶1 Pg. 122

¶176 Pg. 74 ¶292 Pg. 127

¶177 Pg. 75 ¶296 Pg. 127

¶(xii), (xvii) Pg. 77 ¶297 Pg. 130

¶188 Pg. 82 ¶298 Pg. 130

¶197 Pg. 85 ¶1 Pg. 131

Macklin v. Spector Freight Systems, Inc., 478 F.2d 979 (1973) - [18] Where

continuing violations were alleged,

complaint under statute providing

that all persons within United States

shall have same right to make and en-

force contracts as is enjoyed by white

citizens was not barred by limitation.

42 U.S.C.A. § 1981

Hendrix v. City of Yazoo City, Miss., 911 F.2d 1102 (5th Cir. Miss. 1990) - In

case in which original violation oc-

curred outside statute of limitations,

of 80

but is closely related to other viola-

tions that are not time barred, recov-ery may be had for all violations, on

theory that they are part of one, con-tinuing violation.

Stevens v. Lake, 615 So.2d 1177

(Miss.,1993) - “Continuing injury” doc-

trine did not enable surviving busi-

ness partners to avoid bar of six-year

statute of limitations applicable to le-

gal . . . action alleging attorneys' neg-

ligent failure to record trust prepared

for now-deceased partner, even though

surviving partners continued to sus-

tain losses each year after alleged neg-

ligence; attorneys' alleged act of negli-

gence occurred entirely in year that

was more than six years before mal-

practice suit was filed. Code 1972, §

15-1-49. [NOTE: In Newsome’s law-

suit it is UNDISPUTED of PKH’s

and/or Named Defendants’ role and/or

interest in the Newsome vs. Spring

Lake Apartments matter.]

Winters v. AmSouth Bank, 964 So.2d

595 (Miss.App.,2007) - A “continuing

tort” sufficient to toll a statute of limi-

tations is occasioned by continual un-

lawful acts, not by continual ill effects

from an original violation.

Randolph v. Lambert, 926 So.2d 941

(Miss.App.,2006) - If the claim is a

continuing tort, the statute of limita-

tions does not begin to run until the

date of the last injury.

of 80

WW, Inc. v. Rainbow Casino-Vicksburg Partnership, L.P., 2011 WL

4037024 (Miss. 2011) - Where a tort

involves a continuing or repeated inju-

ry, the cause of action accrues at, and

limitations begin to run from, the date of the last injury, or when the tortious

acts cease.

Bryant v. Military Department of Mis-sissippi, 597 F.3d 678 (5th Cir. Miss.

2010) - Under Mississippi law, a “con-

tinuing tort,” for which the statute of

limitations is tolled, is one inflicted

over a period of time, it involves a wrongful conduct that is repeated un-til desisted, and each day creates a

separate cause of action.

Therefore, it is left up to the JURY and not the lower

court/Judge Tom S. Lee to decide.

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 ob-ject pursued. Regardless whether

each person knew of the details or

what part each was to perform, the

end results being they obtained the ob-

ject pursued. Agreement is implied or inferred from actions or statements.

The record evidence will support the TAG-TEAM litigation

of Respondents and their role in CONSPIRACIES leveled

of 80

against Newsome which appears to be SPEARHEADED by

Baker Donelson and have NOT ceased. Furthermore, how

through said conspiracies, they STALK Newsome from job-to-job and state-to-state contacting her employers (i.e. as in

this matter with Page Kruger & Holland) and advise of her

participation in PROTECTED activities for purposes of

having her employment terminated and employers as Page

Kruger & Holland P.A. and its employees are more than happy to oblige in fulfilling ROLE in CONSPIRACIES! -

See APPX CHT No. “41” and/or APPX CHT No. “39”at Ex-

hibit “VI.”

It is UNDISPUTED the role that Baker Donelson is

playing in the prosecution of lawsuits brought by Newsome

and/or in which Newsome is a party. Moreover, it is UN-

DISPUTED (though timely raised) of Baker Donelson’s in-

terests in the lower court action and now this instant Su-

preme Court of the United States action.

F. REASONS FOR GRANTING PETITION(S):

Newsome herein incorporates the issues/arguments

raised above in this “OW-WOM, ET AL” as well as set forth

in her lower court pleadings – i.e. information which is pro-

vided in the supporting Appendix to this instant action. In

further support thereof, Newsome states:

a. USDC-Jackson, MS has entered a decision

in conflict with the decision of another dis-

trict court on the same important matter;

has decided an important federal question

in a way that conflicts with a decision by a

federal court; or has so far departed from

the accepted and usual course of judicial

proceedings, or sanctioned such a depar-

ture, as to call for an exercise of the U.S.

Supreme Court’s supervisory power; and

of 80

b. USDC-Jackson, MS has FAILED to decide

an important question of federal law that

has not been, but should be, settled by this

Court; or has decided an important federal

question in a way that conflicts with rele-

vant decisions of this Court.

c. To compel the USDC-Jackson, MS to do

something that it has refused to do. More-

over, to force the lower court to comply

with this Court’s mandate and previous

rulings/decisions by this Court on said is-

sues and those which may be newly pre-

sented through these extraordinary writs.

d. To issue mandate to compel matters be

presented to JURY.

e. To prohibit the USDC-Jackson, MS from

doing something that it will otherwise do.

f. PREREQUISITES: (i) Writ(s) Will Be In Aid

Of The Court’s Original and/or Appellate

Jurisdiction; (ii) Exceptional Circumstanc-

es Warrant the Exercise of the Court’s Dis-

cretionary Powers; (iii) Adequate Relief

Cannot Be Obtained In Any Other Form or

From Any Other Court; and (iv) for Other

Reasons Known to this Court.

Newsome believes her OW-WOM,

ET AL and supporting Appendix sustains

that there are extraordinary and excep-

tional circumstances which exist and meet

the prerequisites required to support grant-

ing of relief sought herein - Vol. 23 Moore’s

of 80

Federal Practice, § 520.02 Considerations Governing Issuance Of Extraordinary Writ: [1] PREREQUISITES TO GRANTING EXTRAOR-

DINARY WRIT: Supreme Court Rule 20 spec-

ifies that the issuance of an extraordinary

writ “is not a matter of right, but of discre-tion sparingly exercised.11

The Rule then sets forth four pre-

requisites to the granting of extraordinary

writ. It must be shown:

(5) the writ will be in aid of the

Court’s appellate jurisdiction:

Newsome believes that Extraordinary

Writ(s) sought will be in aid of the U.S. Su-

preme Court’s original and/or appellate ju-

risdiction – 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) provides

that the “Supreme Court and all courts es-

tablished by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of

their respective jurisdictions and agreeable

to the usages and principles of law.” The

statute does not purport to restrict this

Court to issuing writs solely in the aid of

its appellate jurisdiction. This Court has

chosen to limit the application of its Rule

11 See Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. Federal Election Comm’n., 542

U.S. 1305, 125 S.Ct. 2, 159 L.Ed. 2d 805, 807 (2004) (Rehnquist, C.J., in cham-

bers) (Supreme Court will issue extraordinary writ only in most critical and

exigent circumstances, only when necessary or appropriate in aid of Court’s

jurisdiction, and only when legal rights at issue are indisputably clear); Brown v. Gilmore, 533 U.S. 1301, 122 S.Ct. 1, 2-3, 150 L.Ed. 2d 782 (2001) (Rehnquist,

C.J., in chambers) (under All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, injunction against

implementation of presumptively valid state statute pending Court’s disposi-

tion of certiorari petition is appropriate only if legal rights at issue are indis-

putably clear).

of 80

20 to situations in which the writs are in

aid to the Court’s appellate jurisdiction,

and thereby has left the matter of the ex-

traordinary writs in aid of the Court’s orig-

inal jurisdiction unregulated so far as this

Court’s Rules are concerned. Thus, the U.S. Supreme Court has a continuing pow-er to issue extraordinary writs in aid of ei-ther its original jurisdiction12 including as a part of jurisdiction(s) the exercise of gen-eral supervisory control over the court sys-tem – state or federal: 13

(6) exceptional circumstances war-

rant the exercise of the Court’s

discretionary powers:

Newsome believes that “exception-

al circumstances” as set forth herein and in

the lower court records, warrant the exer-

cise of the U.S. Supreme Court’s discre-

12 See Ex parte Hung Hang, 108 U.S. 552, 553, 2 S.Ct. 863, 27 L.Ed.

811 (1883) (Court has authority to issue writ); Pennsylvania v. Wheeling Bel-mont Bridge Co., 59 U.S. 421, 431, 15 L.Ed. 435 (1885) (“act of congress cannot

have the effect and operation to annul the decision of the court already ren-

dered); Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371, 374, 25 L.Ed. 717 (1879) (“Having this

general power to issue the writ, the court may issue it in the exercise of original

jurisdiction where it has original jurisdiction. . . “); see also Wagner, Original Jurisdiction of National Supreme Courts, 33 St. John’s L. Rev. 217 (1959); cf. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 147, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803) (“The term

‘appellate jurisdiction’ is to be taken in its larger sense, and implies in its na-

ture the right of superintending the inferior tribunals.”).


