08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE

AUGUST 25, 2012
TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
RESPONSE TO JUNE 28, 2012 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES’ DOCUMENTS RECEIVED – REQUEST FOR AN ANSWER
REGARDING WHAT IT IS THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA DOES NOT UNDERSTAND REGARDING VOGEL
DENISE NEWSOME’S PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT SOUGHT
TO BE FILED UNDER THE “ALL WRITS” STATUTE/LAW AND
GOVERNING UNITED STATES LAWS – AFFIDAVIT TO SUPPORT
COMPLIANCE WITH SUPREME COURT FILING REQUIREMENTS –
REQUEST TO BE NOTIFIED OF ANY/ALL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
English Version: https://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/082512-us-supreme-court-response
Please feel free to visit www.vogeldenisenewsome.net TRANSLATION Tool is in the TOP Right-Hand Corner

AUGUST 26, 2012 FAX CONFIRMATION TO UNITED STATES PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA
NOTIFYING OF PLEADING:

Page 1 of 1

In the United States of
America MONOPOLIES are
PROHIBITED/FORBIDDEN! So HOW, was ONE Country like the
United States of America ALLOWED to MONOPOLIZE and
CAUSE the WORST
DECEIVE so MANY Leaders and
GLOBAL ECONOMIC COLLAPSE in HISTORY and
REMAIN UNPUNISHED?

The United States of America CONTROLS/RUN the WORLD Bank and
UNITED NATIONS which are HOUSED on its soil. It appears
ONE LAW FIRM (Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell &
Berkowitz) has been allowed to HIJACK, RUN and CONTROL the
United States of America’s andGovernment
USE
“HOODS/FRONTS/PEOPLE/ORGANIZATIONS” to KEEP their
IDENTITY and TERRORIST ACTS HIDDEN from the PUBLIC/WORLD!

It is TIME to WAKE UP and get such TERRORISTS OUT
OF POWER!

Page 2 of 2

No. _____________________________________

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

VOGEL DENISE NEWSOME
PETITIONER
V.

STOR-ALL ALFRED, LLC;
JUDGE JOHN ANDREW WEST/
HAMILTON COUNTY (OHIO) COURT OF COMMON PLEAS; AND
DOES 1 THROUGH 250
RESPONDENT(S)

RESPONSE TO JUNE 28, 2012 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES’
DOCUMENTS RECEIVED – REQUEST FOR AN ANSWER REGARDING WHAT IT IS
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOES NOT
UNDERSTAND REGARDING VOGEL DENISE NEWSOME’S PETITION FOR
EXTRAORDINARY WRIT SOUGHT TO BE FILED UNDER THE “ALL WRITS”
STATUTE/LAW AND GOVERNING UNITED STATES LAWS – AFFIDAVIT TO
SUPPORT COMPLIANCE WITH SUPREME COURT FILING REQUIREMENTS –
REQUEST TO BE NOTIFIED OF ANY/ALL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST1

COMES NOW Petitioner, Vogel Denise Newsome – a/k/a Denise V. Newsome (“Newsome”

and/or “Petitioner Newsome”) – WITHOUT WAIVING HER RIGHTS and ARGUMENTS/ISSUES

and DEFENSES raised and/or set forth in the October 9, 2010 “Emergency Motion to Stay;

Emergency Motion for Enlargement of Time and Other Relief The United States Supreme Court

Deems Appropriate To Correct The Legal Wrongs/Injustices Reported Herein” (“EM/ORS”),

subsequent pleadings/submittals (i.e. which includes March 12, 2012 Petition for Extraordinary

Writ [“PFEW”] and Response To March 17, 2011 and April 27, 2011, Supreme Court Of The United

States’ Letters – Identifying Extraordinary Writ(s) To Be Filed and Writ(s) Under All Writs Act To

Be Filed (“RT031711&042711SCL”) as well as Newsome’s July 18, 2011 Letter entitled, Response

1
BOLDFACE, ITALICS, UNDERLINE, CAPS/Small Caps, etc. added for emphasis.

Page 1 of 118

to May 18, 2011 Mailing RETURNED Containing Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. Copy Of May 3,

2011 Pleading which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein at

EXHIBIT “A” of this instant filing; wherein Newsome TIMELY, PROPERLY and

ADEQUATELY demanded that the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States STEP

DOWN IMMEDIATELY! This instant filing entitled, RESPONSE TO JUNE 28, 2012

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES’ DOCUMENTS RECEIVED – REQUEST

FOR AN ANSWER REGARDING WHAT IT IS THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED

STATES OF AMERICA DOES NOT UNDERSTAND REGARDING VOGEL DENISE

NEWSOME’S PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT SOUGHT TO BE FILED

UNDER THE “ALL WRITS” STATUTE/LAW AND GOVERNING UNITED STATES

LAWS –AFFIDAVIT TO SUPPORT COMPLIANCE WITH SUPREME COURT FILING

REQUIREMENTS – REQUEST TO BE NOTIFIED OF ANY/ALL CONFLICTS OF

INTEREST (“RFANSWER”) is in response to this Court’s June 28, 2012 return of document(s) –

i.e. with NO LETTER explaining return of documents and errors (if any)

with the March 12, 2011 Petition for Extraordinary Writ. See EXHIBIT “B” – Photocopy Postage

Information of June 28, 2012 Mailing attached hereto and incorporated by reference.

PLEASE BE ADVISED that Newsome does NOT have time for the Supreme
Court of the United States’ FOOLISHNESS and CONTINUED efforts in “OBSTRUCTION of

JUSTICE” and “ABUSE of the JUDICIAL Process” as this Court CONTINUES to engage with

other CONSPIRATORS/CO-CONSPIRATORS in delaying the filing of Newsome’s TIMELY filed

“Petition For Extraordinary Writ” for purposes of getting United States of

America President Barack Hussein Obama II through the

Page 2 of 118

November 2012 Presidential Elections. Therefore, Newsome is moving

forward to utilize through any and/or all LEGAL means available to get the JUSTICE she and the

PUBLIC-AT-LARGE/INTERNATIONALLY Communities have been seeking for DECADES

AGAINST the United States of America’s CORRUPT Government REGIME! Nevertheless, in the

interest of justice and PRESERVATION of protected rights, Newsome submits this instant pleading.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Supreme Court of the United States was
TIMELY, PROPERLY and ADEQUATELY requested to advise Newsome of all “CONFLICT-

OF-INTEREST” that may be present in this Court’s handling of her lawsuit. However, to date, this

Court has REFUSED to advise Newsome of the CONFLICTS-OF-INTEREST that exist with this

Court – i.e. TIES/RELATIONSHIP to Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz [“Baker

Donelson”] and its Clients (i.e. such as United States of America President Barack Obama, United

States of America CONGRESS, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company

(i.e. which has legal counsel in this instant lawsuit), J.P.

Morgan Chase Bank, and other CONSPIRATORS/CO-CONSPIRATORS, etc. known to it). Instead,

this Court is attempting to COVER-UP/HIDE/SHIELD from Newsome and the PUBLIC-AT-

LARGE by deliberately SNEAKING out Baker Donelson employees such as James C. Duff –

DIRECTOR of Administrative Office of the United States Court APPOINTED by Justice John

Roberts and SNEAKING in one of Baker Donelson’s TAINTED/CORRUPT Judges (Thomas F.

Hogan) – See EXHIBIT “EE” attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full

herein. Moreover, failing to advise Newsome and/or the PUBLIC-AT-LARGE of what appears to

be Baker Donelson’s OWNERSHIP and/or CONTROL of the Supreme Court of the United States of

America and other Courts:

Page 3 of 118

PLEASE NOTE: If there is a problem with a Slideshare.net
Link, documents may be accessed at: www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/

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

http://www.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a7066875f626f789ea2

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/duff-james-cjudicialpositionsheldresignation

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/duff-jameswikipediaresignhighlighted-copy

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/duff-james-cduff-
announceresignationfromuscourts

http://www.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a7066875e6174a66e9e

http://www.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a7066875e6175b3b26a

and its MAJOR ROLE in the appointment of JUSTICES to this Court by seeing to it that its

employees are appointed to JUDICIAL NOMINATION PANELS:

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/nomination-judicial-panel

Moreover, that this Court failed to advise Newsome and/or the PUBLIC-AT-LARGE of the MAJOR

Roles James C. Duff and other employees of Baker Donelson REPEATEDLY plays in the

CONSPIRACIES with the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States to OBSTRUCT the

Administration of Justice as well as OBSTRUCT the filing of the Petition For Extraordinary Writ

for purposes of protecting this Court as well as the United States of America

EXECUTIVE Branch’s, United States of America LEGISLATIVE Branch’s,

United States of America JUDICIAL Branch’s and other CONSPIRATORS/CO-

CONSPIRATORS’ personal, financial and business interests from the LIABILITY

in the outcome of the above reference Lawsuit . This Court having FULL KNOWLEDGE

of James C. Duff’s employment and OBLIGATIONS to his employer Baker Donelson Bearman

Caldwell & Berkowitz (“Baker Donelson”) as well as this Court’s JUSTICES special

RELATIONSHIPS/CONNECTIONS to Baker Donelson as well. Nevertheless, neither

Page 4 of 118

this Court nor Parties involved made this information available to Newsome. Moreover,

KNOWLEDGE of Baker Donelson’s providing Legal Counsel/Advice to the United States of

America President Barack Obama see:

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/leggitt-lancesr-
advisortopresidenthhscounselorgovofva

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/leggitt-lance-bresearchinfo

http://www.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a7066875e6273b6a5ae

In further support of this instant filing, Newsome states the following:

1. This instant “RFANSWER” is submitted in good faith and is not submitted for
purposes of delay, harassment, hindering proceedings, embarrassment, obstructing
the administration of justice, vexatious litigation, increasing the cost of litigation, etc.
and is filed to protect and preserve the rights of Newsome secured/guaranteed under
the United States Constitution and other laws of the United States. Moreover, to
address matters of PUBLIC/GLOBAL/INTERNATIONAL importance and interests.

