USPS Proof of Mailing Receipt for Court Filing

THIS DOCUMENT MAY ALSO BE FOUND AT: https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a71638e5b5e71b7a6af

08/10/12 – USPS PROOF OF MAILING RECEIPT –
USDC Southern District Mississippi (Jackson)

VOGEL DENISE NEWSOME
Post Office Box 14731
Cincinnati, Ohio 45250
(601) 885-9536 or (513) 680-2922

August 10, 2012

VIA PRIORITY MAIL: Tracking No. 03113260000101213563
United States District Court - Southern District (Jackson, MS)
ATTN: J. T. Noblin (Clerk of Court)
500 E. Court Street, Suite 2.500
Jackson, Mississippi 39201

RE: Vogel Denise Newsome v. Page Kruger & Holland P.A., et al., Civil Action No.
3:12-cv-00342, United States District Court Southern District (Jackson, MS)
PLEASE NOTE: Newsome is requesting to be advised of ANY/ALL
Conflict-Of-Interests in regards to this lawsuit.

Dear Mr. Noblin:

Attached please find the following document(s):

1) DVD containing Newsome’s Motion to Strike Defendants’ Response
In Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss and
Memorandum In Support Of Motion To Dismiss; Motion To Strike
Defendants’ Response In Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion For Rule
11 Sanctions Of And Against Defendants; and Motion To Strike
Defendants’ Response In Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion For
Default Judgment; Plaintiff’s Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions of and
Against Defendants; and Motion for Default Judgment (Jury Trial
Demanded in this Action) and supporting Memorandum Brief with
EXHIBITS in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure –
i.e. for Costs efficiency purposes.

Newsome encloses TWO copies of the FIRST Page only of her pleading. Please stamp
“FILED” one of these copies and return to her in in the self-addressed postage-paid envelope
enclosed. By copy of this letter, Newsome is providing opposing counsel with a copy of the above
referenced pleading on DVD as well. Newsome has in good faith also placed these pleadings at the
following locations via the INTERNET due to the PUBLIC/GLOBAL/INTERNATIONAL interests
in matters involving her, United States of America President Barack Obama, United States of
America Government, Florida A&M University Robert Champion matter, Trayvon Martin/George
Zimmerman matter, etc. which appears to have a DIRECT impact and/or connection to the recent
and VICIOUS attacks and ONGOING Conspiracies (i.e. involving BAKER DONELSON
BEARMAN CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ and their CLIENTS and PARTNER Law Firms as
PHELPS DUNBAR, etc.) that have been leveled against Newsome for sharing information that are
matters of PUBLIC interests. Therefore, please feel free to retrieve these pleadings, should problems
occur with viewing, from: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/reserved-for-081012-motion-
tostrikeresponse-pkh and https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a71638e5b5e71b7a6af
.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT – JACKSON DIVISION

VOGEL DENISE NEWSOME PLAINTIFF

V. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-cv-00342

PAGE KRUGER & HOLLAND P.A., ET AL. DEFENDANTS

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE
MOTION TO DISMISS AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS; MOTION TO STRIKE
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS OF AND AGAINST
DEFENDANTS; AND MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
DEFAULT JUDGMENT; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS OF AND AGAINST DEFENDANTS; AND
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN THIS ACTION)1

COMES NOW Plaintiff Vogel Denise Newsome (―Newsome‖ and/or ―Plaintiff‖) WITHOUT waiving her

OBJECTIONS to Judge Tom S. Lee presiding over this matter in that a CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST exist which

requires RECUSAL as well as Newsome’s OBJECTIONS to Magistrate assignment in this matter and files this, her

Motion to Strike Defendants’ Response In Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss and

Memorandum In Support Of Motion To Dismiss; Motion To Strike Defendants’ Response In Opposition To Plaintiff’s

Motion For Rule 11 Sanctions Of And Against Defendants; and Motion To Strike Defendants’ Response In

Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion For Default Judgment; Plaintiff’s Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions of and Against

Defendants; and Motion for Default Judgment (Jury Trial Demanded in this Action) (―MTS-DEFRIOTMTSMTD. .

.‖) in the preservation of her rights and pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (―FRCP‖) Rule 12(F) governing

matters regarding motion to strike; FRCP Rule 12(G) governing matters regarding consolidation of defenses and

objections; FRCP Rule 11 governing sanctions and/or signing of pleadings, motions, and other documents; FRCP

Rule 55 governing default judgments; Rule 38 of the FRCP, and the Fourteenth and Seventh Amendment to the

Constitution. In support of this instant MTS-DEFRIOTMTSMTD. . ., Newsome attaches (should it be required

pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 144) her Affidavit at EXHIBIT “A” – incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in

full herein. In further support thereof Newsome states:

1. This instant ―MTS-DEFRIOTMTSMTD. . .‖ 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.

2. Newsome attaches her supporting Affidavit at EXHIBIT “A” which is incorporated herein by reference
as if set forth in full.

1
NOTE: Boldface, caps, small-caps, italics, highlights and underline represents ―emphasis‖ added.

Page 1 of 23

3. UNDISPUTED IS THE FACT: That Defendants Page Kruger & Holland,
P.A., Thomas Y. Page, Louis G. Baine III, and Linda Thomas (hereinafter, ―Named Defendants‖) and
their Legal Counsel/Attorney’s Phelps Dunbar/W. Thomas Siler, Jr./Jason T. Marsh do NOT
dispute Newsome’s TIMELY demand as required by statutes/laws for a
JURY Trial on any and all triable issues raised allowed under Rule 38 of
the FRCP, the Seventh Amendment of the United States Constitution and
other statutes/laws governing said matters. See EXHIBIT “B” – Rule 38 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which states in part:

Rule 38. Right to a Jury Trial; Demand

(a) Right Preserved. The right of trial by jury as declared by the Seventh Amendment to the
Constitution—or as provided by a federal statute—is preserved to the parties inviolate.

(b) Demand. On any issue triable of right by a jury, a party may demand a jury trial by:

(1) serving the other parties with a written demand—which may be included
in a pleading—no later than 14 days after the last pleading directed to the
issue is served; and

(2) filing the demand in accordance with Rule 5(d).

(c) Specifying Issues. In its demand, a party may specify the issues that it wishes to have tried by
a jury; otherwise, it is considered to have demanded a jury trial on all the issues so triable. If
the party has demanded a jury trial on only some issues, any other party may—within 14 days
after being served with the demand or within a shorter time ordered by the court—serve a
demand for a jury trial on any other or all factual issues triable by jury.

and EXHIBIT “C” – Seventh Amendment of the United States Constitution
attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein.

