04/01/13 - response to supreme court's 02/01/13 letter (pkh)
TRANSCRIPT
RESPONSE TO FEBRUARY 1, 2013 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES’ LETTER – REQUEST
TO BE NOTIFIED OF ANY/ALL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Page 1 of 7
IN RE VOGEL DENISE NEWSOME
Petitioner
Case No. _____________
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES
Petition(s) for: Original 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 Super-
sedeas - Writ of Supervisory Control - Writ of Securitate Pacis - Extraterritorial Writs – To The
United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi (Jackson Divi-
sion)/Honorable Tom S. Lee (Judge); Page Kruger & Holland P.A., Thomas Y. Page, Louis G.
Baine III, Linda Thomas; and Does 1 through 100
Respondent(s)
RESPONSE TO FEBRUARY 1, 2013 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES’
LETTER – REQUEST TO BE NOTIFIED OF ANY/ALL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST1
COMES NOW Petitioner, Vogel Denise Newsome (“Newsome”), WITHOUT WAIVING
HER RIGHTS and ARGUMENTS/ISSUES and DEFENSES raised and/or set forth in the FIRST and
ORIGINAL filing of the November 19, 2012 “Petition(s) for: Original 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 Supervisory Control - Writ of Securi-
tate Pacis - Extraterritorial Writs” (“PFOW-WOM-WOP. . .”), and submits for filing, this her:
RESPONSE TO FEBRUARY 1, 2013 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
STATES’ LETTER – REQUEST TO BE NOTIFIED OF ANY/ALL
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
( “RT020113SCT”).
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Supreme Court of the United States was TIMELY,
PROPERLY and ADEQUATELY requested to advise Newsome of all “CONFLICTS-OF-
1 BOLDFACE, ITALICS, UNDERLINE, CAPS/Small Caps, etc. added for emphasis.
Page 2 of 7
INTEREST” that may be present in this Court‟s handling of her lawsuit. Through this instant plead-
ing, Newsome REPEATS said DEMAND to be advised of ALL CONFLICTS-OF-INTEREST!
In further support of this instant filing, Newsome states the following:
1. This instant “RT020113SCT” is submitted in good faith and is not submitted for pur-
poses of delay, harassment, hindering proceedings, embarrassment, obstructing the ad-
ministration of justice, vexatious litigation, increasing the cost of litigation, etc. and is
filed to protect and preserve the ISSUES and rights of Newsome secured/guaranteed
under the United States Constitution and other laws of the United States. Moreover, to
address matters of PUBLIC/GLOBAL/INTERNATIONAL importance and interests.
2. That the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of America were TIMELY,
PROPERLY and ADEQUATELY demanded to “STEP DOWN” by Friday, July 22,
2011; however, to date still remain on the bench with KNOWLEDGE of the
CRIMINAL acts they have committed and CONTINUE to commit not ONLY against
Newsome but the PUBLIC-AT-LARGE through their CORRUPTION and
DECEPTIVE practices to HIDE/CONCEAL the criminal/civil wrongs of their Legal
Counsel/Advisor and CONSPIRATORS/CO-CONSPIRATORS Baker Donelson
Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz (“Baker Donelson”) – i.e. and Baker Donelson Clients
such as United States President Barack Obama and their FRONTING Judge (Tom S.
Lee) and Law Firm (Phelps Dunbar) for purposes of protecting their
PERSONAL/FINANCIAL interests in this lawsuit.
3. In response to this Court‟s February 1, 2013 letter (See EXHIBIT “1” attached
hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein), which states in part,
“The above-entitled petition for an extraordinary writ seeking unspecified relief was
received on February 1, 2013. The papers are returned for the following reason(s),” are the following responses to same:
(a) Failure to reflect the changes in prior correspondence.
REBUTTAL: There was NO PRIOR correspondence
in this instant lawsuit because previous Petition dated on or about
November 19, 2012, was the FIRST submittal of Petition
and was received by this Court on or about November 27, 2012.
