06/08/12 - eeoc response to dismissal & notice of rights

of 59

Phone: (513) 575-7167 or (513) 794-0400/(888) 556-7526

County: Hamilton County, Ohio

**Ohio Office Having 50+ employees

Messina Staffing/Messina Management Systems

Attn: Vince Messina (President)

11811 Mason-Montgomery Road

Cincinnati, Ohio 45249

(513) 774-9187

COMES NOW Complainant Vogel Denise Newsome (“Newsome”) and submits this, her

REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DISMISSAL AND NOTICE OF

RIGHTS, NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT

VIOLATIONS, REQUEST FOR EEOC’S “WRITTEN” DETERMINATION –

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION OF LAW, REQUEST FOR “WRITTEN”

TITLE VII INTERPRETATION/OPINION, REQUEST FOR DEFERRAL TO THE

OHIO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION, REQUEST FOR STATUS OF

COMMISSION CHARGE TO ISSUE; OBJECTIONS TO EMPLOYMENT

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION’S MAY 31, 2012 DISMISSAL AND NOTICE OF

RIGHTS; RESPONSE TO OHIO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION’S LETTER

DATED MAY 9, 2012 REGARDING “YOUR INQUIRY REGARDING

POTENTIAL CHARGE OF DISCRIMINATION;” and 2ND

REQUEST TO BE

ADVISED OF ALL “CONFLICT-OF-INTERESTS” (hereinafter “RFROD&NOR. . .”) in

regards to the:

“OFFICIAL COMPLAINT/CHARGE OF DISCRIMINATION

FILED OF AND AGAINST THE GARRETSON FIRM

RESOLUTION GROUP INC. AND/OR MESSINA

STAFFING/MESSINA MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS WITH

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR - UNITED

STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

COMMISSION – CINCINNATI AREA OFFICE and OHIO CIVIL

of 59

RIGHTS COMMISSION – CENTRAL OFFICE; AND REQUEST

FOR COMMISSIONER CHARGE TO BE ISSUED SUBMITTED

FOR FILING ON APRIL 30, 2012” (hereinafter “Official

Complaint/Charge Of Discrimination”)

In support thereof, and without waiving the protected rights preserved herein, Newsome states the

following in PRESERVATION of issues raised in “Official Complaint/Charge Of Discrimination”

and those set forth in this instant “RFROD&NOR. . .”:

I. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF DISMISSAL AND NOTICE OF RIGHTS

Gonzalez v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 610 F.2d 241 (1980) - [2]

EEOC may issue a second 90-day right-to-sue notice upon

completion of a discretionary reconsideration of prior determination

provided it has given notice to both parties of its decision to

reconsider within 90-day period provided by initial notice of right to

sue. Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 706(e) as amended 42 U.S.C.A. §

2000e-5(f)(1).

29 CFR § 1601.18 DISMISSAL: PROCEDURE AND AUTHORITY:

(a) Where a charge on its face, or as amplified by the statements of the person claiming

to be aggrieved discloses, or where after investigation the Commission determines,

that the charge and every portion thereof is not timely filed, or otherwise fails to state

a claim under title VII, the ADA, or GINA, the Commission shall dismiss the charge.

. .

(b) Written notice of disposition, pursuant to this section, shall be issued to the person

claiming to be aggrieved and to the person making the charge on behalf of such person,

where applicable; in the case of a Commissioner charge, to all persons specified in §1601.28(b)(2); and to the respondent. Appropriate notices of right to sue shall be

issued pursuant to §1601.28.

(c) The Commission hereby delegates authority to District Directors; the Director of

the Office of Field Programs, or upon delegation, the Director of Field Management

Programs, as appropriate, to dismiss charges, as limited by §1601.21(d). The

Commission hereby delegates authority to Field Directors, Area Directors and Local

Directors to dismiss charges pursuant to paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of this section, as

limited by §1601.21(d). The authority of the Commission to reconsider decisions and

determinations as set forth in §1601.21 (b) and (d) shall be applicable to this section.