4. UNDISPUTED IS THE FACT: That a CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST presently
exists with the assignment of this lawsuit to Judge Tom S. Lee. The record evidence CLEARLY
supports that Newsome has timely, properly and adequately NOTIFIED this Court of the Conflict-Of-
Interest regarding Judge Tom S. Lee. See Doc. No. 2 – “Motion Conflict-Of-Interest Information. . .”
As a direct and proximate result of this Court to comply with the MANDATORY requirements of
statutes and laws governing said matters, Newsome has been irreparably injured/harmed and deprived
rights – i.e. equal protection of the laws, privileges and immunities, and due process of laws guaranteed
under the United States Constitution and other governing laws. As a direct and proximate result of this
Court’s unlawful/illegal practices and failure to comply with the MANDATORY requirements of 28
U.S.C.A. § 455 and any and all applicable statutes/laws governing said matters, Newsome has been
irreparably injured/harmed and deprived rights – i.e. equal protection of the laws, privileges and
immunities, and due process of laws guaranteed under the United States Constitution and other
governing laws. See EXHIBIT “D” – FRCP Rule 26 and EXHIBIT “E” - 28 U.S.C.A. § 455
respectively attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein.

Phillips v. Joint Legislative Committee on Performance and Expenditure Review Of The State of
Mississippi, et al., 637 F.2d 1014 (5th Cir. 1981) - [3] Under statute requiring a judge to disqualify
himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might be reasonably questioned, judge need not
accept all the allegations by moving party as true and, in fact, no motion at all is required; the
judge must disqualify himself if the facts cast doubt on his impartiality regardless of how or by
whom they are drawn to his attention. 28 U.S.C.A. § 455.

Page 2 of 23

. . . [3] Congress rewrote the second statute, section 455, in 1974. Subsection (b) of that
section lists a number of specific situations in which a judge must recuse himself. . .Subsection (a),
a more general provision, requires that
Any justice, judge, or magistrate of the United States shall disqualify himself in any
proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
Section 455, unlike section 144, does not stipulate a formal procedure by which it must
be raised. Like section 144, however, it may be raised by motion. Davis, 517 F.2d at 1051.
Substantively, the two statutes are quite similar, if not identical.[FN6]

FN6. To the extent that there is a difference, section 455 imposes the stricter
standard: a movant under section 144 must allege facts to convince a
reasonable person that bias exists, Parrish, 524 F.2d at 100, while under the
broader language of section 455, he must show only that a reasonable person
―would harbor doubts about the judge's impartiality‖, Potashnick v. Port City
Constr. Co., 5 Cir. 1980, 609 F.2d 1101, 1111 (emphasis added), cert. denied, -
- U.S. --, 101 S.Ct. 78, 66 L.Ed.2d 22 (1980). See Comment, Disqualification of
Federal Judges for Bias or Prejudice, 46 U.Chi.L.Rev. 236, 243-50 (1978). See
also Note, Disqualification of Judges and Justices in the Federal Courts, 86
Harv.L.Rev. 736, 745-50 (1973).

On the other hand, section 455, unlike section 144, does not require the judge
to accept all allegations by a moving party as true. Indeed, the section requires
no motion at all; the judge must disqualify himself if the facts cast doubt on his
impartiality regardless of how or by whom they are drawn to his attention. See
Fredonia Broadcasting Corp. v. RCA Corp., 5 Cir. 1978, 569 F.2d 251, 254-57,
cert. denied, 439 U.S. 859, 99 S.Ct. 177, 58 L.Ed.2d 167 (1979). Section 144,
by contrast, requires allegation by affidavit within a stringent time limit and
allows a party only one such affidavit in any case. If a party could bind a judge
by his factual allegations in a section 455 motion, free from the formal
requirements and more demanding standard of proof of section 144, the result
would be a virtual open season for recusal. See 46 U.Chi.L.Rev. at 250.

[4] The alleged bias of a judge must be personal as distinguished from judicial in nature
in order to require recusal. 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 144, 455. - - See EXHIBIT “F” – Phillips matter

Clearly the INTEGRITY of this Court has been compromised and the appearance of IMPROPRIETY
is inevitable through Judge Tom Stewart Lee’s acts and projects an appearance that this Lawsuit can be
won through criminal acts – i.e. through bribes, blackmail, extortion, intimidation, threats, etc. - by
Defendants and their counsel. Therefore, Judge Lee’s acts CLEARLY VIOLATE the Mississippi Code of
Judicial Conduct. See EXHIBIT “G” – Code of Judicial Conduct (Mississippi) attached hereto and
incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein.

28 USC § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge
(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any
proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:

(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge
of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;

(2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer
with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer
concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness
concerning it;

(3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated
as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an
opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy;

(4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing
in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party
to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the
outcome of the proceeding;
Page 3 of 23

(5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them,
or the spouse of such a person:

(i) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a
party;

(ii) Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;

(iii) Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be
substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;

(iv) Is to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the
proceeding.

(c) A judge should inform himself about his personal and fiduciary financial interests, and
make a reasonable effort to inform himself about the personal financial interests of his
spouse and minor children residing in his household. . . .

See EXHIBIT “E” - 28 USC § 455 attached hereto and incorporated by reference as
if set forth in full herein.

MANDATORY DISQUALIFICATION is required when ―ONE‖ of the grounds specifically
enumerated in statute applies – i.e. for instance, as in this instant lawsuit, grounds for Judge Tom
Stewart Lee’s disqualification is required pursuant to 28 USC § 455 and/or the applicable statutes/laws
governing said matters:

Renteria v. Schellpeper, 936 F.Supp. 691 (1996) - [6] If one of grounds specifically enumerated in
statute applies, disqualification of judge is mandatory whether or not reasonable person would
question judge's impartiality. 28 U.S.C.A. § 455(b).

. . . [6] . . .If one of the provisions of section 455(b) applies then disqualification is mandatory
whether or not a reasonable person would question the judge's impartiality. Liljeberg v. Health
Serv. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 859 n. 8, 108 S.Ct. 2194, 2202 n. 8, 100 L.Ed.2d 855
(1988).

UNDISPUTED IS THE FACT: Judge Tom S. Lee is adamant and it appears is
refusing to RECUSE himself as required by statutes/laws governing said matters. Therefore, it appears
that the proper INVESTIGATION(S) as with other CORRUPT Judge(s) as G. Thomas Porteous, may be
necessary in having Judge Lee removed from lawsuits involving Newsome. Furthermore, involving
matters of PUBLIC Interest in which Judge Lee is associated may have to be resolved through
IMPEACHMENT proceedings. Clearly it is obvious that Judge Tom Stewart Lee is placing his
JUDICIAL FATE in the “banking” on and/or “placing all of his eggs” in the basket/relationship of
Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz. Newsome have already initiated further legal and
proper CONGRESSIONAL actions involving Judge Tom Stewart Lee. Even if the United States
Congress may be dragging its feet and/or attempting to OBSTRUCT such matters, ALL that is required
of Newsome is to PROVE by facts, evidence and legal conclusions that proper legal recourse for
redress has been met. See pleading filed at Doc. No. 2 of this instant Lawsuit – See EXHIBIT “H” –
Docket Sheet for this action attached hereto. Newsome’s burden has been met and this Court has been
timely, properly and adequately notified of same. It matters NOT that there are attempts by law firms
such as Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz and members of such CONSPIRACIES that
may be members of the United States of America Congress, Supreme Court of the United States of
America, etc. OBSTRUCTING the ADMINISTRATION of JUSTICE, Newsome need only PROVE
and SHOW through EVIDENCE that she has initiated legal actions and has done so.
Legal actions which clearly appears may require additional measures permissible under the
statutes/laws governing matters when the United States of America’s Congress, etc. FAILS to act to
protect the INTEREST of the PEOPLE and/or PUBLIC-AT-LARGE!