2. That the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of America was
TIMELY, PROPERLY and ADEQUATELY demanded to “STEP DOWN” by
Friday, July 22, 2011; however, to date still remain on the bench with
KNOWLEDGE of the CRIMINAL acts they have committed not ONLY against
Newsome but the PUBLIC-AT-LARGE through their CORRUPTION and
DECEPTIVE practices to HIDE/CONCEAL the criminal/civil wrongs of their Legal
Counsel/Advisor and CONSPIRATORS/CO-CONSPIRATORS Baker Donelson
Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz (“Baker Donelson”) – i.e. and Baker Donelson
Clients such as United States President Barack Obama, LIBERTY MUTUAL
INSURANCE (who have FRONTING law firms as Markesbery & Richardson Co.
and Schwartz Manes Ruby & Slovin representing in this instant lawsuit), etc.)
Document may be obtained at:

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/072311-email-
toobama-merged-with-attachment

Page 5 of 118

3. Newsome hereby DEMANDS that this Court advise her of any/all CONFLICTS-
Of-Interest that exist. In further support of this DEMAND please see the
following Table; however, additional CONFLICTS are MANDATORILY required to
be made KNOWN to Newsome as a matter of statutes/laws governing said matters.
It is a matter of PUBLIC/GLOBAL/INTERNATIONAL interests in that this Court is
the HIGHEST Court of the ONCE MOST powerful Country (United
The HIGHEST Court in
States of America) in the World.
whom one has to be either CATHOLIC or JEWISH
to be appointed – i.e. DISCIMINATORY and
UNCONSTITUTIONAL practices. The United States of
America in which its CONGRESS consist of approximately

100% ALL WHITE Senate and approximately 90%
ALL WHITE House of Representatives as recent as
the YEAR 2012!
The HIGHEST Court in the ONCE MOST powerful Country (United States of
America) which is AWARE of the CONFLICTS-Of-Interest present and FAILURE
to RECUSE and or STEP DOWN from serving. For instance, this Court is FULLY
AWARE and ALLOWING Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz to
CONTROL and MANIPULATE “Supreme Court DECISIONS” through
CRIMINAL acts and practices. Moreover, the Justices and the Staff of this
Court are WILLING PARTICIPANTS in Baker Donelson’s CONSPIRACIES and
CRIMINAL activities, and, therefore, present CONFLICTS-Of-Interest. See
EXHIBIT “DD” – Conduct or Bias of Law Clerk or Other Judicial Support
Personnel As Warranting Recusal of FEDERAL Judge or Magistrate (i.e. which
INCLUDE Justice(s) of the Supreme Court of the United States, attached hereto and
incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. The Justices of this Court
having KNOWLEDGE that it is Baker Donelson’s ACCESS and
CONTROL of the EXECUTIVE Branch/White House/United States
of America Presidents and LEGISLATIVE Branch/Congress/United States
Senators as their Legal Counsel/Advisor that led to their
NOMINATION and APPOINTMENT of Justices Baker
Donelson wanted!

During Newsome’s research on said matter(s), she came across an article in the
Minnesota Law Review entitled, “DISQUALIFICATION of Supreme Court
Justices: The Certiorari Conundrum,” in which for instance, provide an example:

Page 6 of 118

. . .the recent nomination of Stephen Breyer to the United States
Supreme Court raised the question of his participation as a “name”
in a Lloyd’s of London insurance syndicate. During the confirmation
hearings, Justice Breyer pledged that he would not participate in any
cases that implicated Lloyd’s financial interests. As a member of the
Court, he has declined to sit on cases involving Lloyd’s either
directly or indirectly. Other nominees in less controversial
circumstances have made similar disqualification commitments.
Since 1992, there have been OVER 350 cases, petitions, motions or
applications in which one or more Supreme Court Justices “took NO
part. . .”

at Page 659 See EXHIBIT “CC” – attached hereto and incorporated by reference as
if set forth in full herein. Nevertheless, when Newsome has come before this Court,
its Justices CLEARLY having KNOWLEDGE of the CONFLICTS-Of-Interest;
however, FAILED to recuse themselves and proceeded on to ENGAGE in
CRIMINAL wrongdoing and ROLE in Conspiracies to DEPRIVE Newsome EQUAL
protection of the laws, immunities and privileges and DUE PROCESS of laws
secured/guaranteed under the United States Constitution. As in the instant lawsuit,
the Justices of this Court are AWARE and/or have KNOWLEDGE of Baker
Donelson’s FINANCIAL interests in this lawsuit and that of its Clients – i.e.
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, United States of America
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA, the United States of America’s
CONGRESSIONAL Members and those with whom they CONSPIRE.

While Baker Donelson’s name may not appear as Legal 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 provide
additional evidence as to the ROLE it has played in the CONSPIRACIES leveled
against Newsome – i.e. being added in replacement of the unnamed “DOES 1
through 250” – and their INTERESTS in this instant lawsuit. Furthermore,
Newsome’s RESEARCH has yielded information wherein Baker Donelson 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 instance, see HOOD vs. HOFFMAN-LAROCHE,
LTD, District of Columbia District Court, Case No. 1:06-cv-01484 – EXHIBIT
“EE” attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein –
where Baker Donelson TAG-TEAMS with Law Firms as Butler Snow O’Mara
Stevens & Cannada PLLC (“Butler Snow”) and Phelps Dunbar LLP (“Phelps
Dunbar”). Of course, like Baker Donelson, their associating law firms enjoying
sharing their CLIENT LISTINGS with the PUBLIC. See for instance EXHIBIT
“FF” – Phelp Dunbars Listing and that of Page Kruger & Holland attached hereto
and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. SUBSTANTIAL
EVIDENCE is apparent through lawsuits in which Newsome engages. For instance:

In Newsome vs. Mitchell McNutt & Sams,
Butler Snow attempted to enter that lawsuit
WITHOUT making an appearance. Newsome

Page 7 of 118

TIMELY, PROPERLY and ADEQUATELY objected to these
CRIMINAL and CIVIL violations! Newsome believes that Baker
Donelson is involved and merely using Butler Snow as a FRONTING
Firm to HIDE/SHIELD its ROLE and INTERESTS in lawsuit. This
case is just sitting DORMANT as Baker Donelson and its
CONSPIRATORS and BRIBED/TAINTED and CORRUPT
Judge(s) to OBSTRUCT the administration of justice and
CONTINUE to engage in CRIMINAL and CIVIL violations leveled
against Newsome. http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/051912-
docket-sheet-mms A lawsuit in which one of Phelp Dunbar’s
Employees (F. Keith Ball) has been assigned as the Magistrate
Judge: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/071812-fax-to-
phelps-dunbar-w-thomas-siler-jr-jason-t-marsh This is a lawsuit
in which Baker Donelson had Magistrate Ball ABUSE his Authority
and WITHOUT Jurisdiction, etc. enter a NULL/VOID Order
STAYING the lawsuit. Now it appears 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 appeared as counsel and
is acting as the FRONTING Firm for Baker
Donelson and their INTERESTS. Judge Tom S. Lee is
assigned this matter. Judge Lee appears on Baker Donelson’s
LISTING of Judges: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/baker-
donelson-ties-to-judgesjustices-as-of120911-11566964 As well as Baker
Donelson appearing on Judge Lee’s List of Law Firms REQUIRING
his recusal: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/lee-judge-recusal-
orders-11574531

Newsome TIMELY, PROPERLY and ADEQUATELY made
her OBJECTIONS KNOWN to the 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 ADAMENT about staying in the
lawsuit for CRIMINAL intent and the FULFILLMENT of his ROLE
in the CONSPIRACIES leveled against Newsome. A matter which it
appears may 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.