Therefore, there was NO PRIOR correspondence providing “reflected
changes” to support this Court‟s allegations and/or February 1, 2013
letter.
(b) The petition does not show how the writ will be in aid of the Court’s
appellate jurisdiction, what exceptional circumstances warrant the
exercise of the Court’s discretionary powers, and why adequate relief
cannot be obtained in any other form or from any other court. Rule
20.1.
REBUTTAL: The November 19, 2012 Petition received
by this Court on or about November 27, 2012, INDEED provides: (i)
Page 3 of 7
information “in aid of the Court’s appellate jurisdiction” – See Pag-
es 3-5, 38-40, 63-65, 69, 70 and 75; (ii) information regarding “what
exceptional circumstances warrants” this Court‟s jurisdiction – See
“QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW” at Nos. 1, 46 and 48 as
well as Pages 1-3, 11, 40, 41, and 63-67; (iii) information regarding
“why adequate relief cannot be obtained in any other form or from
any other court” – See Pages 42 at (4) and Pages 63-68 at (7) and (8).
(c) The petition does not state the reasons for not making application to
the district court of the district in which you are held. Rule 20.4(a)
pertaining to petitions for writs of habeas corpus.
REBUTTAL: Rule 20.4(a) DOES NOT apply to this in-
stant lawsuit. This instant lawsuit is NOT a Habeas Corpus action.
This Court has ISSUED on any such assertion. Therefore, Newsome
request that it direct her to EXACTLY WHERE in her November 19,
2012 Petition, she seeks Habeas Corpus relief.
(d) You have not appended a copy of the judgment or order in respect of
which the writ is sought. Rule 20.3 pertaining to petitions for writs of
prohibition and mandamus.
REBUTTAL: The United States District Court – South-
ern District of Mississippi – Jackson Division‟s: JUDGMENT was
provided at APPENDIX “1,” said court‟s ORDER was provided at
APPENDIX “2” and its MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
at APPENDIX “3.” At APPENDIX “4” - NOTICE OF FILING OF
AN „ORIGINAL‟ ACTION/APPEAL IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE UNITED STATES and at APPENDIX “5” -PLAINTIFF‟S
REQUEST FOR CONFLICT OF INTEREST INFORMATION,
NOTICE OF OPPOSITION TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ASSIGNMENT; AND NOTICE OF ADDRESS and VOGEL
DENISE NEWSOME‟S AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION OF
JUDGE TOM S. LEE.
Therefore, supporting that the proper documents are
APPENDED to the November 19, 2012, Petition as REQUIRED.
Thus, any such assertion by this Court to allege documents were not
appended is FRIVOLOUS and CANNOT be substantiated by this
Court.
(e) You must specify the type of relief sought. Rule 20.
REBUTTAL: Newsome provides a LIST of
EXTRAORDINARY WRITS and the RELIEF SOUGHT therein. See
at Pages 69-78 as well as CONCLUSION AND RELIEF SOUGHT
at Page 79.
Therefore, supporting that the RELIEF SOUGHT was proper-
ly set out in the November 19, 2012 Petition. Thus, any such asser-
tion by this Court to allege relief was NOT specified is FRIVOLOUS
and CANNOT be substantiated by this Court.
Page 4 of 7
(f) No motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, signed by the peti-
tioner or by counsel, is attached. Rules 33.2(a) and 39.
REBUTTAL: Newsome is NOT proceeding in this law-
suit IN FORMA PAUPERIS and provided this Court with Check
No. 1279 in the amount of $300.00 to cover the filing fee – i.e. which
was returned to her in this Court’s efforts to FORCE her to proceed in
forma pauperis to keep from having to address the QUESTIONS and
ISSUES timely presented in her November 19, 2012 Petition in this
lawsuit. Therefore, the reasons for this Court‟s FAILURE to file
Newsome‟s November 19, 2012 Petition is FRIVOLOUS and
CANNOT be substantiated by this Court.