Page 4 of 23

5. Judge Tom S. Lee, as a matter of law, is DISQUALIFIED from presiding over this lawsuit in that he
has is BIAS and PREJUDICE toward Newsome, has a FINANCIAL/PECUNIARY interest in this
lawsuit, has KNOWLEDGE of extrajudicial matters regarding Newsome to which he is and/or may be a
party, may be a MATERIAL WITNESS in legal proceedings to which he has been named in other lawful
actions brought by Newsome, has been appointed for purposes of COMPROMISING and TAINTING
these proceeding, and has FAILED to NOTIFY all parties to this lawsuit as to the CONFLICT-OF-
INTEREST and the grounds requiring his DISQUALIFICATION. Should it become necessary to bring
intends to SUBPOENA any and/or all of
legal against Judge Tom S. Lee, Newsome
his personal financial records (i.e. Tax Returns, Stocks Portfolio, etc.) for
presentation to JURY in the TRIAL on this matter.
6. Defendants’ Page Kruger & Holland, P.A., Thomas Y. Page, Louis G. Baine III, and Linda Thomas and
their Legal Counsel/Attorney’s Phelps Dunbar/W. Thomas Siler, Jr./Jason T. Marsh at the time of
executing and submitting Defendants’ Response In Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion To Strike Motion
To Dismiss and Memorandum In Support Of Motion To Dismiss; Defendants’ Response In Opposition
To Plaintiff’s Motion For Rule 11 Sanctions Of And Against Defendants; and Defendants’ Response In
Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion For Default Judgment KNEW that it was frivolous, WITHOUT
merits and provided for purposes of: purposes of delay, harassment, obstructing justice, increasing
costs of litigation, embarrassment, sham/frivolousness, unduly burdensome, provided for purposes of
committing fraud upon this Court, and other reasons known to Named Defendants and their Counsel
Therefore, warranting the relief set forth in this instant ―MTS-DEFRIOTMTSMTD. . .‖

7. Pursuant to Rule 8 (i.e. specifically (b)) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (―FRCP‖), Named
Defendants’ Response In Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss and
Memorandum In Support Of Motion To Dismiss; Defendants’ Response In Opposition To Plaintiff’s
Motion For Rule 11 Sanctions Of And Against Defendants; and Defendants’ Response In Opposition To
Plaintiff’s Motion For Default Judgment fail to meet the pleading requirements for responses. Said Rule
8 states in part:

Rule 8. General Rules of Pleading

(a) Claim for Relief. A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain:

(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction, unless the court
already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional support;

(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief;
and

(3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different
types of relief.

(b) Defenses; Admissions and Denials.

(1) In General. In responding to a pleading, a party must:

(A) state in short and plain terms its defenses to each claim asserted against it;
and

(B) admit or deny the allegations asserted against it by an opposing party.

(2) Denials—Responding to the Substance. A denial must fairly respond to the substance
of the allegation.

(3) General and Specific Denials. A party that intends in good faith to deny all the
allegations of a pleading—including the jurisdictional grounds—may do so by a general

Page 5 of 23

denial. A party that does not intend to deny all the allegations must either specifically
deny designated allegations or generally deny all except those specifically admitted.

(4) Denying Part of an Allegation. A party that intends in good faith to deny only part of
an allegation must admit the part that is true and deny the rest.

(5) Lacking Knowledge or Information. A party that lacks knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief about the truth of an allegation must so state, and the statement
has the effect of a denial.

(6) Effect of Failing to Deny. An allegation—other than one relating to the amount of
damages—is admitted if a responsive pleading is required and the allegation is not
denied. If a responsive pleading is not required, an allegation is considered denied or
avoided.

(c) Affirmative Defenses.

(1) In General. In responding to a pleading, a party must affirmatively state any
avoidance or affirmative defense, including:

• accord and satisfaction;
• arbitration and award;
• assumption of risk;
• contributory negligence;
• duress;
• estoppel;
• failure of consideration;
• fraud;
• illegality;
• injury by fellow servant;
• laches;
• license;
• payment;
• release;
• res judicata;
• statute of frauds;
• statute of limitations; and
• waiver.

(2) Mistaken Designation. If a party mistakenly designates a defense as a counterclaim,
or a counterclaim as a defense, the court must, if justice requires, treat the pleading as
though it were correctly designated, and may impose terms for doing so.

(d) Pleading to Be Concise and Direct; Alternative Statements; Inconsistency.

(1) In General. Each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct. No technical form is
required.

(2) Alternative Statements of a Claim or Defense. A party may set out 2 or more
statements of a claim or defense alternatively or hypothetically, either in a single count or
defense or in separate ones. If a party makes alternative statements, the pleading is
sufficient if any one of them is sufficient.

(3) Inconsistent Claims or Defenses. A party may state as many separate claims or
defenses as it has, regardless of consistency.

(e) Construing Pleadings. Pleadings must be construed so as to do justice.

See EXHIBIT “I” – Rule 8 of FRCP attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full
herein.

Page 6 of 23

8. While Newsome’s Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss and Memorandum In Support Of Motion To
Dismiss; Plaintiff’s Motion For Rule 11 Sanctions Of And Against Defendants; and Plaintiff’s Motion
For Default Judgment (hereinafter, ―MTSMTD‖) meet the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the
FRCP, neither Defendants’ Response In Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
and Memorandum In Support Of Motion To Dismiss; Defendants’ Response In Opposition To Plaintiff’s
Motion For Rule 11 Sanctions Of And Against Defendants; nor Defendants’ Response In Opposition To
Plaintiff’s Motion For Default Judgment address the issues raised NOR rebut the FACTS,
EVIDENCE/EXHIBITS and LEGAL CONCLUSION supporting Newsome’s MTSMTD. This
Court’s record/docket in this lawsuit remains SILENT on the issues raised and the TIME for Named
Defendants to provide a REBUTTAL to each and every issues raised has EXPIRED/LAPSED – i.e.
has been WAIVED by Named Defendants. Therefore, as a matter of law, statements/averments in
Newsome’s MTSMTD are deemed ADMITTED and/or TRUE!