This instant lawsuit is before this Court because of the
CRIMINAL acts of Baker Donelson and one of its TOP/KEY Clients
(LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY). They
CONTROL and RUN the Ohio Supreme Court as well. Moreover,
engage in CRIMINAL activities for purposes of obtaining decisions

Page 8 of 118

in their favor and that of their clients (i.e. in this instant lawsuit Stor-
All Alfred). YES, the proper CRIMINAL Complaint has been
filed with the United States Department of Justice/Federal Bureau of
Investigations; however, BAKER DONELSON is Legal
Counsel/Advisor for that Government Agency as well:
http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/122809-fbi-complaint-
ohio-supreme-court

NOW the SUPREME COURT of the United States of
America - - QUIT HIDING! PULL OFF THE
HOODS and SHOW YOUR TRUE FACES. A couple
of minorities on the bench is only ANOTHER one of
Baker Donelson’s FRONTS to HIDE/SHIELD their
TRUE RACIST IDEOLOGY:
Page 9 of 118

BAKER DONELSON
U.S. SUPREME COURT APPOINTED BY BEARMAN CALDWELL &
JUSTICE(S) U.S. PRESIDENT(S) BERKOWITZ

Samuel Alito: George W. Bush Legal Counsel/Advisor to President
http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise George W. Bush
/alito-samuel-wikipedia-info
Assistant to President Bush

CHIEF of Staff /Legal Counsel for
Vice President Richard (Dick)
Cheney

CHIEF of Staff/SENIOR Counsel to
Director of Federal Bureau of
Investigation (“FBI”)

DIRECTOR of Administrative
Office of the United States Courts

Legal Counsel to Members of
Congress

Legal Counsel to Justice Alito

Page 10 of 118

BAKER DONELSON

Stephen Breyer: William “Bill” Clinton Legal Counsel/Advisor to President
http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise Clinton
/breyer-stephen-wikipedia-info
Congress

Legal Counsel to Justice Breyer

Ruth Bader Ginsburg: William “Bill” Clinton Legal Counsel/Advisor to President
http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise Clinton
/ginsburg-ruth-bader-wikipedia-info
Congress

Legal Counsel to Justice Ginsburg

Page 11 of 118

BAKER DONELSON

Eleana Kagan: Barack Obama Legal Counsel/Advisor to President
http://www.slideshare.net/VogelD Obama
enise/kagan-elena-wikipedia-info
CHIEF of Staff for President
Barack Obama


Congress

Legal Counsel to Justice Kagan

Anthony Kennedy: Ronald Reagan Legal Counsel/Advisor to President
http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise Reagan
/kennedy-anthony-wikipedia-info
Reagan

Deputy Assistant

Congress

Legal Counsel to Justice Kennedy

Page 12 of 118

BAKER DONELSON

Chief Justice John Roberts: George W. Bush Legal Counsel/Advisor to President
http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise George W. Bush
/justice-john-g-roberts-wikipedia-info
Assistant to President Bush

CHIEF of Staff for Vice President
Richard (“Dick”) Cheney

CHIEF of Staff/SENIOR Counsel to
Director of Federal Bureau of
Investigation (“FBI”)


Congress

Legal Counsel to Justice Roberts

Antonin Scalia: Ronald Reagan Legal Counsel/Advisor to President
http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise Reagan
/scalia-antonin-wikipedia-info
Reagan

Congress

Legal Counsel to Justice Scalia

Page 13 of 118

BAKER DONELSON

Sonia Sotomayor: Barack Obama Legal Counsel/Advisor to President
http://www.slideshare.net/VogelD Obama
enise/sotomayor-sonia-wikipedia-
info-11693471 CHIEF of Staff for President
Barack Obama


Congress

Legal Counsel to Justice
Sotomayor

Clarence Thomas: George H.W. Bush Legal Counsel to George H.W.
http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise Bush
/thomas-clarence-wikipedia-info
SECRETARY of State

Special Assistant to Secretary of
Defense

General Counsel to Department of
Defense

Congress

Legal Counsel to Justice Thomas

Page 14 of 118

4. On or about January 11, 2011, this Court’s Clerk’s Office (Ruth Jones)

The above-entitled petition for an extraordinary writ seeking
unspecified relief was received on January 11, 2011. The papers are
returned for the following reason(s):

You must specify the type of relief being sought. Rule 20.

Please see Rule 20 of the enclosed rules regarding the types of
relief, i.e. petition for an extraordinary writ of habeas corpus, wirt (sic)
of prohibition, writ of mandamus.

The text of the petition has been photoreduced.

The text of the petition and appendix must be typeset in a
Century family (e.g., Century Expanded, New Century Schoolbook, or
Century Schoolbook) 12-point type with 2-point leading between lines.
The typeface of footnotes must be 10-point or larger wit (sic) 2-point or
more leading between lines. Rule 33.1(b).

Please note that it is not necessary to file a motion for leave to
file this petition.

Please correct and return the petition to this office as soon as
possible. This office will retain one copy of the petition and your
check in the amount of $300.00.

PLEASE NOTE: Newsome’s January 2011 Petition for Extraordinary Writ
was PHOTOCOPIED as noted. See EXHIBIT “BB” attached hereto and
incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. With the returned documents,
Ms. Jones provided Newsome with a “Rules of the Supreme court of the United
States” – Effective February 16, 2010. See EXHIBIT “C” – Rules attached hereto
and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein.
Ms. Jones also provided Newsome with a “SAMPLE” Pleading
from Dorothy Owens vs. National Health Corporation, et al. to use as
a guide in the preparation of PFEW. See EXHIBIT “D” – Dorothy Owens
pleading attached hereto and incorporated by reference.
Furthermore, it appears from the receipt of this Court’s June 19, 2011
mailing (i.e. which was timely responded to) that it has used DILATORY tactics as a
role being played in CONSPIRACIES to FINANCIALLY devastate Newsome for
purposes of keeping her from litigating this matter. Said CRIMINAL and
UNLAWFUL/ILLEGAL practices by this Court may be established in how since
bringing this lawsuit, ATTACKS have REPEATEDLY been made on her Bank
Account(s), Employment UNLAWFULLY/ILLEGALLY terminated, FRIVOLOUS
lawsuit(s) being filed against her, etc. See EXHIBIT “GG” - GUIDE FOR
PROSPECTIVE INDIGENT PETITIONERS FOR WRITS OF CERTIORARI
attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein.

5. Pursuant to Rule 17 (Procedure in an Original Action) of the Supreme Court of the
United States as well as Rule 20 (Procedure on a Petition for an Extraordinary Writ)
of the Supreme Court - See EXHIBIT “C” Rules of Supreme Court attached hereto
and incorporated by reference - and other statutes/laws governing said matters,

Page 15 of 118

Newsome submitted her TIMELY March 12, 2011 PFEW in accordance with Rule
33 of the Supreme Court.

6. Due to the EXTRAORDINARY and EXCEPTIONAL circumstances regarding this
lawsuit, the Extraordinary Writ sought through the Petition of Extraordinary Writ
CANNOT be limited to just ONE – i.e. in that there are MULITPLE violations and
legal issues involved that are covered under a MULTIPLE number of Writs that are
WITHIN this Court’s Jurisdiction under the “ALL WRITS” statute/laws governing
said matters. Furthermore, this lawsuit is of a HISTORICAL as well as Legal
GROUNDBREAKING magnitude that this Court may not have ever dealt with.
Furthermore, involves matters that are of PUBLIC/GLOBAL/INTERNATIONAL
Interests.

7. Newsome’s Petition for Extraordinary Writ has been brought pursuant to 28 USC §
1651:

28 USC § 1651 Writs:
(a) The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of
Congress may issue ALL writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their
respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of
law.

Section 376 provided:
“. . . The Supreme Court. . . shall have power to issue ALL
writs NOT specifically provided for by statute, which may be
NECESSARY for the exercise of their respective jurisdictions, and
agreeable to the usages and principles of law.”

See EXHIBIT “E” attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in
full herein.

Ex parte Fahey, 67 S.Ct. 1558 (1947) - United States Supreme
Court has power to issue extraordinary writs . . .but such
remedies should be resorted to only where appeal is clearly
inadequate, and they are reserved for really extraordinary
causes.

Black’s Law Dictionary (8th Edition): All Writs Act – A federal statute
that gives the U.S. Supreme Court and all courts established by
Congress the power to issue writs in aid of their jurisdiction and in
conformity with the usages and principles of law.

Black’s Law Dictionary – Second Pocket Edition:
Writ: A court’s written order, in the name of a state or other
competent legal authority, commanding the addressee to do or refrain
from doing some specified act.

Extraordinary Writ: A writ issued by a court exercising
unusual or discretionary power.

Original Writ: A writ commencing an action and directing
the defendant to appear and answer.