L.Ed. 2d 619 (1979) (“When a lower. . .court refuses to give effect to, or miscon-

strues our mandate, its actions are controlled by this Court. . .”); MCullough v. Cosgrave, 309 U.S. 634, 635, 60 S.Ct. 703, 84 L.Ed. 992 (1940) (Court directed .

. . Court judge to vacate order and retry cases expediently); Ex parte United




of 80

tionary powers.” While there need not be a laundry list of “exceptional circumstances,”

this Court has repeatedly asserted that the

peremptory writs are drastic and extraor-

dinary remedies that must be reserved for

only truly extraordinary cases.14 In this in-stant action, the “ORIGINAL” jurisdiction of this Court is also sought because of the MULTIPLE parties involved and the MULTIPLE jurisdictions – i.e. DIVERSITY of parties and states involved.


any other form; and

Newsome believes that the record

evidence as well as the Extraordinary

Writ(s) she seeks to bring before this Court

will support: PATTERN-OF-PRACTICE,

PATTERN-OF-ABUSE, PATTERN-OF-

OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, PATTERN-

OF-DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS, PAT-

TERN-OF-CORRUPTION, and many un-

lawful/illegal PATTERN-OF-INJUSTICES

leveled against Newsome will support that

she has in GOOD FAITH sought relief

14 See Bagley v. Byrd, 534 U.S. 1301, 122 S.Ct. 419, 419-420, 151 L.Ed.

2d 370 (2001) (Stevens, J., in chambers) (Court will deny applications for stay of

lower-court proceedings pending Court’s disposition of . . . petition unless appli-

cation demonstrates that denial of stay will either cause irreparable harm or

affect Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to act on . . . petition); In re Michael Sin-dram, 498 U.S. 177, 179, 111 S.Ct. 596, 112 L.Ed. 2d 599 (1991) (petitioner

“identifies no ‘drastic’ circumstances to justify extraordinary relief” as required

by Sup. Ct. R. 20.1); Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90, 95, 88 S.Ct. 269, 19

L.Ed. 305 (1967) (“only exceptional circumstances amounting to a judicial

‘usurpation of power’ will justify the invocation of this extraordinary remedy”);

Ex parte Fahey, 332 U.S. 258, 260, 67 S.Ct. 1558, 91 L.Ed. 2041 (1947) (“These

remedies should be resorted to only where appeal is a clearly inadequate reme-

dy.”).

of 80

through the appropriate administrative

and/or judicial remedies prior to bringing

this matter before this Court. Because of

the EXCEPTIONAL circumstances set

forth herein and in the supporting Appen-

dix as well as the lower court records which

supports this action, Newsome seeks to

bring, the writ(s) sought in that it is per-

missible and warranted as a matter of law -

Ex parte Harding, 219 U.S. 363, 374; 31

S.Ct. 324, 55 L.Ed. 252 (1911) (writ only

applicable to exceptional cases) – and is

sustained by facts, evidence and legal con-

clusions.


any other court below:

Newsome believes that the record

evidence will support that without this

Court’s intervention through Extraordinary

Writ(s) sought, that “adequate relief cannot

be had from any other court.” Moreover,

the record evidence supports efforts by low-

er courts to “CLOSE DOORS OF

COURT(S) to Newsome.” Further support-

ing that because of the PATTERN of crimi-

nal/civil wrongs as well as CONSPIRA-

CIES leveled against Newsome; adequate

relief cannot be had in any other Court and

requires the intervention of the U.S. Su-

preme Court’s original jurisdiction for the

resolution. Thus, warranting and support-

ing the relief Newsome seeks through

bringing these Extraordinary Writ(s). [Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 165, 28 S.Ct.

441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908) (remedies at law

not inadequate). Furthermore, the “ORIG-

of 80

INAL” jurisdiction of this Court is also sought because of the MULTIPLE parties involved and the MULTIPLE jurisdictions – i.e. DIVERSITY of parties and states in-volved – sustaining that this matter CAN-NOT be had in any single court below be-cause said single court would LACK juris-diction over parties/litigants because of the DIVERSITY of jurisdictions involved;

wherein the “ORIGINAL” jurisdiction of

this Court encompasses and allow for its

JURISDICTION over multiple par-

ties/litigants who reside in different states.

Therefore requiring this Court’s jurisdic-

tion and exercise of supervisory powers and

any/all powers governing said Writ(s)

sought.

g. Newsome believes it is of PUBLIC/

WORLDWIDE interest that the Extraordi-

nary Writ(s) sought herein be granted.

h. Newsome believes there are questions of

public importance involved. Furthermore,

questions are of such a nature that it is pe-

culiarly appropriate that such action by the

U.S. Supreme Court should be taken.

i. As a matter of statutes/laws governing

“OW-WOM, ET AL,” Newsome is entitled

to the following Writs and any/all Writ(s) in

accordance with the statutes/laws govern-

ing said matters – i.e. For purposes of miti-

gating costs/damages and the expedition of

this matter, Newsome incorporates herein

by reference the facts, evidence and legal

conclusions set forth in her lower court

pleadings:

of 80

July 17, 2012 pleading:

https://secure.filesanywhere.com/f

s/v.aspx?v=8a72648b59616dae9ca

5

July 30, 2012 pleading:


s/v.aspx?v=8a72648b59616fb1a0a

9

August 14, 2012 pleading:


s/v.aspx?v=8a72648b5961717d6c9

b

August 15, 2012 pleading:


s/v.aspx?v=8a72648b596075b96e9

7

(1) Original Writ - A writ commencing

an action and directing the defend-

ant to appear and answer.

Thus, the U.S. Supreme Court has a continuing power to is-sue extraordinary writs in aid of ei-ther its original jurisdiction15 in-

15 See Ex parte Hung Hang, 108 U.S. 552, 553, 2 S.Ct. 863, 27 L.Ed.

811 (1883) (Court has authority to issue writ); Pennsylvania v. Wheeling Bel-mont Bridge Co., 59 U.S. 421, 431, 15 L.Ed. 435 (1885) (“act of congress cannot

have the effect and operation to annul the decision of the court already ren-

dered); Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371, 374, 25 L.Ed. 717 (1879) (“Having this

general power to issue the writ, the court may issue it in the exercise of original

jurisdiction where it has original jurisdiction. . . “); see also Wagner, Original Jurisdiction of National Supreme Courts, 33 St. John’s L. Rev. 217 (1959); cf. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 147, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803) (“The term













of 80

cluding as a part of jurisdiction(s) the exercise of general supervisory control over the court system – state or federal. 16

(2) Writ of Conspiracy17 - A writ

against one who conspired to injure

the plaintiff. . .

Salinas v. U.S., 118 S.Ct.

469 (1997) - Conspiracy may

exist and be punished

whether or not substantive

crime ensues, for conspiracy

is distinct evil, dangerous to

public, and so punishable in

itself.

It is possible for person to conspire for commission of crime by third person.

‘appellate jurisdiction’ is to be taken in its larger sense, and implies in its na-

ture the right of superintending the inferior tribunals.”).


L.Ed. 2d 619 (1979) (“When a lower. . .court refuses to give effect to, or miscon-

strues our mandate, its actions are controlled by this Court. . .”); MCullough v. Cosgrave, 309 U.S. 634, 635, 60 S.Ct. 703, 84 L.Ed. 992 (1940) (Court directed .