9. Named Defendants and their Legal Counsel/Attorney Phelps Dunbar/W. Thomas Siler, Jr./Jason T.
Marsh do NOT rebut and/or dispute that a ―CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST‖ exist and that Judge Tom S.
Lee is adamant about proceeding in this lawsuit with KNOWLEDGE that he is MANDATORILY
required to recuse himself. Furthermore, it is UNDISPUTED that Named Defendants and their Legal
Counsel/Attorneys DELIBERATELY and with MALICIOUS intent, did KNOWINGLY fail to advise
Newsome of the Conflict-of-Interest and, in FURTHERANCE of CONSPIRACIES (i.e. in which
TOLLING DOCTRINE regarding statute of limitation applies to RESTART from each OVERT act of
Named Defendants, their Counsel/Attorneys and those PARTY to such unlawful/illegal criminal acts)
are proceeding before this Court and in this lawsuit in violation of the Mississippi Rules of Professional
Conduct, Code of Judicial Conduct (Mississippi) as well as other statutes/laws governing said matters.

10. In accordance with the statutes/laws governing said matters, Newsome has timely, properly and
adequately PRESERVED said issues such as the CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST and other issues raised in
her Motions to Strike the Defendants’ pleadings filed in this lawsuit. See for instance EXHIBIT “J” –
“Waiver Of Loss Of Right To Disqualify Judge By Participation In Proceedings . . .” attached hereto
and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein.

11. UNDISPUTED IS THE FACT: That Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and
supporting Memorandum Brief in this lawsuit is premised on claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
against “STATE” and/or ―Government‖ employers/officials/employees. UNISPUTED is the fact that
Newsome’s instant lawsuit is a premised on 42 U.S.C. § 1981 – Equal Rights Under The Law which
allows for one to ―to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and
equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by
white citizens . . .‖ Therefore, NOT even with a MAGNIFYING GLASS will a JURY and Court find
any such § 1983 claims as asserted by the Defendants in this lawsuit.

12. UNDISPUTED IS THE FACT: Due to the Conflict-Of-Interest, BIAS,
PREJUDICE towards Newsome, FINANCIAL/PECUNIARY interest and other reasons known to Judge
Tom S. Lee requiring his DISQUALIFICATION and/or RECUSAL, as a matter of law, he LACKS
jurisdiction to preside as Judge in this instant Lawsuit and the matters therein.

13. For this Court to grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Newsome would be prejudiced and deprived
equal protection of the laws, equal immunities and privileges and due process of laws. Rights
secured/guaranteed under the United States Constitution and other governing laws.

Page 7 of 23

I. MOTION TO STRIKE/
CONSOLIDATION OF DEFENSES
Pendleton County v. Amy, 80 U.S. 297 (1871) - Defendant's pleas which were inartistically framed
and were argumentative and set up nothing which could not have been taken advantage of for what
it was worth under the general issue might have been stricken from the record on motion.

Brown v. Lamb, 112 Ohio App. 116, 171 N.E.2d 191 (1960) - (n.4) Motions to strike pleadings and
papers from the files are ordinarily employed to strike pleadings for failure to comply with previous
orders . . . or to test its form with respect to certification, and the office of such motions is not to
inquire into the merits of the case.
(n.8) A pleading is “frivolous” when it is clearly insufficient on its face and does not
controvert material points of the opposite pleading and is presumably interposed for mere
purposes of delay or to embarrass the opponent.

Sherrill v. Stewart, 21 So.2d 11 (Miss.,1945) - A ―frivolous pleading‖ is one so clearly untenable
or the insufficiency of which is so manifest upon bare inspection of pleading that court is able to
determine its character without argument or research.

McDowell v. Minor, 131 So. 278 (Miss.,1930) - Where pleading is manifestly sham and frivolous,
motion to strike is available.

Pursuant to Rule 12 (F) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Newsome through this MTS-

DEFRIOTMTSMTD. . . moves this Court to strike the statements, contents and any supporting exhibits of

Defendants’ Response In Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss and Memorandum In Support

Of Motion To Dismiss; Defendants’ Response In Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion For Rule 11 Sanctions Of And

Against Defendant and Defendants’ Response In Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion For Default Judgment

(―DEFRIOTMTSMTD. . .‖). Under said Rule it states:

Rule 12(F) Motion to Strike. The Court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any
redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter. The court may act:

(1) on its own; or

(2) on motion made by a party either before responding to the pleading or, if a
response is not allowed, within 20 days after being served with the pleading.

Therefore, in an effort to provide specificity Newsome moves for the striking of contents/statements in

―DEFRIOTMTSMTD. . .‖ in that these pleadings are IRRELEVANT and IMMATERIAL to this instant lawsuit

and CLEARLY ―FAIL‖ to address and/or CONTEST Newsome’s Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss and

Memorandum In Support Of Motion To Dismiss; Plaintiff’s Motion For Rule 11 Sanctions Of And Against

Defendants; and Plaintiff’s Motion For Default Judgment (hereinafter, ―MTSMTD‖) In further support of this

instant MTS-DEFRIOTMTSMTD. . ., Newsome moves this Court to strike the contents/statements for the following

reasons:

Page 8 of 23

A. RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE MOTION TO
DISMISS AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
(“RIOTMTSMTD”)

The entire contents of ―RIOTMTSMTD‖ which include; however, is not limited to the Style and Headings of

said pleading in that it is: (ii) redundant; (iii) immaterial; (iv) impertinent and/or (v) scandalous and provided for

purposes of delay, harassment, obstructing justice, increasing costs of litigation, embarrassment, sham/frivolousness,

unduly burdensome, provided for purposes of committing fraud upon this Court, and other reasons known to Named

Defendants and their Counsel and the following:

14. Opening paragraph on Page 1 which begins with ―COME NOW, Defendants, Page Kruger & Holland,
P.A. (―PKH‖), Thomas Y. Page, Louis G. Baine, III, and Linda Thomas‖ in that it is - (ii) redundant;
(iii) immaterial; (iv) impertinent and/or (v) scandalous and provided for purposes of delay, harassment,
obstructing justice, increasing costs of litigation, embarrassment, sham/frivolousness, unduly
burdensome, provided for purposes of committing fraud upon this Court, and other reasons known to
Defendants and their counsel (Phelps Dunbar LLP, W. Thomas Siler, Jr. and Jason T. Marsh
[hereinafter, ―Phelps Dunbar,‖ ―Siler‖ and/or ―Marsh‖)] hereinafter collectively known as “STRICKEN
STATEMENT CLAUSE.”

15. ¶1 on Page 1 which begins with, ―On July 17, 2012, Plaintiff filed an incomplete, single page document‖
and the referenced Footnote 1 in that they are - “STRICKEN STATEMENT CLAUSE.”

Named Defendants and their counsel Phelps Dunbar/W. Thomas Siler, Jr./Jason T. Marsh
FRIVOLOUSLY and MALICIOUSLY attempt to take advantage of an error made by the Clerk of the
Court. Furthermore, if there was any such error by the Clerk in the uploading of documents provided,
counsel for Named Defendants should have proceeded in good faith to NOTIFY the Court of error. As
the Court, Named Defendants’ counsel obtained Newsome’s MTSMTD and supporting Exhibits on a
CD/DVD. Upon checking with the Court, it is Newsome’s understanding that any issue regarding the
uploading and/or filing has been resolved. Moreover, the Docket Entry reflecting:

DOCKET ANNOTATION as to #12: This docket entry failed to select all pages of the document.
Court staff has correctly refiled the document. – See EXHIBIT “H” at 08/10/2012 entry attached
hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein.

