RESPONSE TO SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES’ DOCUMENTS RETURN OF

PETITIONER’S JANUARY 4, 2013 RESPONSE TO NOVEMBER 5, 2012,

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES’ DOCUMENTS RECEIVED –

REQUEST FOR ANSWER REGARDING WHAT IT IS THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OF AMERICA DOES NOT UNDERSTAND REGARDING VOGEL DENISE NEWSOME’S PETITION(S) FOR:

ORIGINAL WRIT – WRIT OF CONSPIRACY – WRIT OF COURSE – WRIT OF DETINUE – WRIT OF ENTRY - WRIT OF

EXIGI FACIAS - WRIT OF FORMEDON - WRIT OF INJUNCTION - WRIT OF MANDAMUS - WRIT OF POSSESSION - WRIT OF

PRAECIPE - WRIT OF PROTECTION - WRIT OF RECAPTION - WRIT OF PROHIBITION - WRIT OF REVIEW - WRIT OF

SUPERSEDEAS - WRIT OF SUPERVISORY CONTROL - WRIT OF SECURITATE PACIS - EXTRATERRITORIAL WRITS –

AFFIDAVIT TO SUPPORT COMPLIANCE WITH SUPREME COURT FILING REQUIREMENTS –

REQUEST TO BE NOTIFIED OF ANY/ALL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

DNews

Text Box

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

Page 1 of 5

No. _____________________________________

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

VOGEL DENISE NEWSOME

PETITIONER

V.

STOR-ALL ALFRED, LLC;

JUDGE JOHN ANDREW WEST/

HAMILTON COUNTY (OHIO) COURT OF COMMON PLEAS; AND

DOES 1 THROUGH 250

RESPONDENT(S)

RESPONSE TO SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES’ DOCUMENTS RETURN

OF PETITIONER’S JANUARY 4, 2013 RESPONSE TO NOVEMBER 5,

2012, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES’

DOCUMENTS RECEIVED – REQUEST FOR ANSWER REGARDING WHAT

IT IS THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOES NOT

UNDERSTAND REGARDING VOGEL DENISE NEWSOME’S PETITION(S) FOR: ORIGINAL

WRIT – WRIT OF CONSPIRACY – WRIT OF COURSE – WRIT OF DETINUE – WRIT OF ENTRY - WRIT

OF EXIGI FACIAS - WRIT OF FORMEDON - WRIT OF INJUNCTION - WRIT OF MANDAMUS - WRIT OF

POSSESSION - WRIT OF PRAECIPE - WRIT OF PROTECTION - WRIT OF RECAPTION - WRIT OF

PROHIBITION - WRIT OF REVIEW - WRIT OF SUPERSEDEAS - WRIT OF SUPERVISORY CONTROL -

WRIT OF SECURITATE PACIS - EXTRATERRITORIAL WRITS – AFFIDAVIT TO SUPPORT

COMPLIANCE WITH SUPREME COURT FILING REQUIREMENTS – REQUEST TO BE

NOTIFIED OF ANY/ALL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST1

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

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

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

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

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

as subsequent pleadings/submittals – i.e. wherein Newsome TIMELY, PROPERLY and

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

DOWN IMMEDIATELY! This instant filing entitled,

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

Page 2 of 5

RESPONSE TO SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES’

DOCUMENTS RETURN OF PETITIONER’S JANUARY 4, 2013

RESPONSE TO NOVEMBER 5, 2012, SUPREME

COURT OF THE UNITED STATES’ DOCUMENTS

RECEIVED – REQUEST FOR ANSWER REGARDING WHAT IT IS

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOES

NOT UNDERSTAND REGARDING VOGEL DENISE NEWSOME’S

PETITION(S) FOR: ORIGINAL WRIT – WRIT OF CONSPIRACY – WRIT OF COURSE –

WRIT OF DETINUE – WRIT OF ENTRY - WRIT OF EXIGI FACIAS - WRIT OF

FORMEDON - WRIT OF INJUNCTION - WRIT OF MANDAMUS - WRIT OF

POSSESSION - WRIT OF PRAECIPE - WRIT OF PROTECTION - WRIT OF RECAPTION

- WRIT OF PROHIBITION - WRIT OF REVIEW - WRIT OF SUPERSEDEAS - WRIT OF

SUPERVISORY CONTROL - WRIT OF SECURITATE PACIS - EXTRATERRITORIAL

WRITS – AFFIDAVIT TO SUPPORT COMPLIANCE WITH SUPREME

COURT FILING REQUIREMENTS – REQUEST TO BE NOTIFIED OF

ANY/ALL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

(response known as “RTSCtRETURN-PETITIONER010413”) is in response to this Court’s return of

the January 4, 2013, pleading. See EXHIBIT “A” – Copy of the ORIGINAL of the 01/04/13