. . Court judge to vacate order and retry cases expediently); Ex parte United




17 Respondent (conspirator) becomes the agent of the other conspirator

(s), and any act done by one of the combination is regarded under the law as the act of both or all. In other words, what one does, if there is this combination,

becomes the act of both or all of them, no matter which individual may have done it. This is true as to each member of the conspiracy, even those whose involvement was limited to a minor role in the unlawful transaction, and it makes no difference whether or not such individual shared in the profits of the actions. (Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Conspiracy § 9).

of 80


U.S. v. Schaffer, 586 F.3d

414 (C.A.6.Ohio,2009) - Be-

cause the illegality of an

agreement to commit an un-

lawful act, as the basis of a

conspiracy charge, does not

depend upon the achieve-

ment of its ends, it is irrele-

vant that it may be objec-

tively impossible for the con-

spirators to commit the sub-

stantive offense; indeed, it is the mutual understanding or agreement itself that is criminal, and whether the object of the scheme actually is, as the parties believe it to be, unlawful is irrelevant.

(3) Writ of Exigi Facias - That you

cause to be demanded. Exigent: Requiring IMMEDIATE action or

aid; URGENT.

Black's Law Dictionary -

Scire Facias: A writ requir-

ing the person against whom

it is issued to appear and

show cause why some matter

of record should not be an-

nulled or vacated, or why a

dormant judgment against

that person should not be

revived.

of 80

Wayman v. Southard, 23

U.S. 1 (U.S.Ky.,1825) - Un-

der Judiciary Act . . . provid-

ing that court shall have

power to issue writs of scire

facias . . . and all other writs

not specially provided by

statute which may be neces-

sary for the exercise of their

jurisdiction, the general

term “writs” is NOT re-

strained to original process

or to process anterior to

judgment.

Walden's Lessee v. Craig's Heirs, 39 U.S. 147

(U.S.Ky.,1840) - Demurrers

to writs of scire facias raise

only questions of law on

facts stated in writ.

(4) Writ of Injunction - A court order

commanding or preventing an ac-

tion. - - To get an injunction, the

complainant MUST show that

there is no plain, adequate, and

complete remedy at law and that

an IRREPARABLE injury will re-sult unless the relief is granted.

U.S. v. Oregon State Medical Soc., 72 S.Ct. 690 (1952) -

Notwithstanding that in-

junctive relief is MANDA-

TORY in form, such relief is

to undo existing conditions,

of 80

because otherwise they are

likely to continue.

Porter v. Lee, 66 S.Ct. 1096

(U.S.Ky.,1946) - Where a de-

fendant with notice in an in-

junction proceeding contem-

plates the acts sought to be

enjoined, the court may by

MANATORY injunction re-

store the status quo.


(5) Writ of Mandamus: A writ issued

by a superior court to COMPEL a

lower court or a government officer

to PERFORM MANDATORY and

purely MINISTERIAL duties

CORRECTLY.

“Alternative Mandamus: A

mandamus issued upon the

FIRST application of relief,

commanding the defendant

either to PERFORM the act

DEMANDED or to APPEAR

before the court at a speci-

fied time to SHOW CAUSE

for not performing it.”

“Peremptory Mandamus: An

ABSOLUTE and UNQUAL-

IFIED command to the de-

fendant to DO the act in

question.”

of 80

Heckler v. Ringer, 104 S.Ct.

2013 (1984) - Common-law

writ of mandamus is intend-

ed to provide a remedy for a

plaintiff only if he has ex-

hausted all of the avenues of

relief and only if the defend-

ant owes him a clear nondis-

cretionary duty. 28 U.S.C.A.

§ 1361.


U.S. ex rel. McLennan v. Wilbur, 51 S.Ct. 502 (1931) -

Writ of mandamus will issue

only where duty to be per-

formed is ministerial and ob-

ligation to act peremptory

and plainly defined.


Supervisors v. U.S., 85 U.S.

71 (1873) - The office of a

writ of mandamus is not to

create duties but to compel

the discharge of those al-

ready existing.

Reeside v. Walker, 52 U.S.

272 (1850) - A mandamus is

only to compel performance

of some ministerial, as well

as legal duty.

(6) Writ of Prohibition: (1) A law or

order that FORBIDS a certain ac-

of 80

tion. (2) An extraordinary writ is-

sued by an appellate court to pre-

vent a lower court from exceeding

its jurisdiction or to prevent a non-

judicial officer or entity from exer-

cising a power.

“Prohibition is a kind of

common-law injunction to

prevent an unlawful as-

sumption of jurisdiction . . .

It is a common-law injunc-

tion against governmental

usurpation, as where one is

called coram non judice (be-

fore a judge unauthorized to

take cognizance of the af-

fair), to answer in a tribunal

that has no legal cognizance

of the cause. It arrests the

proceedings of any tribunal,

board, or person exercising

judicial functions in a man-

ner or by means not within

its jurisdiction or discretion.

Benjamin J. Shipman, Handbook of Common-Law Pleading § 341, at 542 (Hen-

ry Winthorp Ballantine ed.,

3d ed. 1923).”

U.S. v. Hoffman, 71 U.S. 158

(1866) - The “writ of prohibi-

tion” is one which commands

person to whom it is directed

not to do something which

by relator's suggestion, court

is informed he is about to do;

of 80

and if thing be already done,

writ of prohibition could not

undo it, for such would re-

quire affirmative act; and

only effect of writ of prohibi-

tion is to suspend all action,

and to prevent any further

proceeding in prohibited di-

rection.


(7) Writ of Review - A general form of

process issuing from an appellate

court to BRING UP FOR REVIEW

the RECORD of the proceedings in the court below.

Zuber v. Allen, 90 S.Ct. 314

(1969) - When action is tak-

en on a record administra-

tive department cannot then

present testimony in court to

remedy the gaps in the rec-

ord, any more than argu-

ments of counsel on review

can substitute for an agen-

cy's failure to make findings

or give reasons.

La Buy v. Howes Leather Company, 77 S.Ct. 309

(U.S.,1957) - Where subject

concerns enforcement of

rules which by law it is duty

of Supreme Court to formu-

late and put in force, man-

damus should issue to pre-

of 80

vent such action thereunder

as is so palpably improper as

to place it beyond the scope

of the rule invoked.


(8) Writ of Supersedeas - A writ that

SUSPENDS a judgment creditor’s

power to levy execution, usu. pend-

ing appeal.

(9) Writ of SUPERVISORY CON-TROL: A writ issued to CORRECT

an ERRONEOUS ruling made by a

lower court EITHER when there is

NO appeal or when an appeal CANNOT provide adequate relief and the ruling WILL RESULT in GROSS INJUSTICE.

Fisher v. District Court of Sixteenth Judicial Dist. of Montana, in and for Rosebud County, 96 S.Ct. 943 (1976) -

Writ of supervisory control is

available only in original

proceeding in . . .Supreme

Court and, although it may

issue in broad range of cir-

cumstances, it is not equiva-

lent to an appeal. 28

U.S.C.A. § 1257(3).


U.S. v. Comstock, 130 S.Ct.

1949 (U.S.,2010) - At com-

of 80

mon law, one who takes

charge of a third person is

under a duty to exercise rea-

sonable care to control that

person to prevent him from

causing reasonably foreseea-

ble bodily harm to others.

(10) Writ of Securitate Pacis: A writ for

someone FEARING bodily harm from another, as when the person has been THREATENED with VI-OLENCE.

(11) Extraterritorial Writs: Beyond the

geographic limits of a particular ju-

risdiction.

Corporation created by a state is citizen of that state

within meaning of Constitu-

tion and United States stat-

ute investing Supreme Court

with original jurisdiction of

controversies between state

and citizens of other states.

Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 US 265, 32 L Ed

239, 8 S Ct. 1370 (1888) (ov-

rld in part on other grounds

by Milwaukee County v M.E. White Co. (1935) 296 US

268, 80 L Ed 220, 56 S. Ct.