Therefore, it did NOT preclude Named Defendants from providing a response to Newsome’s MTSMTD
in accordance with the pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the FRCP. Furthermore, Named Defendants
counsel was provided with additional information that Newsome’s MTSMTD and supporting Exhibits
may be obtained from the following links should problems arise with accessing the documents provided
on CD/DVD:

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/071412-motion-to-strike-page-kruger-
holland-matter and/or

https://secure.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a706a8d5e6473bcaa69.

To date, Newsome’s July 14, 2012, 34 Pages with approximately 145 distinctly numbered paragraphs
containing statements and/or issues, legal conclusions and approximately 42 supporting Exhibits to
MOTION TO STRIKE MOTION TO DISMISS; MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS OF AND AGAINST DEFENDANTS;
AND MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN THIS ACTION) along with the
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS; meet the pleading REQUIREMENTS, is
UNCONTESTED and the time for Named Defendants to provide a REBUTTAL to ALL issues
raised has EXPIRED! Therefore, Named Defendants have WAIVED any and ALL rights to rebut
and/or contest Newsome’s “MTSMTD!” Furthermore, Named Defendants’ FAIL to REBUT the
Page 9 of 23

issues, evidence and legal conclusions provided in Newsome’s MTSMTD; therefore, a reasonable mind
may conclude that averments/statements in MTSMTD are deemed ADMITTED/TRUE!

16. ¶2 on Page 1 which begins with, ―Plaintiff does not offer any legal authority to refute the legal defenses‖
in that it is - “STRICKEN STATEMENT CLAUSE.”

and/or contest Newsome’s “MTSMTD!” Furthermore, as a matter of law and pursuant to Rule 12(F),
DAHH when a Motion to Strike is filed, it is done so with EXACT SPECIFICS as to what is being
requested to be stricken and the facts, evidence and/or legal conclusion to support same.

17. On Page 2, continuance of paragraph from Page 1 which states, ―Defendants in their Motion to Dismiss‖
along with Footnotes 2, 3 and 4 in that they are - “STRICKEN STATEMENT CLAUSE.”

and/or contest Newsome’s “MTSMTD!”

18. ¶3 on Page 2 which begins with, ―Plaintiff has filed her Motion to Strike,‖ Footnote 5 and Exhibits 1, 2
and 3 in that they are - “STRICKEN STATEMENT CLAUSE.”


19. ¶4 on Page 2 which begins with, ―Here, Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss‖ and Footnote 6 in
that they are - “STRICKEN STATEMENT CLAUSE.”


20. On Page 3, continuance of paragraph from Page 2 which states, ―motion to dismiss under,‖ in that it is -
“STRICKEN STATEMENT CLAUSE.”

Page 10 of 23


21. On Page 3, paragraph which begins with, ―WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendants,
Page Kruger & Holland, P.A.‖ in that it is - “STRICKEN STATEMENT CLAUSE.”


22. On Page 3, paragraph which begins with, ―Further, Defendants request the Court find‖ and the
remaining contents therein, in that they are - “STRICKEN STATEMENT CLAUSE.”


23. On Page 4, the Certificate of Service and the contents therein in that it is - “STRICKEN STATEMENT
CLAUSE.”

Now that the statutes/laws governing said matters require the STRIKING of the entire contents, statements,

exhibits, etc. as noted above, there remains NO legal/lawful pleading of record. Therefore, Newsome is entitled to

the relief (Rule 11 Sanctions and DEFAULT Judgment, etc.) sought herein.

B. RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS OF
AND AGAINST DEFENDANTS (“RIOTMFR11”)

The entire contents of ―RIOTMFR11‖ which include; however, is not limited to the Style and Headings of

said pleading in that it is: (ii) redundant; (iii) immaterial; (iv) impertinent and/or (v) scandalous and provided for

purposes of delay, harassment, obstructing justice, increasing costs of litigation, embarrassment, sham/frivolousness,

unduly burdensome, provided for purposes of committing fraud upon this Court, and other reasons known to

Defendants and their Counsel and the following:

Page 11 of 23





on CD/DVD:




26. ¶2 on Page 1 which begins with, ―Plaintiff does not offer any legal authority to refute the legal defenses‖
in that it is - “STRICKEN STATEMENT CLAUSE.”

Page 12 of 23


27. On Page 2, continuance of paragraph from Page 1 which states, ―Defendants in their Motion to Dismiss‖
along with Footnotes 2, 3, 4 and 5 in that they are - “STRICKEN STATEMENT CLAUSE.”


28. ¶3 on Page 2 which begins with, ―Rule 11 is designed to,‖ in that it is - “STRICKEN STATEMENT
CLAUSE.”


29. On Page 3, continuance of paragraph from Page 2 which states, ―Defendants have filed a legally,‖ in that
it is - “STRICKEN STATEMENT CLAUSE.”


30. ¶4 on Page 3 which begins with, ―To recount, this action arises,‖ in that it is - “STRICKEN



Page 13 of 23




CLAUSE.”




C. RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
(“RIOTMFDJ”)

The entire contents of ―RIOTMFDJ‖ which include; however, is not limited to the Style and Headings of said

pleading in that it is: (ii) redundant; (iii) immaterial; (iv) impertinent and/or (v) scandalous and provided for purposes

of delay, harassment, obstructing justice, increasing costs of litigation, embarrassment, sham/frivolousness, unduly

burdensome, provided for purposes of committing fraud upon this Court, and other reasons known to Defendants and

their Counsel and the following:



Page 14 of 23



on CD/DVD:




36. ¶2 on Page 1 which begins with, ―Plaintiff does not offer any legal authority to support her request‖ in
that it is - “STRICKEN STATEMENT CLAUSE.”


37. On Page 2, continuance of paragraph from Page 1 which states, ―default judgment against Defendants‖
along with Footnotes 2 and 3 in that they are - “STRICKEN STATEMENT CLAUSE.”


Page 15 of 23

38. ¶3 on Page 2 which begins with, ―Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (a)(4),‖ in that it is - “STRICKEN

and/or contest Newsome’s “MTSMTD!” While Newsome is proceeding in this lawsuit Pro Se, she is
a PAYING litigant and has paid the required FILING FEE as well as DEMANDED a “TRIAL By
JURY” [See Complaint at Doc. No. 1 Page 136 as well as the Docket Sheet at EXHIBIT “H” of this
instant filing which clearly REFLECTS “Jury Demand: Plaintiff”] and have timely, properly and
adequately PRESERVED triable issues and REITERATED JURY DEMAND on additional triable
ISSUES raised in her MTSMTD that are MANDATORILY required to be submitted to the JURY
under the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution and other statutes/laws governing said
matters. Newsome does NOT waive her right to have ALL triable issues raised in her MTSMTD tried
by the Judge assigned this lawsuit – i.e. which at this present time, appears to be Judge Tom S. Lee who
is DISQUALIFIED to preside over this lawsuit and is attempting to ABUSE his judicial authority and
USURP powers in which he is CLEARLY PROHIBITED to exercise!