Page 16 of 118

U.S. v. Denedo, 129 S.Ct. 2213 (U.S.,2009) - Under the All Writs Act,
a court's power to issue any form of relief, extraordinary or otherwise,
is contingent on that court's subject-matter jurisdiction 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
circumstances. (Per Chief Justice Rehnquist, sitting as single Justice.)
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
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).

and other statutes/laws of the United States governing said matters.

8. Because of a personal engagement to which
Newsome was invited to at Florida A&M University
regarding the her participation as one of the Grand
Marshals (See EXHIBIT “F” attached hereto and
incorporated by reference), she obtained the
assistance of FedEX Office in the preparation of her
March 12, 2011 PFEW so as NOT to miss the

60-DAY Deadline to file
her Petition for Extraordinary Writ and still attend the Relays and
special events at Florida A&M University. Furthermore, to support that
Newsome’s PFEW was in compliance with the Supreme Court Rules, she requested
that FedEX Office review the June 28, 2012 Booklet(s) returned and to verify they
meet this Court’s pleading requirements. In so doing, Newsome was able to obtain
the AFFIDAVIT of JOSH MILLER, which provides his testimony that Newsome’s
March 12, 2012 PFEW is in COMPLIANCE with the Supreme Court Rules
governing said pleadings. See EXHIBIT “G” – Affidavit of Josh Miller attached
hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. FedEX Office
SPECIALIZES in the PRINTING and production of documents – i.e. booklets as that
required by this Court. Therefore, Newsome turned to FedEX Office Support Staff to
assist her in the production of PFEW and relied upon the Dorothy Owens vs. National
Health Corporation, et al. provided by this Court to assure compliance. Mr. Miller
testifies to the fact that:

Page 17 of 118

. . .received and viewed approximately four (4) Booklets entitled, “In Re
Vogel Denise Newsome On Petition For EXTRAORDINARY WRIT To
The Supreme Court Of Ohio” and is competent to provide the following
findings in regards to the Supreme Court of the United States Rule 33
regarding these pleadings:

Rule 33 – Document Preparation Booklet Format;
8½ - by 11-Inch Paper Format

1. Booklet Format (a) Except for a document
expressly permitted by these Rules to be
submitted on 8½ by 11-inch paper, see e.g.,
Rules 21, 22, and 39, every document filed
with the Court shall be prepared in a 6⅛ - by
9¼-inch booklet format using a standard
typesetting process (e.g. hot metal,
phocomposition, or computer typesetting) to
produce text printed in typographic (as
opposed to typewriter) characters. The
process used must produce a clear, black
image on white paper. The text must be
reproduced with a clarity that equals or
exceeds the output of a laser printer.

That I have viewed and/or checked the four (4) Booklets returned by
the Supreme Court of the United States and testify to the following:

(a) That the Booklets entitled, “In Re Vogel Denise Newsome On
Petition For EXTRAORDINARY WRIT To The Supreme Court Of
Ohio” were prepared in 6⅛ - by 9¼-inch booklet format using a
standard typesetting process – i.e. computer typesetting – to
produce text printed in typographic characters and the process
used is one that produces a clear, black image on white paper
and is reproduced with a clarity that equals or exceeds the
output of a laser printer as required by Rule 33 of the Rules of the
Supreme Court of the United States.

2. The text of every booklet-format document,
including any appendix thereto, shall be
typeset in a Century family (e.g., Century
Expanded, New Century Schoolbook, or
Century Schoolbook) 12-point type with 2-
point or more leading between lines.
Quotations in excess of 50 words shall be
indented. The typeface of footnotes shall be
10-point type with 2-point or more leading
between lines. The text of the document must
appear on both sides of the page.

Page 18 of 118

(b) That the Booklets entitled, “In Re Vogel Denise Newsome On
Ohio” including the appendix is in typeset using Century 12-
point font with 2-point or more leading between lines. That
Quotations in excess of 50 words have been indented. That the
typeface of footnotes are 10-point with 2-point or more leading
between lines and the text of the document appears on both sides
of the page as required by Rule 33 of the Rules of the Supreme
Court of the United States.

3. Every booklet-format document shall be
produced on paper that is opaque, unglazed,
and not less than 60 pounds in weight, and
shall have margins of at least three-fourths of
an inch on all sides. The text field, including
footnotes, may not exceed 4⅛ by 7⅛ inches.
The document shall be bound firmly in at least
two places along the left margin (saddle stitch
or perfect binding preferred) so as to permit
easy opening, and no part of the text should be
obscured by the binding. Spiral, plastic,
metal, or string bindings may not be used.
Copies of patent documents, except opinions,
may be duplicated in such size as is necessary
in a separate appendix.

(c) That the Booklets entitled, “In Re Vogel Denise Newsome On
Ohio” including the appendix have been produced on paper that
is opaque, unglazed and not less than 60 pounds in weight and
have margins of at least three-fourths of an inch on all sides.
Furthermore, the text fields, including footnotes do NOT exceed
4⅛ by 7⅛ inches. The booklets have been firmly bound in at
least two places along the left margin so as to permit easy
opening and NO part of the text has been obscured by the
binding (i.e. stapled binding which is permissible) as required by
Rule 33 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States.

4. Rule 33(d) - Every booklet-format document
shall comply with the word limits shown on
the chart in subparagraph 1(g) of this Rule.
The word limits do NOT include the questions
presented, the list of parties and the corporate
disclosure statement, the table of contents, the
table of cited authorities, the listing of counsel
at the end of document, or any appendix. The
word limit includes footnotes. Verbatim
quotations required under Rule 14.1(f), if
set out in the text of brief rather than the
appendix, are also EXCLUDED. . .

Page 19 of 118

(d) That the Booklets entitled, “In Re Vogel Denise Newsome On
Ohio” including the appendix comply with the word limits and
was accompanied by the required “CERTIFICATE OF
COMPLIANCE” provided by Vogel Denise Newsome. The
word limits do NOT include the questions presented, the list of
parties, the corporate disclosure statement, the table of contents,
the table of cited authorities, the listing of counsel at the end of
document or any appendix and does NOT include verbatim
quotations regarding the constitutional provisions, treaties,
statutes, ordinances and regulations involved in the case, set out
verbatim with appropriate citation that are required pursuant to
Rule 14.1(f) and as required by Rule 33 of the Rules of the
Supreme Court of the United States.

5. Every booklet-format document shall have a
suitable cover consisting of 65-pound weight
paper in the color indicated on the chart in
subparagraph 1(g) of this Rule. If a separate
appendix to any document is filed, the color of
its cover shall be the same as that of the cover
of the document it supports. . . .

(e) That the Booklets entitled, “In Re Vogel Denise Newsome On
Ohio” were prepared using suitable cover (i.e. WHITE)
consisting of 65-pound weight paper in the color indicated on the
chart in subparagraph 1(g) of Rule 33 of the Supreme Court of the
United States.

6. A document prepared under Rule 33.1 must be
accompanied by a certificate signed by the
attorney, the unrepresented party, or the
preparer of the document stating that the brief
complies with the word limitations. The
person preparing the certificate may rely on
the word count of the word processing system
used to prepare the document. The word
processing system must be set to include
footnotes in the word count. The certificate
must state the number of words in the
document. The certificate shall accompany
the document when it is presented to the Clerk
for filing and shall be separate from it. . .

(f) That the Booklets entitled, “In Re Vogel Denise Newsome On
Ohio” were prepared with an APPENDIX in accordance with
Rules 14 of the Supreme Court of the United States specifically,
Rule 14 (g)(i):

Page 20 of 118

A concise statement of the case setting out the facts
material to consideration of the questions presented,
and also containing the following:

(i) If review of a state-court judgment is
sought, specification of the stage in the
proceedings, both in the court of first
instance and in the appellate courts, when
the federal questions sought to be reviewed
were raised; the method or manner of raising
them and the way in which they were passed
on by those courts; and pertinent quotations
of specific portions of the record or
summary thereof, with specific reference to
the places in the record where the matter
appears (e.g. court opinion, ruling on
exception, portion of court’s charge and
exception thereto, assignment of error), so as
to show that the federal question was timely
and properly raised and that this Court has
jurisdiction to review the judgment on a
writ. . .When the portions of the record
relied on under this subparagraph are
voluminous, they shall be included in the
appendix referred to in subparagraph 1(i) . . .

and consists of only approximately Fifteen (15) distinctly
numbered Appendixes which are NOT voluminous and consist
of ONLY approximately 54 pages (i.e. containing double-sided
printing) and follow the Petition For Extraordinary Writ in
accordance to Rule 33 of the Supreme Court of the United States.
...
5. That the January 12, 2011 letter provided to Vogel Denise Newsome
with the return of approximately four (4) of the 41 Petitions of
Extraordinary Writ dated March 12, 2011, received by the Supreme
Court of the United State on or about March 17, 2012 is NOT applicable
and neither does it address ANY violations under Rule 33 of the
Supreme Court of the United States and may have been returned in
ERROR without careful review by the Court. Furthermore, appear to be
ERRONEOUS findings relying on a PRE-DATED letter of January 12,
2011 for document received by the Supreme Court of the United States
on March 17, 2011 – i.e. a date AFTER the corrected Petitions of
Extraordinary Writ.