29 CFR § 1601.19 No cause determinations: Procedure and authority.

(a) Where the Commission completes its investigation of a charge and finds that there

is not reasonable cause to believe that an unlawful employment practice has occurred

or is occurring as to all issues addressed in the determination, the Commission shall issue a letter of determination to all parties to the charge indicating the finding. The

Commission's letter of determination shall be the final determination of the

Commission. The letter of determination shall inform the person claiming to be

aggrieved or the person on whose behalf a charge was filed of the right to sue in

of 59

Federal district court within 90 days of receipt of the letter of determination. . .

(b) The Commission may on its own initiative reconsider a final determination of no

reasonable cause and an issuing director may, on his or her own initiative reconsider

his or her final determination of no reasonable cause. If the Commission or an issuing

director decides to reconsider a final no cause determination, a notice of intent to

reconsider shall promptly issue to all parties to the charge. If such notice of intent to

reconsider is issued within 90 days of receipt of the final no cause determination, and

the person claiming to be aggrieved or the person on whose behalf a charge was filed

has not filed suit and did not request and receive a notice of right to sue pursuant to

§1601.28(a) (1) or (2), the notice of intent to reconsider shall vacate the letter of determination and shall revoke the charging party's right to bring suit within 90 days.

If the 90 day suit period has expired, the charging party has filed suit, or the charging

party had requested a notice of right to sue pursuant to §1601.28(a) (1) or (2), the

notice of intent to reconsider shall vacate the letter of determination, but shall not

revoke the charging party's right to sue in 90 days. After reconsideration, the

Commission or issuing director shall issue a new determination. In those

circumstances where the charging party's right to bring suit in 90 days was revoked,

the determination shall include notice that a new 90 day suit period shall begin upon

the charging party's receipt of the determination. Where a member of the Commission

has filed a Commissioner charge, he or she shall abstain from making a

determination in that case.

29 CFR § 1601.21 REASONABLE CAUSE DETERMINATION: PROCEDURE AND AUTHORITY.

(a) After completing its investigation, where the Commission has not settled or

dismissed a charge or made a no cause finding as to every allegation addressed in the

determination under §1601.19, the Commission shall issue a determination that

reasonable cause exists to believe that an unlawful employment practice has occurred

or is occurring under title VII, the ADA, or GINA. A determination finding reasonable

cause is based on, and limited to, evidence obtained by the Commission and does not

reflect any judgment on the merits of allegations not addressed in the determination.

(b) The Commission shall provide prompt notification of its determination under

paragraph (a) of this section to the person claiming to be aggrieved, the person making the charge on behalf of such person, if any, and the respondent, or in the case of a

Commissioner charge, the person named in the charge or identified by the Commission

in the third party certificate, if any, and the respondent. The Commission may,

however, on its own initiative reconsider its decision or the determination of any of its

designated officers who have authority to issue Letters of Determination, Except that

the Commission will not reconsider determinations of reasonable cause previously

issued against a government, governmental entity or political subdivision after a failure

of conciliation as set forth in §1601.25.

(1) In cases where the Commission decides to reconsider a dismissal or a

determination finding reasonable cause to believe a charge is true, a notice of intent

to reconsider will promptly issue. If such notice of intent to reconsider is issued within

90 days from receipt of a notice of right to sue and the charging party has not filed suit

and did not receive a notice of right to sue pursuant to §1601.28(a)(1) or (2), the

notice of intent to reconsider will vacate the dismissal or letter of determination and

revoke the notice of right to sue. If the 90 day period has expired, the charging party

has filed suit, or the charging party had requested a notice of right to sue pursuant to §1601.28(a)(1) or (2), the notice of intent to reconsider will vacate the dismissal or

letter of determination, but will not revoke the notice of right to sue. After

reconsideration the Commission will issue a determination anew. In those

circumstances where the notice of right to sue has been revoked, the Commission will,

in accordance with §1601.28, issue a notice of right to sue anew which will provide the

of 59

charging party with 90 days within which to bring suit.

(2) The Commission shall provide prompt notification of its intent to reconsider,

which is effective upon issuance, and its final decision after reconsideration to the

person claiming to be aggrieved, the person making the charge on behalf of such

person, if any, and the respondent, or in the case of a Commissioner charge, the person

named in the charge or identified by the Commissioner in the third-party certificate, if

any, and the respondent.

(c) Where a member of the Commission has filed a Commissioner charge, he or she

shall abstain from making a determination in that case.