Pleading attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein. The January 4,

2013 pleading was returned NOT STAMPED and was UNACCOMPANIED by the REQUIRED

Rule 14.5 Clerk’s Letter addressing the reasons for its return. This instant filing is submitted in

GOOD FAITH and in support thereof, Newsome states:

1) FIRST and FOREMOST, Newsome has REPEATEDLY requested that this Court

advise her of any/all CONFLICTS-OF-INTEREST in its handling of this case. To

date, this Court continues to DANCE AROUND and/or attempts to EVADE making

KNOWN to Newsome the CONFLICTS-OF-INTEREST known to it which appears

PRECLUDES the Justices of this Court and or the Administrative Staffs handling of

this matter. Therefore, through this INSTANT filing, Newsome again REITERATES

and DEMANDS to be notified of any/all CONFLICTS-OF-INTEREST in its

handling of the ORIGINAL Lawsuit she seeks to bring. PLEASE NOTE: This lawsuit involves matters of

PUBLIC/INTERNATIONAL INTERESTS!

2) This instant “RTSCtRETURN-PETITIONER010413” is submitted in good faith

and is not submitted for purposes of delay, harassment, hindering proceedings,

embarrassment, obstructing the administration of justice, vexatious litigation,

increasing the cost of litigation, etc. and is filed to protect and preserve the ISSUES

and rights of Newsome secured/guaranteed under the United States Constitution and

other laws of the United States. Moreover, to address matters of

PUBLIC/GLOBAL/INTERNATIONAL importance and interests.

Page 3 of 5

3) That the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of America were

TIMELY, PROPERLY and ADEQUATELY demanded to “STEP DOWN” by

Friday, July 22, 2011; however, to date still remain on the bench with

KNOWLEDGE of the CRIMINAL acts they have committed and CONTINUE to

commit not ONLY against Newsome but the PUBLIC-AT-LARGE through their

CORRUPTION and DECEPTIVE practices to HIDE/CONCEAL the criminal/civil

wrongs of their Legal Counsel/Advisor and CONSPIRATORS/CO-

CONSPIRATORS Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz (“Baker

Donelson”) – i.e. and Baker Donelson Clients such as United States of America

President Barack Obama, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company/Stor-All Alfred, etc.

4) Rule 14.5 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States reads, “If the

Clerk determines that a petition submitted timely and in good faith is in a form that

does not comply with this Rule or Rule 33 or Rule 34, the Clerk will return it with a

letter indicating the deficiency. A corrected petition submitted in accordance

with Rule 29.2 no more than 60 days after the date of the Clerk’s

letter will be deemed timely.”

To DATE, Newsome has NOT received a letter from this Court advising her

of the DEFICIENCIES with her October 30, 2012 Petition. The October 30, 2012

Petition was CORRECTED and the reproduction of NEW booklets made in what

she believed to be in accordance with the Rules 17 and 33 as well as other applicable

Rules of this Court. Nevertheless, this Court has FAILED in accordance with Rule

14.5 to provide Newsome with an UPDATED letter addressing the

DEFICIENCIES with the October 30, 2012 Petition submitted. Therefore, please let

this instant pleading serve as Newsome’s DEMAND that this Court INDICATE the

DEFICIENCY(S) – if any - with the October 30, 2012 Petition as required by Rule

14.5 of the Rules of the Supreme Court. AGAIN, there was NO letter accompany the

return of the Petition and then this Court merely provided an OUTDATED letter

(Exhibit “A” attached) with Newsome’s January 4, 2013 pleading. This clearly is

UNACCEPTABLE and in VIOLATION of the Rules of the Supreme Court!

As this Court did in its April 1, 2013 letter for the Newsome vs. Honorable

Tom S. Lee, et a.l. matter, Newsome demands the same to AID her in understanding

what is wrong with her October 30, 2012 Petition(s) submitted.

5) This Court’s FAILURE to provide Newsome with the DEFICIENCIES with the

October 30, 2012 Petition, is clearly an OBSTRUCTION of JUSTICE and

PRECLUDES her from making the necessary changes (if any are really needed)

because, according to her, she believes that said Pleading was REDONE in with the

REQUIRED CORRECTIONS accordance with the Rules of the Court. However,

WITHOUT a letter from this Court in COMPLIANCE with Rule 14.5, it is both

unlawful and unethical for this Court to REFUSE to file Petition(s); moreover, FAIL

to provide Newsome with a list of deficiencies (if any). When according the Petition

Newsome received back was STAMPED “RECEIVED” by this Court on or about

November 5, 2012 - See EXHIBIT “B” – Cover Page ONLY attached hereto