Therefore, supporting that this Court’s REPEAT FAILURE to
provide Newsome with the DEFICIENCIES as done with her
January 6, 2011 pleading, is a direct and proximate result that there
are NO errors with Newsome’s March 12, 2011 PFEW submitted to
this Court.

Page 21 of 118

9. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: That at this time Newsome will NOT
be submitting any additional and/or new copies of the Petition For Extraordinary

because her MARCH 12, 2011 Petition
Writ,
For Extraordinary Writ submitted and RECEIVED by
this Court is in COMPLIANCE with the Supreme
Court of the United States Guidelines.
http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/031211-petition-
forextraordinarywrit-exhibits-final

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/031211-usps-mailingreceipts

While this Court’s May 4, 2012 letter is signed by Redmond K. Barnes, it was
submitted under the name of William Suter and with his approval. While it does
NOT take much for this Court’s IGNORANCE and the STUPIDITY to show
through Mr. Suter’s May 4, 2012 letter, it is important that Newsome point out the
following in that this matter has become one of PUBLIC/GLOBAL Interest (i.e.
Nationally and INTERNATIONALLY), and, therefore, it is IMPORTANT for
FOREIGN Nations/Leaders/Citizens to see for themselves how the HIGHEST Court
in the United States of America engages in CRIMINAL activities and their ROLE in
CONSPIRACIES to deprive Newsome EQUAL protection of the laws,
IMMUNITIES and PRIVILEGES under the laws and DUE PROCESS of laws as
DESPERATELY scramble in trying to get United
they
States of America President Barack Obama back into
the WHITE HOUSE and to keep his
CRIMINAL/CIVIL wrongs HIDDEN from
PUBLIC/GLOBAL views and/or eyes! The record evidence
supports that the Supreme Court of the United States of America received
Newsome’s MARCH 12, 2012 Petition of Extraordinary Writ on or about March
16, 2011. Furthermore, that this Court on or about May 6, 2011, received
Newsome’s TIMELY May 3, 2011 "Response To March 17, 2011 and April 27,
2011, Supreme Court Of The United States' Letters - Identifying Extraordinary
Writ(s) To Be Filed and Writ(s) Under All Writs Act To Be Filed."

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/050311-ltr-
justicerobertssuterfinal

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/050311-rand-paulletter

which answers this Court’s letters of March 17, 2011 and April 27, 2011, as to what
ORIGINAL LawsuitS are being sought to be filed under the “ALL Writs
Act” which falls within this Court’s JURISDICTION and said “ALL Writs Act”
Page 22 of 118

actions which are LEGALLY and LAWFULLY authorized to be filed as stated in
May 3, 2011 Responsive pleading.

10. Newsome has timely requested that FedEX Office provide her with an estimate of
how much it would cost to REPRINT and produce the PFEW Booklets if this Court
does not have them. According to the Affidavit of Josh Miller at EXHIBIT “G,”
FedEX Office estimates that the cost for RE-DOING this job is approximately
$304.00 and DOES NOT include postage and other costs associated with having to
RE-DO this job if this Court no longer has the pleadings. See ¶6, Page 5 of said
Affidavit. Newsome is NOT required to bear the costs to RE-DO
pleadings that are already in COMPLIANCE and this Court has
FAILED to address DEFICIENCIES (if any – because there are
NONE) with the March 12, 2011 PFEW.

11. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE: That it is both
UNLAWFUL/ILLEGAL and UNETHICAL for this Court to engage in criminal
activities/conspiracies to obstruct the administration of justice and the filing of
pleadings with this Court that meet the pleading requirements and the $300.00
Filing Fee has been provided. United States Money Order no. 19256593937
which accompanies this instant filing:

12. PLEASE BE ADVISED: That according to this Court’s letter of
August 1, 2011, the ONLY action required to get the Petition For
was the providing of the “$300.00”
Extraordinary Writ
FILING FEE to replace check that had expired.
Newsome submitted the “FILING FEE” to her Kentucky Senator Rand Paul
requesting he handle this on her behalf on or about August 31, 2011/September 1,

Page 23 of 118

2011 through pleading entitled, "UNITED STATES KENTUCKY SENATOR
RAND PAUL: Request Of Status Of INVESTIGATION(S) Request Regarding
United States President Barack Obama and Government Agencies/Officials;
Assistance In Getting Petition For Extraordinary Writ Filed; and Assistance In
Receipt of Relief PRESENTLY/IMMEDIATELY Due Newsome - WRITTEN
Response Requested By THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2011." In which,
this Court is FULLY aware of because it was provided with a
copy of document(s).
http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/083111-ltr-
senatorrandpaulcorrected-versionwithmailingreceipts

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/083111-rand-
pauluspsmokyinforedacted-forwebsiteversion

PLEASE BE ADVISED: That this Court was advised as early as
August 31, 2011, that United States of America Kentucky Senator Rand Paul had
been provided with the “FILING FEE” for submittal to this Court to get the Petition
For Extraordinary Writ filed; however, from Newsome’s research, he too appears to
be engaged in CRIMINAL CONSPIRACIES with Baker Donelson and Liberty

Mutual Insurance Company in that Senator Rand Paul has benefitted from
BIG/MAJOR FINANCIAL Donations:

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/paul-randfinancial-contributions

It appears that since going PUBLIC/GLOBAL in EXPOSING the CORRUPTION in
the BRANCHES of the United States of America’s Government, that on or about
June 4, 2012, United States of America Kentucky Senator Rand Paul has
RETURNED the Money Order(s) submitted to his attention for handling to
Newsome. United States of America Kentucky Senator Rand Paul stating in part:

“Thank you for contacting me regarding the legality of the
present administration. While I respect your concerns my
office cannot file legal documents on your behalf. I have
therefore instructed my staff to return the items set including
the money orders.

Page 24 of 118

Enclosed are the following items: . . .
- 1 Postal Money Order Serial Number 19256593937
- 1 Postal Money Order Serial Number 19256907306
- Documents dated Aug. 31, 2011
- “Pink Slip” document

See EXHIBIT “H” copy of the June 4, 2012 Letter ONLY attached hereto and
incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. – i.e. a REQUEST which is
INDEED “WITHIN the JURISDICTION” of the United States Senate and has been
TIMELY, PROPERLY and ADEQUATELY submitted to United States of
America Kentucky Senator Rand Paul for PROCESSING and HANDLING.
Nevertheless, instead Newsome and the PUBLIC-AT-LARGE have to now deal with
the “FRIVOLOUS” ATTEMPTS of Senator Rand Paul and CONGRESS to get
United States of America President Barack Obama to the 2012 Presidential Elections.
Therefore, at this time, the ONLY Response this Court
is going to get is this instant pleading and AGAIN,
Newsome’s REITERATION of the May 3, 2011
pleading entitled, "Response To March 17, 2011 and
April 27, 2011, Supreme Court Of The United States'
Letters - Identifying Extraordinary Writ(s) To Be
Filed and Writ(s) Under All Writs Act To Be Filed:"
http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/050311-ltr-justicerobertssuterfinal

submitted for filing with the Supreme Court of the United States of America and
ANSWERS this Court’s question(s) as to the Lawsuit(s) sought to be filed. Through
this instant filing, Newsome further provide:

RESPONSE TO JUNE 28, 2012 SUPREME COURT OF
THE UNITED STATES’ DOCUMENTS RECEIVED –
REQUEST FOR AN ANSWER REGARDING WHAT IT IS
THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA DOES NOT UNDERSTAND REGARDING
VOGEL DENISE NEWSOME’S PETITION FOR
EXTRAORDINARY WRIT SOUGHT TO BE FILED
UNDER THE “ALL WRITS” STATUTE/LAW AND
GOVERNING UNITED STATES LAWS – AFFIDAVIT TO
SUPPORT COMPLIANCE WITH SUPREME COURT
FILING REQUIREMENTS – REQUEST TO BE
NOTIFIED OF ANY/ALL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

which CLEARLY sets forth the ORIGINAL actions under the “ALL Writs
Act” that is within the JURISDICTION of the Supreme Court of the United States
of America to handle and process!