229)).

of 80

XX. CONCLUSION and RELIEF SOUGHT For the above foregoing reasons provided in this in-stant Petition(s) for: OORIGINAL WRIT – WRIT OF MANDAMUS – WRIT OF PROHIBITION – WRIT OF CONSPIRACY – WRIT OF EXIGI FACIAS - WRIT OF INJUNCTION - WRIT OF MANDAMUS - WRIT OF REVIEW - WRIT OF SUPERSEDEAS - WRIT OF SUPERVI-SORY CONTROL - WRIT OF SECURITATE PACIS - EXTRATERRI-TORIAL WRITS and supporting Appendix, the relief sought herein, as a matter of law, is to be GRANTED.

of 80

XXI. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and cor-rect copy of the forgoing pleading was MAILED via U.S. Mail first-class to:

Honorable Tom S. Lee – Judge J. T. Noblin – Clerk USDC-Southern District MS (Jackson) 501 E. Court Street – Suite 2.500 Jackson, Mississippi 39201

PHELPS DUNBAR LLP cc/o W. Thomas Siler, Jr., Esq. Jason T. Marsh, Esq. Post Office Box 16114 Jackson, Mississippi 39236-6114 Solicitor General of the United States18 United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. – Room 5614 Washington, D.C. 20530 Barack H. Obama – U.S. President19 Executive Office of the President 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20500-0005

18 USPS Delivery Confirmation No. 03113260000101213679 19 USPS Delivery Confirmation No. 23061570000105859707

XII. APPENDIX

In compliance with the Rules of the Supreme Court

of the United States and in good faith of mitigating costs

because Appendix is VOLUMINOUS, the documents that is

to be included in the JOINT APPENDIX are provided at

APPENDIX “6” – Appendix Chart may be found at the fol-

lowing link as well:

https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=

8a72648b595e7377b06e

APPX DESCRIPTION

1 08/20/12 - Judgment DISMISSING Newsome’s

Complaint WITH prejudice

2 08/20/12 - Order DENYING Newsome’s Motion to

Disqualification and DEMAND for Jury Trial

3 08/20/12 - Memorandum Opinion GRANTING

Named Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for “failure to state a claim”

4 09/20/12 – Notice of Filing of an “ORIGINAL” Ac-tion/Appeal in the Supreme Court of the United States

5 Affidavit of DISQUALIFICATION [ONLY] and

Link for: OBJECTION(S) To August 2, 2012 Or-der Of Judge Tom S. Lee; Motion For DISQUAL-IFICATION; AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

(“OBJECTION(S) TO 08/02/12 ORDER”) https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a7

2648b595e75bc719a





APPENDIX “6” – APPENDIX CHART CONTAINS THE FOLLOW-

ING:

NO.

6 DOCKET SHEET – Newsome v. Page Kruger & Holland P.A., et al https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a7

2648b595f6d7d6b9b

7 Recusal Orders by Tom S. Lee


2648b595f6ea56c9c

8 Docket Sheet – Newsome v. Entergy


2648b595f71b3b26a

9 Bradley S. Clanton – Baker Donelson Information


2648b595f72ae9ca5

10 Judge G. Thomas Porteous Impeachment Articles


2648b595f76ae9ca5

11 09/24/04 - Request for Department of Justice's In-

tervention/ Participation in this Case


2648b59606eb2a1aa

12 05/15/12 - Request for Conflict of Interest Infor-mation, Notice of Opposition to Magistrate Judge Assignment; and Notice of Address https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a7

2648b596070b8a6af















13 08/15/12 - OBJECTION(S) To August 2, 2012 Or-der Of Judge Tom S. Lee; Motion For DISQUAL-IFICATION; AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a7

2648b596075b96e97

14 07/17/12 - Motion to Strike Motion To Dismiss and Memorandum In Support Of Motion To Dis-miss; Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions of and Against Defendants; and Motion for Default Judgment (Jury Trial Demanded in this Action) https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a7

2648b59616dae9ca5

15 07/17/12 – Cover Letter to Court Filing


2648b59616ebca99b

16 07/30/12 - 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; Mo-tion for Rule 11 Sanctions of and Against Defend-ants; and Motion for Default Judgment (Jury Tri-al Demanded in this Action) https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a7

2648b59616fb1a0a9

17 08/02/12 – Order GRANTING Motion to Stay


2648b596170afaf67

18 08/14/12 - Motion to Strike Defendants’ Response In Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion To Strike Mo-tion 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 Sanc-tions of and Against Defendants; and Motion for Default Judgment (Jury Trial Demanded in this Action) https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a7

2648b5961717d6c9b

19 Baker Donelson - Listing of Government Posi-

tions


2648b59617275ae6d

20 Baker Donelson – Listing of Government Posi-

tions (09/11/04)


2648b5961747aa0a2

21 Baker Donelson’s Website Listing of Government

Positions


2648b596176b3a06b

22 07/18/11 – Newsome’s Letter to Supreme Court of

United States


2648b59626db3b36a

23 Conduct or Bias of Law Clerk or Other Judicial Support Personnel As Warranting Recusal of FEDERAL Judge or Magistrate https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a7

2648b59626fb19fa8

24 DISQUALIFICATION of Supreme Court Justic-es: The Certiorari Conundrum














2648b596270769c9e

25 HOOD vs. HOFFMAN-LAROCHE, LTD, District

of Columbia District Court, Case No. 1:06-cv-

01484


2648b596271bcaa69

26 Phelps Dunbar and Page Kruger & Holland Cli-

ent Listings:


2648b596272b19fa8

27 W. Lee Rawls Information


2648b596273bdac6a

28 President Barack Obama’s “Secret Kill List” Arti-

cle


2648b596275b8a7af

29 David Addington Information


2648b59636db6a4ad

30 28 USC § 1651


2648b59636eb2b169

31 Morrow v. District of Columbia https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a7

2648b596370a66ca8


2648b596372b0af67



















33 De Beers Consol. Mines v. U.S. https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a7

2648b596374aead67

34 Google Search Information Regarding Vogel

Newsome


2648b596375a76eaa

35 Adams v. U.S. ex rel. McCann https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a7

2648b596376bcab6a

36 Ex parte Milwaukee R. Co. https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a7

2648b59646ea66d9d


2648b596471bead6c

38 Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp. https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a7

2648b596474769c9e

39 COMPLAINT – Newsome v. Page Kruger & Hol-

land et al.


2648b596476759b9d

40 Hare v. City of Corinth, Miss. https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a7

2648b59656fbba968

41 05/16/06 – TERMINATION Email (Page Kruger

& Holland)


2648b596571769c9e



















42 Salinas v. U.S https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a7

2648b596573aa72a2

43 Porter v. Lee https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a7

2648b596574b5b46c

44 Heckler v. Ringer https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a7

2648b596576b96e99

45 U.S. ex rel. McLennan v. Wilbur https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a7

2648b59666fa8709f

46 U.S. v. Hoffman https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a7

2648b596671b0af67

47 La Buy v. Howes Leather Company https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a7

2648b59676d79b197

48 Fisher v. District Court of Sixteenth Judicial Dist. of Montana, in and for Rosebud County https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a7

2648b59676ea5a56c















APPX “1”

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI

JACKSON DIVISION

VOGEL NEWSOME PLAINTIFF

VS. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12CV342TSL-MTP

PAGE KRUGER &

HOLLAND, P.A., ET AL. DEFENDANTS

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the memorandum opinion and

order entered this date, it is hereby ORDERED AND AD-

JUDGED that the complaint in this action is dismissed

with prejudice.

SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this 20th day of

August, 2012.

/s/ Tom S. Lee______________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

APPX “2”



JACKSON DIVISION



PAGE KRUGER &


ORDER

It is hereby ordered that plaintiff’s motion to recuse,

styled as a motion for conflict of interest information, is de-

nied. See Andrade v. Chojnacki, 338 F.3d 448, 454 (5th Cir.