(d) The Commission hereby delegates to District Directors, or upon delegation, Field

Directors, Area Directors or Local Directors; and the Director of the Office of Field

Programs, or upon delegation, the Director of Field Management Programs, the

authority, except in those cases involving issues currently designated by the

Commission for priority review, upon completion of an investigation, to make a

determination finding reasonable cause, issue a cause letter of determination and serve

a copy of the determination upon the parties. Each determination issued under this

section is final when the letter of determination is issued. However, the Director of the

Office of Field Programs, or upon delegation, the Director of Field Management Programs; each District Director; each Field Director; each Area Director and each

Local Director, for the determinations issued by his or her office, may on his or her

own initiative reconsider such determinations, except that such directors may not

reconsider determinations of reasonable cause previously issued against a government,

governmental agency or political subdivision after a failure of conciliation as set forth

in §1601.25.

(1) In cases where the issuing Director decides to reconsider a dismissal or a

determination finding reasonable cause to believe a charge is true, a notice of intent to

reconsider will promptly issue. If such notice of intent to reconsider is issued within 90

days from receipt of a notice of right to sue and the charging party has not filed suit

and did not request a notice of right to sue pursuant to §1601.28(a)(1) or (2), the notice

of intent to reconsider will vacate the dismissal or letter of determination and revoke

the notice of right to sue. If the 90 day period has expired, the charging party has filed

suit, or the charging party had received a notice of right to sue pursuant to

§1601.28(a)(1) or (2), the notice of intent to reconsider will vacate the dismissal or letter of determination, but will not revoke the notice of right to sue. After

reconsideration the issuing Director will issue a determination anew. In those

circumstances where the notice of right to sue has been revoked, the issuing Director

will, in accordance with §1601.28, issue a notice of right to sue anew which will

provide the charging party with 90 days within which to bring suit.

(2) When the issuing Director does reconsider, he or she shall provide prompt

notification of his or her intent to reconsider, which is effective upon issuance, and

final decision after reconsideration to the person claiming to be aggrieved, the person

making the charge on behalf of such person, if any, and the respondent, or in the

charge or identified by the Commissioner in the third party certificate, if any, and the

respondent.

(e) In making a determination as to whether reasonable cause exists, substantial

weight shall be accorded final findings and orders made by designated FEP agencies

to which the Commission defers charges pursuant to §1601.13. For the purposes of

this section, the following definitions shall apply:

(1) “Final findings and orders” shall mean:

of 59

(i) The findings of fact and order incident thereto issued by a FEP agency on the

merits of a charge; or

(ii) The consent order or consent decree entered into by the FEP agency on the merits

of a charge.

Provided, however, That no findings and order of a FEP agency shall be considered

final for purposes of this section unless the FEP agency shall have served a copy of

such findings and order upon the Commission and upon the person claiming to be

aggrieved and shall have informed such person of his or her rights of appeal or to

request reconsideration, or rehearing or similar rights; and the time for such appeal,

reconsideration, or rehearing request shall have expired or the issues of such appeal,

reconsideration or rehearing shall have been determined.

(2) “Substantial weight” shall mean that such full and careful consideration shall be

accorded to final findings and orders, as defined above, as is appropriate in light of the

facts supporting them when they meet all of the prerequisites set forth below:

(i) The proceedings were fair and regular; and

(ii) The practices prohibited by the State or local law are comparable in scope to the

practices prohibited by Federal law; and

(iii) The final findings and order serve the interest of the effective enforcement of title VII, the ADA, or GINA: Provided, That giving substantial weight to final findings and

orders of a FEP agency does not include according weight, for purposes of applying

Federal law, to such Agency's conclusions of law.

1. In the interest of justice and preservation of protected statutory rights,

Newsome objects to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's violations of

laws which have deprived her rights secured under Title VII, Code of Federal

Regulations, Administrative Procedure Act, United States Constitution, Ohio Civil

Rights, and other statutes/laws of Ohio and United States of America governing said

matters.

2. Newsome hereby request RECONSIDERATION of Dismissal and Notice

of Rights, in that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has committed

ERROR in the handling of this Charge and has DEPRIVED Newsome of rights

statutorily guaranteed under the laws of Ohio and United States of America. Copies of

May 31, 2012 Letter with the Dismissals and Notices of Rights for Respondents The

Garretson Firm Resolution Group Inc. and Messina Staffing/Messina Management

Systems are respectively attached hereto as EXHIBITS “A” and “B” and are

incorporated by reference as if set forth in full herein.