Page 25 of 118

13. PLEASE BE ADVISED that at this time, Newsome is
requesting in WRITING by Friday, SEPTEMBER
14, 2012, that the Supreme Court of the United States/William K. Suter provide
her with what it is this Court does NOT understand about the May 3, 2011
Responsive Pleading submitted and RECEIVED by the Supreme Court of the United
States. Furthermore, by Friday, SEPTEMBER 14, 2012,
CLEARLY SET FORTH the DEFICIENCIES (if any) in
the March 12, 2012 Petition for Extraordinary Writ
submitted to this Court for filing and received on or about
MARCH 17, 2011: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/031211-
petition-forextraordinarywrit-exhibits-final.

14. As shared, these matters have become a matter of PUBLIC/GLOBAL interest both
Nationally and INTERNATIONALLY. Therefore, please advise Newsome
whether or not the Supreme Court of the United States of America is
REFUSING to file her Lawsuit under the “ALL Writs Act” and, if so,
WHY?
15. On or about March 17, 2011, this Court advised Newsome that:

The above-entitled petition for an extraordinary writ seeking
unspecified relief was received on March 17, 2011.

Please inform this office by letter, as soon as possible, what
type of extraordinary writ you are seeking to file, i.e. extraordinary writ
of mandamus, mandamus/prohibition, habeas corpus.

This office will retain all the copies of the petition.

See EXHIBIT “I” attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full
herein.

PLEASE NOTE: NOTHING in this Court’s March 17, 2011 letter
advising that Newsome’s PFEW does NOT meet the pleading requirements because
it DOES! All this Court is NOW requiring is that Newsome “inform this office by
letter, as soon as possible, what TYPE of extraordinary writ” she is seeking. On or
about April 22, 2011, Newsome TIMELY responded to this Court’s March 17, 2011
request. See EXHIBIT “J” - Response To March 17, 2011 Supreme Court of the
United States’ Letter (i.e. wherein at about Pages 18 and 19, Newsome provides this
Court with the LIST of WRITS to be filed:

a. Original Writ

Original Writ: A writ commencing an action and
directing the defendant to appear and answer.

Page 26 of 118

Thus, the U.S. Supreme Court has a continuing
power to issue extraordinary writs in aid of either
its original jurisdiction2 including as a part of
jurisdiction(s) the exercise of general supervisory
control over the court system – state or federal: 3

b. Writ of Conspiracy4

Writ of Conspiracy: A writ against one who
conspired to injure the plaintiff. . .

Salinas v. U.S., 118 S.Ct. 469 (1997) - Conspiracy may exist and
be punished whether or not substantive crime ensues, for
is distinct evil, dangerous to
conspiracy
public, and so punishable in itself.
It is possible for person to conspire for
commission of crime by third person.

U.S. v. Schaffer, 586 F.3d 414 (C.A.6.Ohio,2009) - Because the
illegality of an agreement to commit an unlawful act, as the
basis of a conspiracy charge, does not depend upon the
achievement of its ends, it is irrelevant that it may be objectively
impossible for the conspirators to commit the substantive
offense; indeed, it is the mutual understanding or agreement
itself that is criminal, and whether the object of the scheme
actually is, as the parties believe it to be, unlawful is irrelevant.

c. Writ of Course

Writ of Course: A writ issued as a matter of
course or granted as a matter of right.

Gormley v. Clark, 10 S.Ct. 554 (1890) - A court of equity
has power to issue writs of assistance or possession for
the purpose of enforcing its orders and decrees.
2
See Ex parte Hung Hang, 108 U.S. 552, 553, 2 S.Ct. 863, 27 L.Ed. 811 (1883) (Court has authority to issue writ);
Pennsylvania v. Wheeling Belmont Bridge Co., 59 U.S. 421, 431, 15 L.Ed. 435 (1885) (“act of congress cannot have the effect 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 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 nature the
right of superintending the inferior tribunals.”).
3
See e.g., Connor v. Coleman, 440 U.S. 612, 624, 99 S.Ct. 1523, 59 L.Ed. 2d 619 (1979) (“When a lower. . .court refuses to
give effect to, or misconstrues our mandate, its actions are controlled by this Court. . .”); MCullough v. Cosgrave, 309 U.S. 634, 635, 60
S.Ct. 703, 84 L.Ed. 992 (1940) (Court directed . . . Court judge to vacate order and retry cases expediently); Ex parte 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
execution). - - Vol. 23 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 520.02[2] (Matthew Bender 3d ed.).
4
Respondent (conspirator) becomes the agent of the other conspirator (s), and any act done by one of the combination 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).

Page 27 of 118

In re Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co., 41 S.Ct. 288
(U.S.Ohio,1921) - Prohibition will issue if the lower court
is clearly without jurisdiction over petitioner, who, at the
outset, objected to the jurisdiction, had preserved his
rights by appropriate procedure, and had no other remedy.
..

d. Writ of Detinue

Writ of Detinue: A common law action to
recover personal property wrongfully taken by
another.

“A claim in detinue lies at the suit of a
person who has an immediate right to
possession of the goods against the person
who is in actual possession of them, and
who, upon proper demand, fails or refuses
to deliver them, and who, upon proper
demand, fails or refuses to deliver them up
WITHOUT lawful excuse. Detinue at the
present day has two main uses. In the
FIRST place, the plaintiff may desire the
SPECIFIC restitution of his chattels and
NOT damages for their conversion. He
will then sue in detinue, NOT in trover. In
the SECOND place, the plaintiff will have
to sue in detinue if the defendant sets up
no claim of ownership and has not been
guilty of trespass. . .

Poindexter v. Greenhow, 5 S.Ct. 903 (1885) - In cases of
detinue the action is purely defensive on the part of the
plaintiff. Its object is merely to resist an attempted wrong
and to restore the status in quo as it was when the right to
be vindicated was invaded. .. . .

Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Howell Bros. Truck & Auto
Repair Inc., 325 So.2d 562 (1975) - Where defendant's
possession of property is wrongful, a demand is not
necessary to recover damages for detention.

e. Writ of Entry

Writ of Entry: A writ that allows a person
WRONGFULLY disposed of real property to
enter and RETAKE the property.

Page 28 of 118

f. Writ of Exigi Facias

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
requiring the person against whom it is issued to
appear and show cause why some matter of record
should not be annulled or vacated, or why a
dormant judgment against that person should not
be revived.

Wayman v. Southard, 23 U.S. 1 (U.S.Ky.,1825) - Under
Judiciary Act . . . providing that court shall have power to
issue writs of scire facias . . . and all other writs not
specially provided by statute which may be necessary for
the exercise of their jurisdiction, the general term “writs”
is NOT restrained to original process or to process
anterior to judgment.

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.

g. Writ of Formedon

Writ of Formedon: A writ of right for claiming
entailed property held by another. A writ of
formedon was the highest remedy available to a
tenant.

Monagas v. Vidal, 170 F.2d 99 (1948) - An action of
“revendication” is an action by which a man demands a
thing of which he claims to be the owner, and action
relates to immovables as well as movables, and to
corporeal or incorporeal things.

Public Service Co. of New Hampshire v. Voudoumas, 151
A. 81 (1930) - Writ of entry is essentially possessory in
character.

h. Writ of Injunction

Writ of Injunction: A court order commanding or
preventing an action. - - To get an injunction, the
complainant MUST show that there is no plain,
adequate, and complete remedy at law and that an
IRREPARABLE injury will result unless the relief is
granted.

Page 29 of 118

U.S. v. Oregon State Medical Soc., 72 S.Ct. 690 (1952) -
Notwithstanding that injunctive relief is MANDATORY
in form, such relief is to undo existing conditions, because
otherwise they are likely to continue.

Porter v. Lee, 66 S.Ct. 1096 (U.S.Ky.,1946) - Where a
defendant with notice in an injunction proceeding
contemplates the acts sought to be enjoined, the court may
by MANATORY injunction restore the status quo.

i. Writ of Mandamus

Writ of Mandamus: A writ issued by a superior
court to COMPEL a lower court or a government
officer to PERFORM MANDATORY and purely
MINISTERIAL duties CORRECTLY.

“Alternative Mandamus: A
mandamus issued upon the FIRST
application of relief, COMMANDING
the defendant either to PERFORM the
act DEMANDED or to APPEAR before
the court at a specified time to SHOW
CAUSE for not performing it.”

“Peremptory Mandamus:
An ABSOLUTE and UNQUALIFIED
command to the defendant to DO the
act in question.”

Heckler v. Ringer, 104 S.Ct. 2013 (1984) - Common-law
writ of mandamus is intended to provide a remedy for a
plaintiff only if he has exhausted all of the avenues of
relief and only if the defendant owes him a clear
nondiscretionary duty. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1361.

U.S. ex rel. McLennan v. Wilbur, 51 S.Ct. 502 (1931) -
Writ of mandamus will issue only where duty to be
performed is ministerial and obligation to act peremptory
and plainly defined.

Supervisors v. U.S., 85 U.S. 71 (1873) - The office of a
writ of mandamus is not to create duties but to compel the
discharge of those already existing.

Reeside v. Walker, 52 U.S. 272 (1850) - A mandamus is
only to compel performance of some ministerial, as well
as legal duty.