39. ¶4 on Page 2 which begins with, ―To recount, this action arises,‖ in that it is - “STRICKEN


40. ¶5 on Page 2 which begins with, ―As Defendants have filed a timely,‖ in that it is - “STRICKEN




Page 16 of 23




CLAUSE.”




II. MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
Newsome moves this Court to enter a Default Judgment in this lawsuit of and Against ―Named Defendants‖

– Page Kruger & Holland, P.A., Thomas Y. Page, Louis G. Baine III and Linda Thomas pursuant to FRCP Rule 55

which state in part:

FRCP Rule 55. Default; Default Judgment

(a) Entering a Default. When a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought
has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise,
the clerk must enter the party’s default.

(b) Entering a Default Judgment.
(1) By the Clerk. If the plaintiff’s claim is for a sum certain or a sum that can be made
certain by computation, the clerk – on the plaintiff’s request, with an affidavit showing
the amount due – must enter judgment for that amount and costs against a defendant
who has been defaulted for not appearing and who is neither a minor nor an
incompetent person.
(2) By the Court. In all other cases, the party must apply to the court for default judgment.
A default judgment may be entered against a minor or incompetent person only if
represented by general guardian, conservator, or other like fiduciary who has appeared.
If the party against whom a default judgment is sought has appeared personally or by a
representative, that party or its representative must be served with written notice of
application at least 3 days before the hearing. The court may conduct hearings or make
referrals – preserving any federal statutory right to a jury trial – when, to enter or
effectuate judgment, it needs to:

(A) conduct an accounting;
(B) determine the amount of damages;
(C) establish the truth of any allegation by evidence; or
(D) investigate any other matter.

Page 17 of 23

In further support thereof, Newsome states the following:

44. This instant Motion for Default Judgment (―MFDJ‖) 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.

45. This instant MFDF is submitted to protect the rights of Newsome and the relief she is entitled to as a
direct and proximate result of Defendants FAILURE to file an Answer and/or Responsive pleading
required under the statutes/laws governing said matters.

46. All NOTIFICATION requirements have been met. ―Named Defendants‖ were timely, properly and
adequately notified that Default Judgment would be sought against them as early as about June 6, 2012,
and received on or about June 8, 2012. Moreover, through the ―Waiver of the Service of Summons‖
executed by ―Named Defendants‖ which contained, ―NOTIFICATION ACCOMPANYING
WAIVER OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS,” they were advised of the following:

You are further hereby NOTIFIED, that unless you serve and file a written responsive pleading
within the specified time, the Plaintiff will take judgment against you by default (i.e. for instance,
“Motion for Default Judgment”) for the relief demanded in the Complaint.

See at Page 4 of EXHIBITS “K,” “L,” “M,” and “N” respectively attached hereto and incorporated
herein by reference. UNDISPUTED IS THE FACT: That in an effort to
DECEIVE this Court and efforts of keeping this information out of the records, ―Named Defendants‖
and their counsel (Phelps Dunbar/Siler/Marsh) RECREATED the ―Waiver of the Service of Summons‖
to SHIELD/HIDE from this Court by removing information regarding the method of mailing
information (i.e. CERTIFIED MAIL) and noted information stating, ―NOTE: To save cost of litigation
Plaintiff provided with "Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons" and "Waiver
of Service of Summons" a document entitled, "Notification Accompanying Waiver of Service of
Summons" which she believes contains pertinent information regarding ANSWERING of Complaint - a
copy of which is attached to this "Waiver of Service of Summons" that was provided on the ORIGINAL
―Waiver of the Service of Summons‖ and the attached ―NOTIFICATION ACCOMPANYING
WAIVER OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS.” Nevertheless, the record of this Court will support timely
notification and evidence of what was received – See EXHIBITS “K,” “L,” “M,” and “N” respectively

47. UNDISPUTED IS THE FACT: In support of this instant MFDJ, Newsome
presents the following PRIMA FACIE CASE: (a) Newsome would be prejudiced by this Court’s
denial of her Motion for Default Judgment. While Newsome is proceeding in this instant lawsuit pro se
she is a PAYING LITIGANT and is NOT proceeding in this matter in forma pauperis and is governed
by the rules and procedures of this Court and/or statutes/laws applicable to this action. Therefore, the
attempts by Named Defendants’ counsel to assert this lawsuit is subject to the provisions of 42 USC §
1983 is WITHOUT merit, baseless and FRIVOLOUS. The record evidence supports that Newsome
lost her job as a direct and proximate result of acts taken against her by ―Named Defendants‖ and those
conspiring with them to cause Newsome injury/harm. Said actions taken by ―Named Defendants‖ and
those conspiring against Newsome were to obtain an undue advantage over her in their expectation of
the bringing of legal action and for means of financial devastation to prevent Newsome from
successfully litigating this action. Newsome would be further prejudiced by denial of the relief sought
in that she has already suffered irreparable injury/harm as a direct and proximate result of ―Named
Defendants’‖ culpable acts. Furthermore, should this Court deny Newsome’s Motion for Default
Judgment, it would deprive her equal protection of the laws, equal privileges and immunities and due
process of laws, etc. Rights secured/guaranteed under the Constitution, Civil Rights Act as well as
other governing statutes/laws in such matters. (b) ―Named Defendants‖ have no meritorious defense.
―Named Defendants‖ made a conscious, willful and decision to file a FRIVOLOUS Responsive
Page 18 of 23

Pleading in this action under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which Newsome has
timely, properly and adequately moved to have STRICKEN from the record – i.e. as a matter of law is
to be GRANTED! (c) Not only did ―Named Defendants’‖ culpable conduct lead to their default, said
conduct led to Newsome being terminated from her place of employment – culpable acts done with
intent to obtain an undue advantage in the bringing of this lawsuit against them. Furthermore the record
evidence and that presented in this instant motion will support ―Named Defendants’‖ culpable acts led
to their default – a default which is as a direct and proximate result of “Named Defendants’”
defiance and reckless disregard of the rules and procedures governing said matters. The record
evidence supports that Newsome timely, properly and adequately notified ―Named Defendants‖ of the
consequences of failing to file a timely Answer and/or file a responsive pleading/motion in accordance
to the statutes/laws governing said matters. To no avail. ―Named Defendants‖ ignored said
notifications provided them by Newsome through the “Notification Accompanying Waiver of Service
of Summons” which was attached to the ―Waiver of the Service of Summon‖ served on ―Named
Defendants.‖ In fact, Named Defendants’ and their counsel’s (Phelps Dunbar/Siler/Marsh) knowledge
of said information and the CRITICAL nature thereof, is EVIDENCED in their removal of said
NOTIFICATION and RECREATION of the ―Waiver of the Service of Summons.‖ Thus, further
supporting how ―Named Defendants‖ have abused their time and can be expected to continue such
CRIMINAL/CIVIL violations before this Court.