3. On or about April 30, 2012, Newsome submitted her “Official

Complaint/Charge Of Discrimination” which consisted of approximately 196 Pages

and 86 Exhibits - a copy of which may be viewed/received at:

http://www.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a70628a5b6271a86f9f

4. Newsome's “Official Complaint/Charge Of Discrimination” consisted of

approximately 109 NUMBERED Issues Raised and include Sections entitled: (I)


of 59

Violation of Statute, (II) Purpose of Title VII, (III) Pattern Of Discrimination, (IV)

Unlawful Employment Termination/Wrongful Discharge, (V) Harassment, (VI) Hostile,

(VII) Retaliation, (VIII) Pretext/Bad Faith, (IX) Statistics/Disparate Treatment, (X)

Employment-At-Will/Protected Activity, (XI) Public Policy, (XII) Pretext, (XIII)

Conspiracy, (XIV) Systematic Discrimination, (XV) Employer Liability, and (XVI)

Relief Sought.

5. Newsome's “Official Complaint/Charge Of Discrimination” on its face

and/or amplified by the statements contained therein is supported by facts, evidence

and legal conclusions to sustain the charges made therein as well as the relief sought for

the injuries/harm sustained by Newsome.

6. Newsome's “Official Complaint/Charge Of Discrimination” meets the

pleading requirements as required by statutes/laws governing said matters and,

therefore, state claims upon which the relief sought by Newsome is to be GRANTED!

However, based upon the arbitrary and capricious acts of the Equal Employment

Commission and the Ohio Civil Rights Commission in the handling of Newsome's

“Official Complaint/Charge Of Discrimination” thus far, have subjected Newsome to

irreparable injury/harm and is attempting to deprive her of statutory rights

GUARANTEED under the laws of the State of Ohio as well as United States of

America.

7. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ERRED in its dismissal

of Newsome's “Official Complaint/Charge Of Discrimination” and issuance of

"Dismissal and Notice of Rights."

8. The Ohio Civil Rights Commission ERRED in its FAILURE to receive

and prosecute Newsome's “Official Complaint/Charge Of Discrimination” alleging

that it was UNTIMELY filed - i.e. in that it was TIMELY filed in accordance with the

statutes/laws governing said matters. Newsome having submitted her “Official

Complaint/Charge Of Discrimination” to the Ohio Civil Rights Commission with 240

days permissible under the laws for Charges filed in a "DEFERRAL" state as Ohio.

9. At the time Newsome submitted her “Official Complaint/Charge Of

Discrimination” she timely, properly and adequately requested that COMMISSIONER

Charge to issue.

10. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ERRED in committed

UNLAWFUL/ILLEGAL acts when its submitted Newsome with "Charges of

Discrimination" in that a reasonable person/mind, based upon the actions taken may

conclude that the EEOC drafted "Charges of Discrimination" with WILLFUL,

MALICIOUS and WANTON intent to evade having to address the ISSUES raised in

Newsome's “Official Complaint/Charge Of Discrimination.” Nevertheless, the EEOC

was disappointed when Newsome made the CRITICAL and NECESSARY corrections

to Charges of Discrimination INCORPORATING her “Official Complaint/Charge Of

Discrimination” which CLEARLY preserved her rights as well as ADEQUATELY

supports what ISSUES were before the EEOC at the time of issuance of "Dismissal and

Notice of Rights." For further, purposes of preserving ISSUES, evidence and concerns

of the EEOC's engagement in SYSTEMATIC CRIMINAL/CIVIL wrongs leveled

AGAINST Newsome in the handling of “Official Complaint/Charge Of

of 59

Discrimination” Newsome incorporates by reference as if set forth in full herein, her

April 30, 2012 Cover Letter accompanying “Official Complaint/Charge Of

Discrimination” http://www.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a70628a5b6271a86f9f

as well as Newsome's May 24, 2012 "Response To Letter of May 8, 2012 From

Derwin E. Jamison" which is hereby incorporated by reference as if set forth in full

herein and may be obtained from: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/052412-response-

to-eeoc-letter-of-050812

11. The EEOC has statutory authority to reconsider its "Dismissal and Notice

of Rights" issued in this matter and to assure that it has been issued in good faith and

not for ILL purposes/motives.