Heckler v. Ringer, 104 S.Ct. 2013 (1984) - Common-law
writ of mandamus is intended to provide a remedy for a
plaintiff only if he has exhausted all of the avenues of

Page 30 of 118

relief and only if the defendant owes him a clear
nondiscretionary duty. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1361.

U.S. ex rel. McLennan v. Wilbur, 51 S.Ct. 502 (1931) -
Writ of mandamus will issue only where duty to be
performed is ministerial and obligation to act peremptory
and plainly defined.

Reeside v. Walker, 52 U.S. 272 (1850) - A mandamus is
only to compel performance of some ministerial, as well
as legal duty.

j. Writ of Possession

Writ of Possession: A writ issued to RECOVER
the possession of land.

Lacassagne v. Chapuis, 12 S.Ct. 659 (1892) - Injunction,
being merely a preventive remedy, will not lie for the
purpose of restoring to possession one who claims to have
been wrongfully evicted from lands under a writ of
possession issued in a suit to which he was not a party.

k. Writ of Praecipe

Writ of Praecipe: At common law, a writ
ORDERING a defendant to DO some act or
EXPLAIN why inaction is appropriate.

“Pracipe Quod Reddat – A writ
directing the defendant to RETURN certain
property – was the proper writ when the
plaintiff’s action was for a SPECIFIC thing;
as for the RECOVERY of a debt certain, or
for the RESTORATION of such a chattel, or
for giving up such a house, or so much land .
. .”

l. Writ of Protection

Writ of Protection: A writ to PROTECT a
witness in a judicial proceeding who is threatened
with arrest.

Levy v. Wallis, 4 U.S. 167 (1799) - The lien of a levy on
personal property is not lost, though the goods are left in
the hands of the defendant; unless there be fraud.

Page 31 of 118

m. Writ of Recaption

Writ of Recaption: A writ allowing a plaintiff to
RECOVER goods and damages from a defendant
who makes a second distress while a replevin
action for a previous distress is pending.

“Replevin – A writ OBTAINED from a
court AUTHORIZING the RETAKING of
personal property wrongfully taken or
detained. - -
‘The action of replevin lies, where
specific PERSONAL property has been
WRONGFULLY taken and is
WRONGFULLY detained, to RECOVER
possession of the property, TOGETHER
with DAMAGES for its detention. To
support the action it is NECESSARY: (a)
That the property shall be personal. (b) That
the Plaintiff at the time of suit, shall be
entitled to the IMMEDIATE possession.
(c) That (at common law) the defendant
shall have WRONGFULLY taken the
property (replevin in the cepit). But, by
statute in most states, the action will now
also lie where the property was
WRONGFULLY detained, though it was
lawfully obtained in the first instance
(replevin in the detinet). (d) That the
property shall be WRONGFULLY detained
by the defendant at the time of suit.
Benjamin J. Shipman, Handbook of
Common-Law Pleading § 49, at 120 (Henry
Winthorp Ballantine ed., 3d ed. 1923).’”

n. Writ of Prohibition

Writ of Prohibition: (1) A law or order that
FORBIDS a certain action. (2) An extraordinary
writ issued by an appellate court to prevent a
lower court from exceeding its jurisdiction or to
prevent a nonjudicial officer or entity from
exercising a power.

“Prohibition is a kind of common-law
injunction to prevent an unlawful
assumption of jurisdiction . . . It is a
common-law injunction against
governmental usurpation, as where one is
called coram non judice (before a judge

Page 32 of 118

unauthorized to take cognizance of the
affair), to answer in a tribunal that has no
legal cognizance of the cause. It arrests the
proceedings of any tribunal, board, or person
exercising judicial functions in a manner or
by means not within its jurisdiction or
discretion. Benjamin J. Shipman, Handbook
of Common-Law Pleading § 341, at 542
(Henry Winthorp Ballantine ed., 3d ed.
1923).”

U.S. v. Hoffman, 71 U.S. 158 (1866) - The “writ of
prohibition” is one which commands person to whom it is
directed not to do something which by relator's
suggestion, court is informed he is about to do; and if
thing be already done, writ of prohibition could not undo
it, for such would require affirmative act; and only effect
of writ of prohibition is to suspend all action, and to
prevent any further proceeding in prohibited direction.

o. Writ of Review

Writ of Review: A general form of process
issuing from an appellate court to BRING UP
FOR REVIEW the RECORD of the proceedings
in the court below.

Zuber v. Allen, 90 S.Ct. 314 (1969) - When action is taken
on a record administrative department cannot then present
testimony in court to remedy the gaps in the record, any
more than arguments of counsel on review can substitute
for an agency'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
formulate and put in force, mandamus should issue to
prevent such action thereunder as is so palpably improper
as to place it beyond the scope of the rule invoked.

p. Writ of Supersedeas

Writ of Supersedeas: A writ that SUSPENDS a
judgment creditor’s power to levy execution, usu.
pending appeal.

q. Writ of SUPERVISORY CONTROL

Writ of SUPERVISORY CONTROL: A writ
issued to CORRECT an ERRONEOUS ruling
made by a lower court EITHER when there is NO
appeal or when an appeal CANNOT provide

Page 33 of 118

adequate relief and the ruling WILL RESULT in
GROSS INJUSTICE.

Fisher v. District Court of Sixteenth Judicial Dist. of
Montana, in and for Rosebud County, 96 S.Ct. 943 (1976)
- Writ of supervisory control is available only in
original proceeding in . . .Supreme Court and, although it
may issue in broad range of circumstances, it is not
equivalent to an appeal. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1257(3).

U.S. v. Comstock, 130 S.Ct. 1949 (U.S.,2010) - At
common law, one who takes charge of a third person is
under a duty to exercise reasonable care to control that
person to prevent him from causing reasonably
foreseeable bodily harm to others.

r. Writ of Securitate Pacis

Writ of Securitate Pacis: A writ for someone
FEARING bodily harm from another, as when
the person has been THREATENED with
VIOLENCE.

s. Extraterritorial Writs

Extraterritorial Writs: Beyond the geographic
limits of a particular jurisdiction.

Corporation created by a state is citizen of that state
within meaning of Constitution and United States statute
investing Supreme Court with original jurisdiction of
controversies between state and citizens of other states.
Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 US 265, 32 L Ed 239,
8 S Ct. 1370 (1888) (ovrld in part on other grounds by
Milwaukee County v M.E. White Co. (1935) 296 US 268,
80 L Ed 220, 56 S. Ct. 229)).

under the ALL WRITS ACT) attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set
forth in full herein.

16. On or about April 27, 2011 [i.e the SAME DATE United States President Barack
Obama releases a FAKE/FORGED copy of Certificate of Live Birth, this Court
advised Newsome that:

Your letter and attachments were received in this office on
April 26, 2011, and are returned for the reason set forth in my letter
dated March 17, 2011, copy enclosed.

You have failed to identify the type of extraordinary writ
you are seeking to file.

See EXHIBIT “K” attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in
full herein.

Page 34 of 118

PLEASE NOTE: AGAIN, NOTHING in this Court’s April 27,
2011 letter advising that Newsome’s PFEW does NOT meet the pleading
requirements because it DOES! This Court is advising Newsome that she has “failed
to identify the type of extraordinary writ” she is seeking. On or about May 3,
2011, Newsome TIMELY responded to this Court’s April 27, 2011 letter. See
EXHIBIT “L” - Response To March 17, 2011 and April 27, 2011, Supreme Court Of
The United States’ Letters – Identifying Extraordinary Writ(s) To Be Filed and
Writ(s) Under All Writs Act To Be Filed (i.e. wherein at about Page 2, Newsome
AGAIN provides this Court with the LIST of WRITS to be filed:

1) Original Writ 2) Writ of Conspiracy
3) Writ of Course 4) Writ of Detinue
5) Writ of Entry 6) Writ of Exigi Facias
7) Writ of Formedon 8) Writ of Injunction
9) Writ of Mandamus 10) Writ of Possession
11) Writ of Praecipe 12) Writ of Protection
13) Writ of Recaption 14) Writ of Prohibition
15) Writ of Review 16) Writ of Supersedeas
17) Writ of Supervisory Control 18) Writ of Securitate Pacis
19) Extraterritorial Writs

under the ALL Writs Act!

17. Newsome believes that the facts, evidence and legal conclusion provided in the
EM/ORS and PFEW and their supporting Exhibits/Appendices will sustain that this
matter is of “PUBLIC IMPORTANCE” and is of PUBLIC/NATIONAL security in
that it supports the COVER-UP of Respondents, President Barack Obama, his
Administration and the United States Government of CORRUPTION,
CRIMINAL/CIVIL VIOLATIONS and TERRORIST/RACIST/SUPREMACIST
practices. Furthermore, the record evidence will SUPPORT a WILLFUL disregard of
legislative policy, rules of the Supreme Court of the United States, which are a
DIRECT and PROXIMATE RESULT of the SERIOUS HARDSHIP and LEGAL
INJUSTICES leveled against Newsome, members of her class and/or citizens of the
United States.