(g) No notarized affidavit or declaration of indigency is attached. Rule
39. You must use the enclosed form.
REBUTTAL: Newsome submitted Check No. 1279 in
the amount of $300.00 to cover the filing fee in this lawsuit. There-
fore, Newsome is NOT proceeding in this lawsuit in forma pauperis
and/or NEITHER is she required to complete a notarized affidavit or
declaration of indigency. Therefore, the reasons for this Court’s
FAILURE to file Newsome‟s November 19, 2012 Petition is
FRIVOLOUS and CANNOT be substantiated by this Court.
(h) The petition does not follow the form prescribed by Rule 14 as re-
quired by Rule 20.2.
REBUTTAL: Newsome‟s November 19, 2012, Peti-
tion(s) have been brought pursuant to Rule 17 – Procedure in
an ORIGINAL ACTION - of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the
United States and are in compliance with Rules 20, 33 and other ap-
plicable rules/statutes/laws governing said matters.
(i) A copy of the rules of this Court are enclosed.
REBUTTAL: This is a FALSE statement by this Court.
This Court FAILED to provide Newsome with the Rules of this
Court as noted.
(j) A copy of the corrected petition must be served on opposing counsel.
REBUTTAL: A copy of the November 19, 2012, Petition
was served on opposing parties. Moreover, based on this Court‟s
February 1, 2013 letter, to date (and from this instant REBUTTAL),
this Court has NOT advised Newsome of the DEFICIENCIES with
her November 19, 2012 Petition(s).
(k) The Petition exceeds the limit of 40 pages allowed. Rule 33.2(b).
REBUTTAL: Rule 33.2(b) applies to pleadings prepared
in 8½ x 11-Inch Format. Newsome is a PAYING litigant and had
Page 5 of 7
FedEx Office prepare her Petition(s) in BOOKLET for-
mat in compliance with Rule 33.1. Under this Rule, booklet is NOT
limited to NUMBER of Pages, it is based on WORD Count!
Therefore, this Court‟s use of Rule 33.2(b) is a
FALSE/FRIVOLOUS statement by this Court.
(l) Your check #1279 in the amount of $300 is herewith returned.
REBUTTAL: It is not clear to Newsome why the filing
fee was returned to her. Clearly the statement by this Court supports
that it received the FILING FEE and, therefore, having
KNOWLEDGE that Newsome is a PAYING LITIGANT and is
NOT proceeding in forma pauperis. Nevertheless, this Court has
REJECTED Newsome‟s GOOD-FAITH payment WITHOUT just
cause!
(m) If you intend to pay the $300 docket fee, the petition must be in book-
let format and on paper that measures 6⅛ by 9 ¼ inches. Rule
33.1(a).
REBUTTAL: Newsome‟s November 19, 2012, Peti-
tion(s) in this instant lawsuit was accompanied with the REQUIRED
$300 docket fee as well as was PROFESSIONALLY produced using
the services of FedEx Offices who produced her pleading in booklet
format measuring measures 6⅛ by 9 ¼ inches in accordance with
Rule 33.1.
Newsome DEMANDS that this Court provide her with the
MEASUREMENTS from the November 19, 2013 booklet(s) it is
MANDATORILY required to retain for its records.
4. Now that Newsome has REBUTTED to this Court‟s February 1, 2013 letter, that this
Court provide her with RESPONSES to the above REBUTTALS at Paragraphs 1
through 3 above. Moreover, CONFIRM that her November 19, 2012 Pleading is in
COMPLIANCE with the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States.
Newsome believed that in providing information obtained from the
SUPREME COURT PRACTICE (Ninth Edition) – See EXHIBIT “2” – Cover
Page ONLY - that she relied upon in preparing her November 19, 2012 Petitions, this
Court would be CORNERED and UNABLE to REBUT the COMPLIANCE of the
booklets submitted. Said argument is SUSTAINED from this Court‟s February 1, 2013
correspondence.