12. Pursuant to the statutes/laws governing said matters, the EEOC failed to

perform a MANDATORY ministerial duties OWED under statute(s) to address ALL

issues raised in “Official Complaint/Charge Of Discrimination” and subsequent

"Response To Letter of May 8, 2012 From Derwin E. Jamison." Therefore, a

reasonable person/mind may conclude that the EEOC's acts are arbitrary and

capricious.

13. The EEOC ERRED in its FAILURE to issue a "Letter of

Determination" setting forth the findings of fact and conclusion of law required by

STATUTE(s) governing said matters. Therefore, through this instant pleading,

Newsome OBJECTS to said failure and is DEMANDING that the EEOC issue "Letter

of Determination" in accordance with the statutes/laws governing said matters (i.e.

which FIRST requires deferral of matter to the Ohio Civil Rights Commission). In

other words, the EEOC was WITHOUT authority to issue the "Dismissal and Notice of

Rights" in that it with DELIBERATE, MALICIOUS and CRIMINAL intent FAILED

to defer Newsome's “Official Complaint/Charge Of Discrimination” to the Ohio Civil

Rights Commission as MANDATORILY required by STATUTE!

14. While the EEOC's Director may act on his/her own initiative to

RECONSIDER his/her final determination of no reasonable cause, Newsome submits

this instant pleading in that the record evidence as well as the EEOC's SYSTEMATIC

discriminatory practices and PATTERN-OF-DISCRIMINATORY practices in the

handling of charges brought by Newsome warranted Newsome taking the

NECESSARY steps in the PRESERVATION of the issues raised and

PRESERVATION of Newsome's rights secured and guaranteed by STATUTES/LAWS

governing said matters.

15. In accordance with the Statutes/Laws governing said matters, Newsome

request that the EEOC issue the REQUIRED "Notice of Intent to Reconsider"

promptly!

16. Newsome believes that a reasonable mind may conclude that the

EEOC's/Wilma Javey with DELIBERATE, MALICIOUS and CRIMINAL intent

FAILED to file the REQUIRED Commissioner Charge requested by Newsome which

would clearly PRECLUDE the issuance of the "Dismissal and Notice of Rights"

executed. In so doing, the EEOC DEPRIVED Newsome of protected rights

secured/guaranteed by statutes/laws governing said matters.


http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/052412-response-to-eeoc-letter-of-050812


of 59

17. The EEOC ERRED in USURPATION of authority as well as ABUSE of

Authority in the handling of Newsome's “Official Complaint/Charge Of

Discrimination.” Furthermore, the record evidence supports that the EEOC FAILED

to provide "finding as to every allegation addressed in Newsome's “Official

Complaint/Charge Of Discrimination” and subsequent "Response To Letter of May

8, 2012 From Derwin E. Jamison."

29 CFR § 1601.8 WHERE TO MAKE A CHARGE:

A charge may be made in person or by mail at any office of the Commission or with

any designated representative of the Commission . . .

29 CFR § 1601.9 FORM OF CHARGE:

A charge shall be in writing and signed and shall be verified.

29 CFR § 1601.12 CONTENTS OF CHARGE; AMENDMENT OF CHARGE:

(a) Each charge should contain the following:

(1) The full name, address and telephone number of the person making the charge

except as provided in §1601.7;

(2) The full name and address of the person against whom the charge is made, if

known (hereinafter referred to as the respondent);

(3) A clear and concise statement of the facts, including pertinent dates, constituting

the alleged unlawful employment practices: See §1601.15(b);

(4) If known, the approximate number of employees of the respondent employer or the

approximate number of members of the respondent labor organization, as the case may

be; and

(5) A statement disclosing whether proceedings involving the alleged unlawful

employment practice have been commenced before a State or local agency charged

with the enforcement of fair employment practice laws and, if so, the date of such

commencement and the name of the agency.

(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section, a charge is

sufficient when the Commission receives from the person making the charge a written

statement sufficiently precise to identify the parties, and to describe generally the

action or practices complained of. A charge may be amended to cure technical defects

or omissions, including failure to verify the charge, or to clarify and amplify allegations made therein. Such amendments and amendments alleging additional acts

which constitute unlawful employment practices related to or growing out of the

subject matter of the original charge will relate back to the date the charge was first

received. A charge that has been so amended shall not be required to be redeferred.