2003) (internal citations and quotations omitted) (“[a] judge

abuses his discretion in denying recusal where a reasonable

man, cognizant of the relevant circumstances surrounding

[the] judge's failure to recuse, would harbor legitimate

doubts about that judge's impartiality.”); and United States

v. Randall, 440 Fed. Appx. 283, 286 (5th Cir. Sept. 1, 2011)

(internal citations and quotations omitted) (“As a general

rule, for purposes of recusal, a judge's ‘personal knowledge’

of evidentiary facts means ‘extrajudicial,’ so facts learned

by a judge in his or her judicial capacity regarding the par-

ties before the court, whether learned in the same or a re-

lated proceeding, cannot be the basis for disqualification[,]”

thus, “[m]ere prior knowledge of some facts concerning a

litigant ... is not in itself necessarily sufficient to require

disqualification.”).

SO ORDERED this the 20th day of August, 2012.

/s/ Tom S. Lee________


APPX “3”



JACKSON DIVISION



PAGE KRUGER &


MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This cause is before the court on the motion of de-

fendants Page Kruger & Holland, P.A. (PKH), Thomas Y.

Page, Louis G. Baine, III, and Linda Thomas to dismiss for

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted

pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Pro-

cedure. In response to the motion, pro se plaintiff Vogel

Newsome has filed a motion to strike defendants’ motion to

dismiss by which she not only objects to the filing of de-

fendants’ motion and memorandum of authorities, but also

sets forward a substantive response to the motion.20 Hav-

20 Within the text of her motion to strike, plaintiff also purports to seek

Rule 11 sanctions and default judgment against these defendants. Plaintiff is

clearly not entitled to either, and those putative motions are denied.

ing considered the parties’ submissions, the court concludes

that defendants’ motion to dismiss is well taken and should

be granted and that plaintiff’s motion to strike should be

denied.

On May 15, 2012, plaintiff instituted this action

against her former employer, Page Kruger & Holland, P.A.,

and several of the shareholders and/or employees of the law

firm. Her 143-page complaint purports to set out fourteen

claims against defendants relating to the termination of her

employment. According to the complaint, plaintiff began

her employment with PKH on January 2, 2005, as tempo-

rary legal secretary and was hired as a full-time employee

on January 31, 2005. On March 15, 2006, she filed a law-

suit against a Jackson-area apartment complex, charging

that she had been unlawfully evicted. Two months later, on

May 15, 2006, PKH terminated Newsome’s employment.

Her current complaint avers that her termination was not

only racially motivated, but was also in retaliation for her

previous lawsuit. Specifically, the complaint purports to

state claims for:

Count I - 42 U.S.C. § 1981: Equal Rights Under The

Law Against Defendants;

Count II -42 U.S.C. § 1985: Conspiracy to Interfere

with Civil Rights and 42 U.S.C. § 1981: Equal Rights

Under the Law Against Defendant(s);

Count III- 42 U.S.C. § 1986; Action For Neglect to

Prevent and 42 U.S.C. § 1981: Equal Rights under

the Law Against Defendant(s);

Count IV - Negligent Interference with Employment

and 42 U.S.C. § 1981: Equal Rights Under the Law

Against Defendant(s);

Count V- Discrimination in Employment and 42

U.S.C. § 1981: Equal Rights Under the Law Against

Defendant(s);

Count II [sic]- Retaliation and 42 U.S.C. § 1981:

Equal Rights Under the Law Against Defendant(s);

Count IIIII [sic] -Breach of Express Employment

Agreement 42 U.S.C. § 1981: Equal Rights Under the

Law Against Defendant(s);

Count VIII- Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and

Fair Dealing 42 U.S.C. § 1981: Equal Rights Under


Count IX- Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

42 U.S.C. § 1981: Equal Rights Under the Law


Count X- Fraud Against and 42 U.S.C. § 1981: Equal

Rights Under the Law Against Defendant(s);

Count XI- Negligent Interference with Employment -

Malicious Conspiracy to Cause Discharge from Em-

ployment and 42 U.S.C. § 1981: Equal Rights Under


Count IVII [sic]- Violation of the Fourteenth

Amendment of the U.S. Constitution- Due Process

and 42 U.S.C. § 1981: Equal Rights Under the Law


and

Count VII - Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment-

Equal

Protection and 42 U.S.C. § 1981: Equal Rights Under

the

Law Against Defendant(s).

Defendants urge that, accepting as true the facts as

pled in the complaint, all of plaintiff’s claims are barred by

the statute of limitations and thus, subject to dismissal un-

der Rule 12(b)(6). See Jones v. Alcoa, Inc., 339 F.3d 359,

366 (5th Cir. 2003) (“A statute of limitations may support

dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) where it is evident from the

plaintiff's pleadings that the action is barred and the plead-

ings fail to raise some basis for tolling or the like.”). They

reason that Newsome’s various claims necessarily accrued,

if at all, on May 15, 2006, the day she was terminated, and

are subject to statute of limitations of less than six years,

such that her complaint, filed six years after her termina-

tion, is untimely.

For her part, plaintiff does not dispute that her

claims arose on May 15, 2006, the date PK&H terminated

her employment.21 Rather, she takes the position that since

all of her claims are founded, at least in part, on § 1981,

they are all subject to the six-year statute of limitations ap-

plicable to claims under § 1981, and that consequently, her

complaint is timely, as it was filed May 15, 2012, one day

before expiration of the six-year limitations period.22 Plain-

tiff’s position is without merit.

In support of her argument, plaintiff relies on Tru-

villion v. Kings Daughters Hospital, 614 F.2d 520 (5th Cir.

1980), in which the court held that a § 1981 claim by an

employee against his employer was governed by Mississip-

pi’s six-year catch-all statute of limitation, Miss. Code § 15-

1-49, rather than the three-year statute of limitations gov-

21 Indeed, plaintiff points out in her response to defendants’ motion

that in a May 16, 2006 email to defendants, which was appended to her com-

plaint, she advised that she believed that she had been unlawfully terminated.

See Piotrowski v. City of Houston, 237 F.3d 567, 576 (citing Russell v. Bd. of

Trustees, 968 F.2d 489, 493 (5th Cir. 1992))(quoting Helton v. Clements, 832

F.2d 332, 335 (5th Cir. 1987)), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 914 (1993) (“Under federal

law, the [limitations] period begins to run ‘the moment the plaintiff becomes

aware that he has suffered an injury or has sufficient information to know that

he has been injured.’”).

22 As the court understands it, plaintiff’s position is that Count I of her

complaint relies solely on § 1981, and the remaining twelve claims are a hybrid

of § 1981 and other causes of action, and that since all thirteen claims are based

in part on § 1981, then they are all subject to the limitations period that gov-

erns § 1981 claims.

erning unwritten contracts. However, while Mississippi’s

catch-all statute of limitations was six years at the time

Truvillion was decided, the statute was amended effective

July 1, 1989, to shorten the period of limitations to three

years, Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Edwards, 573 So. 2d 704, 705

(Miss. 1990), and thus, at the time of plaintiff’s termina-

tion, the limitations period applicable to § 1981 claims was

three years. Accordingly, accepting for the sake of argu-

ment plaintiff’s assertion that each count of her complaint

is brought under § 1981, it follows that all her claims are

time-barred as they were filed well over three years after

the claims accrued.23

Alternatively, were the limitations period(s) applica-

ble to plaintiff’s various claims determined by reference to

23 The court notes that, as defendants point out, there is a possibility

that plaintiff’s § 1981 claims are subject to the four-year limitation period set

forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1658. Fonteneaux v. Shell Oil Co., 289 Fed. Appx. 695, 698

(5th Cir., July 30, 2008) (“Because Section 1981 does not contain a statute of

limitations, traditionally the most analogous state statute of limitations has

been applied. Jones v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., 541 U.S. 369, 371, 124 S. Ct.

1836, 158 L. Ed. 2d 645 (2004). [However,] [a]fter enactment of the 1991 Civil

Rights Bill by Congress, a four-year statute of limitations [set forth in 28 U.S.C.