Jackson v. Hamilton County Community Mental Health Bd.,174 FRD 394 (1997) In determining
whether . . . to grant default judgment, court must balance the following factors: (1) whether
plaintiff will be prejudiced; (2) whether defendant has meritorious defense; and (3) whether
culpable conduct of defendant led to the default.
In order to find defendant’s conduct culpable, for purpose of determining whether . . . to
grant default judgment, conduct must display either intent to thwart judicial proceedings or reckless
disregard for effect of its conduct on those proceedings. (Id.)

48. As sustained by this instant MTS-DEFRIOTMTSMTD. . ., ―Named Defendants‖ failed to provide an
Answer to the Complaint filed in this lawsuit or a responsive pleading permissible under Rule 12 of
the FRCP. The statutes/laws governing said matters requires the STRIKING of Named Defendants’
Motion to Stay and supporting Memorandum In Support for the reasons set forth above in this instant
pleading. The laws are clear on such matters that STRICKEN pleadings are as though they were
NEVER filed and CANNOT be relied upon. Therefore, Newsome believes that a reasonable mind may
conclude that ―Named Defendants’‖ failure to file a timely Answer or responsive pleading under Rule
12 of the FRCP was due to the fact that Complaint filed in this lawsuit is well grounded in facts,
evidence and legal conclusions to sustain it.

49. For purposes of expedition, saving of time and minimize costs associated with litigation, Newsome
consolidate her motions/pleadings herein pursuant to FRCP Rule 12(G) which states:

FRCP Rule 12(g) Joining Motions. - Right to Join. A motion under this rule may be joined
with any other motion allowed by this rule.

50. Newsome, therefore, in keeping with Rules 1(B) and 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, moves
this Court for an entry and judgment GRANTING default judgment of and against ―Named
Defendants‖ in the amount set forth in her Complaint and this instant MTS-DEFRIOTMTSMTD. . ..

51. Newsome further demands a JURY trial (i.e. NOT a Bench Trial)
on triable issues. Newsome is proceeding in this instant lawsuit as a
PAYING Litigant and the Docket Sheet in this matter clearly
reflects “JURY DEMAND: Plaintiff.” See EXHIBIT “H”
attached hereto and incorporated by reference.

Page 19 of 23

EXHIBITS TABLE
EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION

A Affidavit Of Vogel Denise Newsome in Support of Motion to Strike

B FRCP Rule 38

C Seventh Amendment United States Constitution

D FRCP Rule 26

E 28 USC § 455

F Phillips v. Joint Legislative Committee on Performance and Expenditure Review Of The State
of Mississippi

G Code of Judicial Conduct (Mississippi)

H Docket Sheet (Newsome vs Page Kruger & Holland)

I FRCP Rule 8

J Waiver or Loss of Right To Disqualify Judge (Civil Cases)

K WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS – Page Kruger & Holland P.A.

L WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS – Thomas Y. Page

M WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS – Louis G. Baine III

N WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS – Linda Thomas

Page 23 of 23

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT – JACKSON DIVISION

VOGEL DENISE NEWSOME PLAINTIFF

V. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-cv-00342

PAGE KRUGER & HOLLAND P.A., ET AL. DEFENDANTS

VOGEL DENISE NEWSOME’S AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE
MOTION TO DISMISS AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS; MOTION TO STRIKE
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS OF AND
AGAINST DEFENDANTS; AND MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS OF AND
AGAINST DEFENDANTS; AND MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
(JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN THIS ACTION) 1

STATE OF OHIO )
) SS
COUNTY OF HAMILTON )

I, Vogel Denise Newsome (“Newsome”), being first duly sworn, deposes and states:

1. Newsome is the Plaintiff in the above-entitled action.

2. Newsome has personal knowledge as to the claims and facts set forth in the
Motions and Memorandum Brief in which this Affidavit supports. Moreover,
giving rise to the lawsuit filed in this action.

3. Newsome is competent to testify to the matters set forth in the Complaint and her
subsequent pleadings filed.

4. The Motions and Memorandum Brief in which this Affidavit supports and this
Affidavit is being filed in good faith and is NOT imposed 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.

5. Newsome states that the Motion to Strike Defendants’ Response In Opposition To
Plaintiff’s Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss and Memorandum In Support Of
Motion To Dismiss; Motion To Strike Defendants’ Response In Opposition To
Plaintiff’s Motion For Rule 11 Sanctions Of And Against Defendants; and Motion To
Strike Defendants’ Response In Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion For Default
Judgment; Plaintiff’s Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions of and Against Defendants; and
Motion for Default Judgment (Jury Trial Demanded in this Action) in which this
Affidavit supports is in COMPLIANCE with “Pleading REQUIREMENTS”
pursuant to Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

1
NOTE: Boldface, caps, small-caps, italics, highlights and underline represents “emphasis” added.
EXHIBIT
“A”
Page 1 of 6

6. Newsome timely, properly and adequately NOTIFIED this Court through her
Complaint at Page 136 and her subsequent pleadings filed in this matter that she
DEMANDS a JURY Trial. Newsome does NOT waive her right to have triable
issues raised in her Motion to Strike Defendants’ Response In Opposition To
Plaintiff’s Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss and Memorandum In Support Of
Motion To Dismiss; Motion To Strike Defendants’ Response In Opposition To
Plaintiff’s Motion For Rule 11 Sanctions Of And Against Defendants; and Motion To
Strike Defendants’ Response In Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion For Default
Judgment; Plaintiff’s Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions of and Against Defendants; and
Motion for Default Judgment (Jury Trial Demanded in this Action) tried before a JURY
– i.e. OPPOSING a BENCH Trial on triable issues.

7. Newsome OBJECTS to the appointment of this matter to Judge Tom Stewart Lee
and believes that he is to RECUSE and/or DISQUALIFY himself from this lawsuit
for the reasons set forth in her previous pleadings and this instant filing to which
this Affidavit supports.

8. Judge Tom S. Lee, as a matter of law, is disqualified from presiding over this
lawsuit in that he has is BIAS and PREJUDICE toward Newsome, has a
FINANCIAL/PECUNIARY interest in this lawsuit, has KNOWLEDGE of
extrajudicial matters regarding Newsome to which he is and/or may be a party, may
be a MATERIAL WITNESS in legal proceedings to which he has been named in
other lawful actions brought by Newsome, has been appointed for purposes of
COMPROMISING and TAINTING these proceeding and has FAILED to NOTIFY
all parties to this lawsuit as to the CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST and the grounds
requiring his DISQUALIFICATION. Should it become necessary to bring legal
against Judge Tom S. Lee, Newsome intends to SUBPOENA any and/or all of his
personal financial records (i.e. Tax Returns, Stocks Portfolio, etc.) for presentation
to JURY in the TRIAL on this matter.