This instant action has been brought seeking the filing of ORIGINAL
ACTION and issuance of EXTRAORDINARY WRITS because of the extraordinary
circumstances sustained by the facts, evidence and legal conclusions provided in the
EM/ORS and PFEW and their supporting Exhibits/Appendices – for purposes of
confining the inferior courts and Administrative Agency(s) addressed, to the lawful
exercise of their prescribed jurisdiction and to compel them to exercise authority
MANDATORILY required and GOVERNED by statutes/laws.

Morrow v. District of Columbia, 417 F.Ed 728, 135 U.S. App.Dc. 160
on remand 259 A.2d 592 (1969) – Among the factors to be considered
in determining whether prerogative writs should issue are whether the
matter is of “PUBLIC IMPORTANCE,” whether the policy against
piecemeal appeals would be frustrated, whether there has been a
WILLFUL disregard of legislative policy, or of rules of the higher
court, and whether refusal to issue the writ may work a serious hardship
on the parties.

Page 35 of 118

Platt v. Minnesota Min. & Mfg. Co., 84 S.Ct. 769, 376 U.S. 240, 11
L.Ed.2d 674 (1964) – Extraordinary writs are reserved for really
extraordinary causes, and then only to confine an inferior court to a
lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or compel it to exercise its
authority when it is duty to do so.

18. Newsome seeks any and all applicable relief KNOWN to the Supreme Court of the
United States to correct the injustices/miscarriages of justice addressed herein as well
as in EM/ORS, PFEW and their supporting Exhibits/Appendices. Newsome believes
that the record evidence will further support Orders entered by judges with
KNOWLEDGE that they lacked jurisdiction to act in legal action/lawsuit.

Anderson v. McLaughlin, 263 F.2d 723 (1959) – (n.2) Authority
conferred by statute authorizing courts to issue ALL writs necessary is
NOT confined to issuance of writs in aid of jurisdiction already
acquired by appeal but extends to those cases which are within court’s
appellate jurisdiction although NO appeal has yet been perfected. 28
U.S.C.A. § 1651. Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass’n, 319 U.S.21, 25, 63
S.Ct. 938, 941, 87 L.Ed. 1185.
(n. 3) Extraordinary writs authorized to be issued by courts
established by Act of Congress should be issued only under unique and
compelling circumstances.

De Beers Consol. Mines v. U.S., 65 S.Ct. 1130, 325 U.S. 212, 89 L.Ed.
1566 (1945) - . . . petitioners applied to this court for certiorari under §
262. That section provides in part: “The Supreme Court. . . shall have
power to issue all writs not specifically provided for by statute, which
may be necessary for the exercise of their respective jurisdictions, and
agreeable to the usages and principles of law.”
. . . When Congress withholds interlocutory reviews, § 262
can, of course be availed to correct a mere error in the exercise of
conceded judicial power. But when a court has no judicial power to do
what it purports to do – when its action is not mere error or usurpation
of power – the situation falls precisely within the allowable use of §
262. We proceed, therefore, to inquire whether the . . . Court is
empowered to enter the order under attack.

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

19. While it appears this Court is attempting to TRICK Newsome into LIMITING the
Writs she brings before this Court and to select between THREE (3) options – i.e.
“extraordinary writ of mandamus, mandamus/prohibition, habeas corpus,” it is
CLEAR to Newsome that this Court is attempting to DEPRIVE her EQUAL
protection of the laws and rights secured/guaranteed under the Rules of the Supreme
Court, United States Constitution and other statutes/laws governing said matters. For
instance, in:

United States of America vs. Real Property and Premises Known
as 63–39 Trimble Road, 860 F.Supp. 72 (1972) - [1] United
States was entitled to writ of assistance under All Writs Act
authorizing United States Marshal's Service to take possession of
real property and premises that had been ordered forfeited to
United States, to evict all occupants and their personal property,

Page 36 of 118

and to dispose of premises in accordance with decree of
forfeiture; claimant and occupant were afforded ample notice
and opportunity to contest their removal and failed to voice
any arguments in opposition, government had procured ready,
willing and able purchasers for property, and claimant had
threatened to destroy premises. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1651(a)

[2] All Writs Act authorizes district courts to issue writs of
assistance to enforce final judgments. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1651(a)
See EXHIBIT “M” USA vs. Real Property matter attached
hereto and incorporated by reference.

20. Newsome believes this legal action meets the prerequisites in that:

(a) the writ will be in aid of the Court’s appellate
jurisdiction – [28 U.S.C. § 1651(a)] “The U.S.
Supreme Court has a continuing power to issue
extraordinary writs in aid of either its original
jurisdiction5 including as a part of jurisdiction(s) the
exercise of general supervisory control over the court
system – state or federal.”6

(b) exceptional circumstances warrant the exercise of the
Court’s discretionary powers - While there need
NOT be a laundry list of “exceptional
circumstances,” the U.S. Supreme Court has
repeatedly asserted that the peremptory writs are
drastic and extraordinary remedies that must be
reserved for only truly extraordinary cases (as the
extraordinary circumstances in this instant
lawsuit).7

5
See Ex parte Hung Hang, 108 U.S. 552, 553, 2 S.Ct. 863, 27 L.Ed. 811 (1883) (Court has authority to issue writ);
Pennsylvania v. Wheeling Belmont Bridge Co., 59 U.S. 421, 431, 15 L.Ed. 435 (1885) (“act of congress cannot have the effect 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 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 nature the
right of superintending the inferior tribunals.”).
6
See e.g., Connor v. Coleman, 440 U.S. 612, 624, 99 S.Ct. 1523, 59 L.Ed. 2d 619 (1979) (“When a lower. . .court refuses to
give effect to, or misconstrues our mandate, its actions are controlled by this Court. . .”); MCullough v. Cosgrave, 309 U.S. 634,
635, 60 S.Ct. 703, 84 L.Ed. 992 (1940) (Court directed . . . Court judge to vacate order and retry cases expediently); Ex parte 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 execution). - - Vol. 23 Moore’s Federal Practice, § 520.02[2] (Matthew Bender 3d ed.).
7
See Bagley v. Byrd, 534 U.S. 1301, 122 S.Ct. 419, 419-420, 151 L.Ed. 2d 370 (2001) (Stevens, J., in chambers) (Court will
deny applications for stay of lower-court proceedings pending Court’s disposition of . . . petition unless application demonstrates that
denial of stay will either cause irreparable harm or affect Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to act on . . . petition); In re Michael Sindram,
498 U.S. 177, 179, 111 S.Ct. 596, 112 L.Ed. 2d 599 (1991) (petitioner “identifies no ‘drastic’ circumstances to justify 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 remedy.”).

Page 37 of 118

(c) 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 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
conclusions of the good-faith acts of Newsome to seek
adequate relief through appropriate legal recourse –
i.e. due to no avail because of the conspiracy(s)
leveled against her.

(d) adequate relief cannot be had in any other court below
– the record evidence, facts and legal conclusions will
support a PATTERN of unlawful/illegal acts leveled
against Newsome (i.e. moreover, CONSPIRACIES).
The record evidence will further support efforts by
lower courts to “CLOSE DOORS OF COURT(S) to
Newsome.” Thus, warranting and supporting the relief
Newsome seeks through bringing Extraordinary 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 and in “PFEW” and “EM/ORS.”

21. Newsome believes that while the following “Questions Presented For Review: in
PFEW”

(1) Whether Newsome’s “Emergency Motion to Stay; Emergency
Motion for Enlargement of Time and Other Relief The United
States Supreme Court Deems Appropriate To Correct The Legal
Wrongs/Injustices Reported Herein” was a timely pleading in
accordance with United States Supreme Court Rules 22, 23
and/or 33. Whether the Clerk of the United States Supreme
Court forward Newsome’s “EM/ORS” to individual justice
(Chief Justice John G. Roberts) to which it was addressed.
Whether Newsome was deprived equal protection of the laws,
equal privileges and immunities and due process of laws in the
United States Supreme Court’s handling of “EM/ORS.”

(2) Whether “EM/ORS” is within the jurisdiction of the United
States Supreme Court. Whether the United States Supreme
Court is attempting to deprive Newsome rights secured under the
Constitution, other laws of the United States, equal protection of
the laws, equal privileges and immunities, and due process of
laws in the handling of “EM/ORS.”

(3) Whether Newsome is entitled to the “Emergency Relief” sought
in “EM/ORS” and pleadings filed with the United States
Supreme Court.

Page 38 of 118

08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE

08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to 08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE

Similar to 08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (8)

08/25/12 United States Supreme Court RESPONSE