§ 1658] applies “if the plaintiff's claim against the defendant was made possi-

ble” by the 1991 or later statute.”). Because, in the case at bar, plaintiff’s

claims would be barred even under the four-year statute of limitation, the court

will not endeavor to determine whether plaintiff’s claims were made possible by

the 1991 statute.

the non- § 1981 aspect of her claims, all her claims would

still be time-barred. See Green v. Vu, 393 Fed. Appx. 225,

226 (5th Cir. Aug. 27, 2010) (forum state’s general personal

injury statute of limitation applies to actions brought pur-

suant to § 1985(3)); 42 U.S.C. § 1986 (establishing one-year

statute of limitation); James v. Sadler, 909 F.2d 834, 836

(5th Cir. 1990) (finding in § 1983 suit asserting claims for

alleged violations of the constitution that “the three year

residual period provided by Section 15–1–49, Miss. Code

Ann. applies”); Miss. Code Ann. § 15-1-29 (providing one-

year limitations period for actions based on unwritten con-

tract of employment); Rankin v. Am. Gen. Fin., Inc., 912 So.

2d 725 (Miss. 2005) (holding that breach of implied cove-

nant of good faith and fair dealing, negligent misrepresen-

tation, fraudulent misrepresentation and negligence are

subject to three-year limitations period under Miss. Code

Ann. § 15-1-49).

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is ordered that

defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is

granted. It is further ordered that plaintiff’s motion to

strike the motion to dismiss is denied as to all aspects of

relief requested thereby.

A separate judgment will be entered in accordance

with Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

SO ORDERED this 20th day of August, 2012.

_/s/ Tom S. Lee____________________


APPX “4”

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT – JACKSON DIVISION

VOGEL DENISE NEWSOME PLAINTIFF

V. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-cv-00342

PAGE KRUGER &

HOLLAND P.A., ET AL. DEFENDANTS

NOTICE OF FILING

OF AN “ORIGINAL” ACTION/APPEAL IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 24

Notice is hereby given that Vogel Denise Newsome

(“Newsome”), Plaintiff in the above entitled action, WITH-

OUT waiving here rights to a JURY TRIAL and REITER-

ATING Objection(s) to Judge Tom S. Lee’s presiding over

this lawsuit and hereby submits this, her, Notice of Filing

of an “ORIGINAL” Action/Appeal in the Supreme Court of

the United States (“NOF-OA-US SCT”) seeking to bring an

ORGINAL Action to the Supreme Court of the United

States from the JUDGMENT of this Court entered on or

24 NOTE: Boldface, caps, small-caps, italics, highlights and underline

represents “emphasis” added.

about August 20, 2012 – See EXHIBIT “A” – Judgment at-

tached hereto and incorporated by reference.

This ORIGINAL Action is taken pursuant to Rule

applying to an action which invokes the Supreme Court of

the United States ORIGINAL jurisdiction under Article III

of the Constitution of the United States and any/all appli-

cable statutes/laws governing said matters. In that New-

some may also seek for EXTRAORDINARY Writ(s) under

the “All Writs Act” pursuant to 28 § 1651(a) and any/all ap-

plicable statutes/laws, this instant filing is hereby served

for purposes of PRESERVING any/all rights and protec-

tions Newsome may have under the laws of the United

States of America. Therefore, in support thereof and in

good faith in aiding this Court in the filing of this instant

pleading, Newsome provides at EXHIBIT “B” a copy of the

Supreme Court of the United States Rules as well as states

the following the following in support thereof:

1. This instant NOF-OA-US SCT is submit-

ted in good faith and is not submitted for

purposes of delay, harassment, hindering

proceedings, embarrassment, obstructing

the administration of justice, vexatious lit-

igation, increasing the cost of litigation,

etc. and is filed to protect and preserve the

rights of Newsome secured/guaranteed un-

der the United States Constitution and

other laws of the United States of America.

2. Rule 17 (Procedure in an Original Action)

of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the

United States (“US SCt”) provides for the

filing under said court’s original jurisdic-

tion in that Newsome’s legal action:

(a) Involve sitting United States Dis-

trict Court/Article III Judge(s) – i.e.

as Judge Tom S. Lee;

(b) Involve parties of diverse/multiple

jurisdictions that are NOT within

the lower courts’ jurisdiction;

(c) Seeks to bring parties to this ac-

tion, a sitting United States of

America President (Barack Hus-

sein Obama II), his legal coun-

sel/advisor Baker Donelson Bear-

man Caldwell & Berkowitz as well

as members of his Administration,

member of the United States of

America’s Congress that appear

may have an interest in the out-

come of this litigation and appears

are presently engaging in unlaw-

ful/illegal practices in the OB-

STRUCTION of justice and judicial

proceedings, etc.;

(d) Involve matters of extraordinary,

exceptional and public importance;

(e) Will address matters protected un-

der the Constitution of the United

Stats and other laws of the United

States of America; and

(f) Addresses legal violations known

to this Court as well as the Su-

preme Court of the United States

in which the laws are clear are to

be corrected.

3. In accordance with Rule 17 (4) of the Rules

of the Supreme Court of the United States,

Newsome’s ORIGINAL Action will be

placed on the docket when the “Motion for Leave to File” and the “Initial Pleading” are filed with the Clerk. The Docket FEE

pursuant to the Rule 38(a) of the Supreme

Court is to be PAID upon receipt of said

pleadings. See EXHIBIT “B” at Rule 17 at-

tached hereto and incorporated by refer-

ence as if set forth in full herein.

4. To the extent that the Supreme Court of

the United States may want to view New-

some’s ORIGINAL Action as an EX-

TRAORDINARY Writ under the “All Writs

Act,” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651 and

any/all applicable statutes/laws governing

said matters, this instant pleading is sub-

mitted to support NOF-OA-US SCT is in

accordance with the laws of the United

States of America.

5. This Court, Named Defendants (Page Kru-

ger & Holland P.A., Thomas Y. Page, Louis

G. Baine III, and Linda Thomas) and

their Counsel (Phelps Dunbar/W. Thomas

Siler, Jr./Jason T. Marsh) are fully aware

of the matter Newsome has pending before

the Supreme Court of the United States

and said court’s efforts to STALL proceed-

ings as they try and get United States of

America President Barack Obama through

the November 2012 Elections as well as

keep the TRUTH about his origin of birth

and matters of the 9/11 DOMESTIC Ter-

rorist attacks orchestrated by TERRORIST

Regimes as Baker Donelson and their al-

lies from coming to the LIGHT! In fact,

Newsome having received as recent as

September 8, 2012, correspondence dated

June 18, 2012 in response to her August

25, 2012 submittal. See EXHIBIT “D” -

Copy of August 31, 2012 Supreme Court’s

Postage of Mailing and June 18, 2012 let-

ter – attached hereto and incorporated by

reference as if set forth in full herein.

6. As the UPRISING and REVOLUTIONS

continue to INCREASE, of course New-

some is SMILING – it appears the

“CHICKENS are COMING HOME to

ROOST!” The uprising/revolutions having

NOTHING to do with a VIDEO that has

been circulating for MONTHS; so if the

MEDIA wants to MISLEAD/DECEIVE the

people to think that it is over some LUNA-

TIC’S/WHITE RACIST’S (Pastor Terry

Jones) video, and have with WILLFUL and

MALICIOUS intent spread this video for

purposes of MASKING/HIDING from the

Public/World the TRUTH behind the UP-

RISINGS/REVOLUTIONS. As a CHRIS-

TIAN, Newsome can validly state that the

actions of this lunatic Terry Jones and the

United States of America’s RACIST Gov-

ernment Leaders to attack the Muslim

Faith/Values are NOT that of TRUE Chris-

tians because Christians are NOT insecure

in their beliefs and values and are CHRIST

did NOT promote such RACIST practices.

However, such RACIST organizations as

the Ku Klux Klan (i.e. in which the likes of

Baker Donelson, United States Congress,

etc.) use their positions and powers to

DISTORT and PROMOTE their RACIST

Agendas. Newsome just SMILES because

there are MANY media sources and the

PUBLIC that are NOT buying this LIE!!

Newsome taking advantage of ALL of this

FREE TIME she has on her hand.

7. Newsome through this instant filing also

DEMANDS that this Court advise her of

any/all –CONFLICTS-OF-INTERESTS

known to its Judge(s) and Judicial Offi-

cial(s) warranting DISQUALIFICA-

TION/RECUSAL.

8. Newsome further REITERATES that un-

der the Constitution of the United States,

she is ENTITLED to a JURY Trial on the

issues that Judge Tom S. Lee USURPED

and/or ABUSED authority and rendered a

ruling on in which he with KNOWLEDGE

that he LACKED jurisdiction to act.