9. Newsome OPPOSES and OBJECTS to this Court’s allowing parties to abuse this
Court’s Electronic Filing System.

10. Newsome will be prejudiced by this Court’s allowing the sham and frivolous
Defendants’ Response In Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss
and Memorandum In Support Of Motion To Dismiss; Defendants’ Response In
Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion For Rule 11 Sanctions Of And Against Defendants;
and Defendants’ Response In Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion For Default Judgment
to remain a part of the record in that they have been filed in violation of the
statutes/laws governing said matters.

11. There are genuine issues of material fact which precludes the filing of Motion to
Dismiss and the supporting Memorandum In Support; wherein resulting in the
Motion to Strike and Motion for Default Judgment as well as other relief set forth in
the Motions to which this Affidavit supports.

12. All facts and/or claim set forth in the Complaint are to be deemed as TRUE and to
date remain UNCONTESTED!

13. On or about June 6, 2012, Newsome timely, properly and adequately notified
“Named Defendants” – Page Kruger & Holland, Thomas Y. Page, Louis G. Baine
III and Linda Thomas [hereinafter “Named Defendants”] – of the consequences
Page 2 of 6
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-cv-00342

(i.e. that she will file Motion to Strike and/or Motion for Default Judgment) should
they fail to comply with the statutes and laws governing said matters. See Exhibits
“K,” “L,” “M” and “N” of the Motion to Strike to which this Affidavit supports.

14. Newsome believes that based upon the facts, evidence and legal conclusions
provided in the Complaint and her subsequent pleading, that a reasonable mind
may conclude that Named Defendants and/or their Counsel (Phelps Dunbar/W.
Thomas Siler, Jr./Jason T. Marsh) did knowingly and willing submit their D
“Defendants’ Response In Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion To Strike Motion To
Dismiss and Memorandum In Support Of Motion To Dismiss; Defendants’ Response In
Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion For Rule 11 Sanctions Of And Against Defendants;
and Defendants’ Response In Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion For Default Judgment”
with fraudulent intent – i.e. purposes of committing fraud upon this Court.

15. Newsome believes that the record evidence will sustain that “Named Defendants”
come before this Court with DIRTY HANDS! Moreover, may rely and
encourage WILLFUL participants as their legal counsel (Phelps Dunbar/W.
Thomas Siler, Jr./Jason T. Marsh) to this action to come before this Court with
DIRTY HANDS!!!

16. Newsome believes that it is important for this Court to be fully aware as to what is
going on in matters outside this lawsuit so that this Court can better understand the
unlawful/illegal acts of Named Defendants and/or their Counsel. Moreover, see
through their HIDDEN MOTIVES and AGENDAS!

17. The allegations set forth in Motions to which this Affidavit supports can be
supported by factual evidence in the record of “Named Defendants” as well as
pleadings in this lawsuit.

18. There is sufficient facts, evidence and legal conclusions contained in the Complaint
to sustain the 13 Counts (i.e. while misnumbered does NOT take away from the
merits, facts, evidence and legal conclusions sustaining them):

(1) Count I - 42 USC § 1981: Equal Rights Under The Law
Against Defendants;
(2) Count II - 42 USC § 1985: Conspiracy To Interfere With
Civil Rights and 42 USC § 1981: Equal Rights Under The
Law Against Defendant(s);
(3) Count III - 42 USC § 1986: Action For Neglect To Prevent
and 42 USC § 1981: Equal Rights Under The Law Against
Defendant(s);
(4) Count IV - Negligent Interference with Employment and 42
USC § 1981: Equal Rights Under The Law Against
Defendant(s);
(5) Count V - Discrimination in Employment and 42 USC §
1981: Equal Rights Under The Law Against Defendant(s);
(6) Count II [Sic] – Retaliation and 42 USC § 1981: Equal
Rights Under The Law Against Defendant(s);
(7) Count IIIII [Sic] - Breach Of Express Employment
Agreement 42 USC § 1981: Equal Rights Under The Law
Against Defendant(s);
Page 3 of 6

(8) Count VIII – Breach Of The Covenant Of Good Faith And
Fair Dealing 42 USC § 1981: Equal Rights Under The Law
Against Defendant(s);
(9) Count IX – Negligent Infliction Of Emotional Distress and
42 USC § 1981: Equal Rights Under The Law Against
Defendant(s);
(10) Count X – Fraud Against [sic] and 42 USC § 1981: Equal
Rights Under The Law Against Defendant(s);
(11) Count XI – Negligent Interference With Employment –
Malicious Conspiracy To Cause Discharge From
Employment and 42 USC § 1981: Equal Rights Under The
Law Against Defendant(s);
(12) Count IVII – Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the
U.S. Constitution – Due Process and 42 USC § 1981: Equal
Rights Under The Law; and
(13) Count VII – Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the
U.S. Constitution – Equal Protection and 42 USC § 1981:
Equal Rights Under The Law Against Defendant(s)

set forth. Furthermore, to sustain that this Court is to take “all the allegations in
the complaint as TRUE even if doubtful in fact” - i.e. in a light more favorable to
Newsome.

19. There is sufficient facts, evidence and legal conclusions to sustain the approximate
34 Pages with approximately 145 distinctly numbered paragraphs containing
statements and/or issues, legal conclusions and approximately 42 supporting Exhibits
to MOTION TO STRIKE MOTION TO DISMISS; MOTION FOR RULE 11 SANCTIONS OF AND
AGAINST DEFENDANTS; AND MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT (JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
IN THIS ACTION) along with the MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS.

20. Newsome believes that when this Court allows the UNLAWFUL/ILLEGAL
practices as that in the submittal of Defendants’ Response In Opposition To Plaintiff’s
Motion To Strike Motion To Dismiss and Memorandum In Support Of Motion To
Dismiss; Defendants’ Response In Opposition To Plaintiff’s Motion For Rule 11
Sanctions Of And Against Defendants; and Defendants’ Response In Opposition To
Plaintiff’s Motion For Default Judgment it sends a message that such criminal and
unethical practices are accepted – i.e. all you have to do is have BIG MONEY and
be a BIG LAW FIRM with influences in HIGH PLACES.

21. Newsome believes that Foreign Countries/Nations and Foreign Leaders are tired of
the United States of America coming to them PREACHING to clean up their
CORRUPTION, HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, etc., yet and still the United
States continue to engage in such unlawful/illegal practices itself – i.e. sending a
message of HYPOCRISY and TWO-FACEDNESS. This instant lawsuit is a
classic example of the BLATANT corruption, discrimination, employment
violations, etc. that employers engage in because they feel they are above the laws
of the United States and/or feel they do not have to comply.

22. Newsome believes that there is sufficient evidence in the record of this Court to
sustain that the law firm (Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz [“Baker
Donelson”]) that provides United States President Barack Obama with legal
Page 4 of 6

USPS Proof of Mailing Receipt for Court Filing

USPS Proof of Mailing Receipt for Court Filing

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (10)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (20)

Ähnlich wie USPS Proof of Mailing Receipt for Court Filing

Ähnlich wie USPS Proof of Mailing Receipt for Court Filing (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (10)

USPS Proof of Mailing Receipt for Court Filing