9. Newsome believes that the record evidence

will support this Court’s UNLAW-

FUL/ILLEGAL and UNETHICAL practic-

es in the role it is playing in the CON-

SPIRACIES leveled against Newsome.

Moreover, this Court’s KNOWLEDGE of

the role that Baker Donelson Bearman

Caldwell & Berkowitz (i.e. Legal Counsel

for Federal Judges/Judge Tom S. Lee, etc.,

the President of the United States of Amer-

ica (Barack Obama), Members of the Unit-

ed States Congress as well as Justices of

the Supreme Court of the United States,

etc.); however, did with WILLFUL and

MALICIOUS intent withhold perti-

nent/relevant information from Newsome.

Moreover, this Court’s KNOWLEDGE of

the “TAG-TEAM” Litigation – i.e. in which

Baker Donelson uses such firms as Named

Defendants’ Legal Counsel (Phelps Dun-

bar) to MASK/SHIELD their ROLE and

INTEREST in litigation involving New-

some. Pertinent/Relevant facts which have

been timely, properly and adequately

raised through Newsome’s pleadings in

this lawsuit. For instance, as recent as

Newsome’s July 25, 2012 pleading entitled,

“MOTION TO STRIKE MOTION TO STAY ALL

PROCEEDINGS PENDING A RULING ON DE-

FENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS and MEMO-

RANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STAY

ALL PROCEEDINGS PENDING A RULING ON

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS; Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions of and Against De-fendants; and Motion for Default Judg-ment (Jury Trial Demanded in this Action) – Doc No. 19, she states at approximately

27, Paragraph 49 (a):

. . .In fact, there is EVI-

DENCE of how Phelps Dun-

bar and Baker Donelson

TEAM UP and/or engage

JOINTLY in legal actions on

behalf of their clients. . .

For instance, Newsome’s RESEARCH has

yielded information wherein Baker Donel-

son engages in “TAG-TEAM Litigation” –

i.e. lawsuits in which Baker Donelson may

SHARE Clients also represented by other

Law Firms and SHARE in the expenses

and representation of clients. For in-

stance, see HOOD vs. HOFFMAN-LAROCHE, LTD, District of Columbia Dis-

trict Court, Case No. 1:06-cv-01484 – EX-

HIBIT “C” attached hereto and incorpo-

rated by reference as if set forth in full

herein – where Baker Donelson TAG-

TEAMS with Law Firms as Butler Snow O’Mara Stevens & Cannada PLLC (“Butler Snow”) and Phelps Dunbar LLP (“Phelps Dunbar”). Of course, like Baker Donelson,

their associating law firms enjoy sharing

their CLIENT LISTINGS with the PUB-

LIC.

While Phelps Dunbar is presently repre-

senting the Named Defendants (Page Kru-

ger & Holland P.A., Thomas Y. Page, Louis

G. Baine III, and Linda Thomas) in this

instant lawsuit, Butler Snow attempted to UNLAWFULLY/ILLEGALLY enter the

lawsuit WITHOUT making an appearance

before this Court styled Newsome vs. Mitchell McNutt & Sams (3:10-cv-0074).

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, please

docket this instant NOTICE OF FILING OF AN “ORIGI-

NAL” ACTION/APPEAL IN THE SUPREME COURT OF

THE UNITED STATES.

Respectfully submitted this 15TH day of September,

2012.

___________________________________

Vogel Newsome, PLAINTIFF - PRO SE

Post Office Box 14731

Cincinnati, Ohio 45250

Phone: (513) 680-2922 or (601) 885-9536

APPX “5”

AFFIDAVIT ONLY PROVIDED IN THIS APPENDIX:




V. CIVIL ACTION NO. _____________________________

APAGE KRUGER & HOLLAND , P.A.;

a Mississippi Corporation;

THOMAS Y. PAGE, in his official and

individual capacity; LOUIS G. BAINE, III,

in his official and individual capacity;

LINDA THOMAS, in her official and

individual capacity; and DOES 1-100,

in their official and individual capacities DEFENDANTS

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR CONFLICT OF INTEREST

INFORMATION, NOTICE OF OPPOSITION TO MAGIS-

TRATE JUDGE ASSIGNMENT; AND

NOTICE OF ADDRESS

For Pleading see:

https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a72648b595e

75bc719a






V. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-cv-00342

PAGE KRUGER &

HOLLAND P.A., ET AL. DEFENDANTS

VOGEL DENISE NEWSOME’S AFFIDAVIT OF

DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE TOM S. LEE 25

STATE OF OHIO )

) SS

COUNTY 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 Mo-

tions and Memorandum Brief in which

this Affidavit supports. Moreover, giving

rise to the lawsuit filed in this action.

25 NOTE: Boldface, caps, small-caps, italics, highlights and underline

represents “emphasis” added.

3. Newsome is competent to testify to the

matters set forth in the Complaint and

her subsequent pleadings filed.

4. Newsome is informed and believe, and

based on such information and belief, al-

lege that the Honorable Tom S. Lee, the

Judge before whom the above-entitled

lawsuit is pending, has a personal bias

and/or prejudice against her and is in fa-

vor of Defendants Page Kruger & Holland

P.A., Thomas Y. Page, Louis G. Baine III,

Linda Thomas and their Legal Coun-

sel/Attorneys Phelps Dunbar LLP/W.

Thomas Siler, Jr./Jason T. Marsh.

5. Judge Tom S. Lee has a personal bias

and/or prejudice against me and is there-

fore disqualified to act in the above-

numbered and entitled cause under the

provisions of 28 U.S.C.A. § 455 based on

the reasons set forth in the OBJEC-TION(S) To August 2, 2012 Order Of Judge Tom S. Lee; Motion For DISQUAL-IFICATION; AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL (“OBJECTION(S) TO 08/02/12 ORDER”) in which this Affidavit sup-

ports.

6. On or about May 12, 2012, Newsome

TIMELY and PROPERLY submitted for

filing her pleading entitled, Request for Conflict of Interest Information, Notice of Opposition to Magistrate Judge Assign-ment; and Notice of Address (Doc. No.

2)/EXHIBIT “D” of the pleading to which

this Affidavit supports.

EXHIBIT

“E”

7. The facts and the reasons for the belief

that such bias and/or prejudice exists are

as follows:

a) Judge Tom S. Lee’s bias and prejudice

towards Newsome.

b) Newsome has been and continues to

suffer irreparable injury harm as a di-

rect and proximate result of Judge Tom

S. Lee’s criminal/civil violations leveled

against her.

c) Judge Tom S. Lee’s acts are arbitrary

and MALICIOUS for purposes of caus-

ing Newsome injury/harm.

d) Judge Tom S. Lee’s is proceeding in this

lawsuit with KNOWLEDGE that he

lacks jurisdiction to preside over Law-

suit. Therefore, any and all claims to

Judge Lee may assert for Judicial IM-

MUNITY is NULL/VOID!

e) Appearance of impropriety.

f) Conflict of Interest exists.

g) Newsome has been deprived life, liberty

and pursuit of happiness.

h) Judge Tom S. Lee has a DU-

TY/OBLIGATION to make KNOWN

any/all conflicts of interest which pre-

cludes him from presiding over this

Lawsuit.

i) Newsome believes that further legal ac-

tions and the issuance of subpoena for

Judge Tom S. Lee will yield further evi-

dence of his DELIBERATE, WILLFUL

and MALICIOUS intent to destroy the

integrity of this Court and the judicial

process for purposes of providing his

CONSPIRATORS/CO-

CONSPIRATORS with an un-

due/unlawful/illegal advantage in Law-

suit.

j) Judge Tom S. Lee has substituted him-

self for the JURY which Newsome has

timely, properly and adequately DE-

MANDED and entered Order which has

deprived Newsome rights afford-

ed/secured and guaranteed under Rule

38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Proce-

dure, Seventh Amendment of the Unit-

ed States Constitution and other laws

of the United States governing rights to

Jury Trial.

k) Newsome did NOT waive her right to

JURY Trial and has REPEATEDLY as-

serted in her filings with this Court to

have claims/issues so triable decided by

a JURY – i.e. not Judge Tom S. Lee/this

Court. Newsome has NOT and does

NOT waive her RIGHT to Jury Trial on

triable issues/claims.

l) Judge Lee’s direct and personal finan-

cial/pecuniary interest in the outcome of

this Lawsuit.

m) Judge Tom S. Lee’s determination to

deprive Newsome of life, liberty, pursuit

of happiness and property, etc. and/or

rights secured/guaranteed under the

United States Constitution and other

laws of the United States governing

disqualification.

n) For the SAME reasons KNOWN and

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” of

“OBJECTION(S) TO 08/02/12 ORDER” in which this Affidavit supports – 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!

o) Baker Donelson is Legal Coun-

sel/Attorneys for Federal Judges Asso-

ciation. See EXHIBIT “S” “OBJEC-TION(S) TO 08/02/12 ORDER” in which


p) Baker Donelson played a MAJOR/KEY

role in having Judge Tom S. Lee ap-

pointed to the Judicial Bench.

q) Baker Donelson and Named Defend-

ants’ Counsel/Attorneys Phelps Dunbar

SHARE/SWAP attorneys. See EXHIB-

IT “T” “OBJECTION(S) TO 08/02/12 ORDER” in which this Affidavit sup-

ports. Moreover, SHARE Clients. In-

formation they are attempting to

SHIELD/HIDE from Newsome as well

as the PUBLIC-AT-LARGE!

r) 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 miscon-

duct.

s) Judge Tom S. Lee is in a position in

which he is usurping powers in which

he lacks jurisdiction and/or is prohibit-

ed to assert and attempting to perform

dual roles as investigator and adjudica-

tor – i.e. encroaching upon the duties

and/or responsibilities of the Jury DE-

MANDED by Newsome in this Lawsuit.

t) Judge Tom S. Lee’s August 2, 2012 Or-

der staying proceedings is an “ABUSE”

of discretion and an act carried out by

him to fulfill his ROLE in conspiracies

leveled against Newsome.

u) Judge Toms S. Lee appears, is a mate-

rial witness to this instant Lawsuit.

v) Judge Tom S. Lee has PERSONAL

knowledge and an interest in disputed

evidentiary facts.

w) Judge Tom S. Lee has a finan-

cial/pecuniary interest in this Lawsuit.

x) Judge Tom S. Lee’s decisions are rooted

and grounded in extrajudicial matters.

y) Judge Tom S. Lee’s August 2, 2012 Or-

der was executed for purposes of com-

mitting FRAUD upon this Court, pur-poses of delay, harassment, obstructing justice, increasing costs of litigation, embarrassment, sham/frivolousness, unduly burdensome practices, providing opposing parties (Defendants) with an undue/unlawful/illegal advantage in lawsuit, and other reasons known to Judge Tom S. Lee in the fulfillment of his role in conspiracies leveled against Newsome.

z) The integrity of this Court has been

compromised.

aa) Objection(s)/Reasons set forth in “OB-JECTION(S) TO 08/02/12 ORDER.”

bb) Newsome is presently engaging in Con-

gressional and/or further legal proceed-

ings in which a reasonable person

knowing the following facts and evi-

dence regarding the Governmental po-

sitions held/controlled by Baker Donel-

son Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz

(“Baker Donelson”):

Chief of Staff to the Presi-dent of the United States

United States Secretary of

State

United States Senate Ma-jority Leader

Members of the United States Senate

Members of the United States House of Repre-sentatives

Director of the Office of Foreign Assets Control for United States

Department of Treasury

Director of the Administra-tive Office of the United States

Chief Counsel, Acting Di-

rector, and Acting Deputy

Director of United States

Citizenship & Immigration

Services within the United States Department of Homeland Security

Majority and Minority

Staff Director of the Senate Committee on Appropria-tions

Member of United States President’s Domestic Poli-cy Council

Counselor to the Deputy Secretary for the United States Department of HHS

Chief of Staff of the Su-preme Court of the United States

Administrative Assistant

to the Chief Justice of the United States

Deputy under Secretary of International Trade for the United States Department of Commerce

Ambassador to Japan

Ambassador to Turkey

Ambassador to Saudi Ara-

bia

Ambassador to the Sultan-

ate of Oman

Governor of Tennessee

Governor of Mississippi

Deputy Governor and Chief of Staff for the Gov-ernor of Tennessee

Commissioner of Finance & Administration (Chief

Operating Officer) - State

of Tennessee

Special Counselor to the

Governor of Virginia

United States Circuit Court of Appeals Judge

United States District Court Judges

United States Attorneys

Presidents of State and Lo-cal Bar Associations

8. The “OBJECTION(S) TO 08/02/12 OR-DER” to which this Affidavit supports

and this Affidavit is being filed in good faith and is NOT imposed for purposes of

delay, harassment, hindering proceed-

ings, embarrassment, obstructing the

administration of justice, vexatious litiga-

tion, 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.

9. 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


10. Newsome OPPOSES and OBJECTS to

this Court’s allowing parties to abuse this

Court’s Electronic Filing System.

11. Newsome will be prejudiced by this

Court’s allowing the sham and frivolous

Motion to Dismiss and supporting Memo-randum In Support of Motion To Dismiss

to remain a part of the record in that they

have been filed in violation of the stat-

utes/laws governing said matters.

12. There are genuine issues of material fact

which precludes the filing of Motion to

Stay and the supporting Memorandum

Brief; wherein resulting in Newsome’s

Motion to Strike and Motion for Default Judgment as well as other relief set forth

in the Motions to which the Affidavit pro-

vided in support thereof.

13. All facts and/or claim set forth in the

Complaint are to be deemed as TRUE and

to date remain UNCONTESTED!

14. On or about June 6, 2012, Newsome time-ly, properly and adequately notified

“Named Defendants” – Page Kruger &

Holland, Thomas Y. Page, Louis G. Baine

III and Linda Thomas [hereinafter

“Named Defendants”] – of the conse-

quences (i.e. that she will file Motion to

Strike and/or Motion for Default Judg-

ment) should they fail to comply with the

statutes and laws governing said matters.

15. Newsome believes that based upon the

facts, evidence and legal conclusions pro-

vided in the Complaint and her subse-

quent 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 Motion to Dismiss and Memorandum Briefs with fraudulent intent – i.e. purposes of com-mitting fraud upon this Court.

16. Newsome believes that the record evi-

dence will sustain that Judge Tom S. Lee,

“Named Defendants” and their Coun-

sel/Attorneys are before this Court with

DIRTY HANDS!

17. 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 Judge Tom S.

Lee, Named Defendants and/or their

Counsel. Moreover, see through their

HIDDEN MOTIVES and AGENDAS!

18. The allegations set forth in the “OBJEC-TION(S) TO 08/02/12 ORDER” to which

this Affidavit supports can be supported

by factual evidence in the record of

“Named Defendants” as well as pleading

in this lawsuit.

19. Newsome believes that when this Court

allows the UNLAWFUL/ILLEGAL prac-

tices as that in the submittal of Motion to Stay and supporting Memorandum Brief,

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.

20. Newsome believes that a reasonable per-

son/mind provided with the facts, evi-

dence and legal conclusions provided re-

garding disputed issues/claims regarding

Motion to Stay will reach a decision con-

trary to Judge Tom S. Lee. Therefore,

Newsome has timely, properly and ade-

quately DEMANDED a JURY Trial!

21. Pursuant to Rule 26 of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure governing “INITIAL

DISCLOSURE,” the Named Defendants

have failed to provide Newsome with the

MANDATORY disclosure information

and Judge Tom S. Lee is CONSPIRING

with them to keep this information from

Newsome. Moreover, the PUBLIC-AT-

LARGE who may have an interest in this

lawsuit.

FURTHER, AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT,

Dated this 13th day of August, 2012.

___________________________

VOGEL DENISE NEWSOME,

Affiant

Subscribed and sworn to before me on the 13th day of Au-

gust, 2012.

____________________________________

NOTARY PUBLIC

Commission Expires:

11/19/12 - petition for original writ et al (pkh) - supreme court (stamped)

Documents

newsome timely

vogel den ise newsome

judge lee re

bench andor

judge tom s

docket sheet newsome

lee acts

lee possessedknowledge