18. The record evidence will support that Newsome submitted TIMELY

filing of “Official Complaint/Charge Of Discrimination” to the Equal Employment

of 59

Opportunity Commission and Ohio Civil Rights Commission. Therefore, meeting the

pleading requirements as to "WHERE TO MAKE A CHARGE."

19. Newsome's “Official Complaint/Charge Of Discrimination” CLEARLY

meets the pleading requirements for "FORM OF CHARGE" and present ISSUES,

provides facts, evidence and legal conclusions to sustain the Complaint/Charge and was

presented in "TYPEWRITTEN" form.

20. Newsome's “Official Complaint/Charge Of Discrimination” meets the

pleading requirements for the "CONTENTS OF CHARGE" in that in contains: (1) The

full name, address and telephone number of the person making the charge; (2) The full

name and address of the person against whom the charge is made, if known; (3) A clear

and concise statement of the facts, including pertinent dates, constituting the alleged

unlawful employment practices; (4) If known, the approximate number of employees of

the respondent employer or the approximate number of members of the respondent; and

(5) A statement disclosing whether proceedings involving the alleged unlawful

employment practice have been commenced before a State or local agency charged

with the enforcement of fair employment practice laws and, if so, the date of such

commencement and the name of the agency.

21. Newsome’s “Official Complaint/Charge Of Discrimination” clearly set

forth belief that “DISCRIMINATION BASED ON: (1) Race; (2) Age; (3) Retaliation;

(4) Other – knowledge of engagement in protected activity(s); and (5) Systematic

Discrimination” – See Page 2.

22. On or about May 8, 2012, the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission provided Newsome with a “CHARGE OF DISCRIMINATION” for each

of the Respondents (i.e. The Garretson Firm Resolution Group, Inc. and Messina

Staffing/Messina Management Systems).

23. On or about May 9, 2012, the Ohio Civil Rights Commission provided

Newsome with correspondence entitled, “Your Inquiry Regarding Potential Charge of

Discrimination” which stated in part:

"We are in receipt of your letter and voluminous documentation

regarding a potential charge of discrimination against your former

employer, The Garretson Firm Resolution Group, Inc. and Messina

Staffing. As we understand your documentation, you were terminated

from employment on October 21, 2011. We received your

documentation May 2, 2012. The Ohio Civil Rights Act, Ohio Revised

Code Chapter 4112, requires that a charge of

discrimination be filed within six months of the

date of harm and therefore the charge is deemed

untimely for us to pursue.

Your letter to us indicates both the Ohio Civil Rights Commission

and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission received

identical documentation. Charges may be filed with the U.S.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within 300 days

of 59

from the date of harm and therefore could be considered timely with

them.

Our agency, the Ohio Civil Rights Commission, is the state

administrative law enforcement agency that administers the Ohio Civil

Rights Act, Ohio Revised Code Chapter 4112, and we are

RESPONSIBLE for INVESTIGATING charges

of race, color, sex, national origin, military status,

disability, age and religion discrimination in the

areas of employment, housing, public accommodation. . .

Although we have NO jurisdictional authority to investigate this

matter, we do want you to know we received and carefully read the

materials you provided.

If in the future you believe that you are a victim of discrimination that

falls under our jurisdiction, please contact us and ask to speak to an

investigator. . . "

executed by Sandra R. Aukeman/Constituent Services and acting on behalf and with

the APPROVAL of the Ohio Civil Rights Commission’s Executive Director G.

Michael Payton. A copy of the Ohio Civil Rights Commission May 9, 2012 letter is

attached hereto and incorporated by reference as EXHIBIT “B.”

24. As EVIDENCED, the Ohio Civil Rights Commission CONFIRMS its

KNOWLEDGE of Newsome’s submittal of “Official Complaint/Charge Of

Discrimination” to both the OCRC and the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission. Under the STATUTES/LAWS governing said matters, Newsome having

approximately 240 days, instead of the 180 days asserted by the OCRC to file her

State Charge.

Alsup v. International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen of

Toledo, Ohio, Local Union No. 3, 679 F.Supp. 716 (N.D. Ohio W. Div.

1987) - In “deferral states” such as Ohio, where the EEOC defers to

the state agency established to investigate charges of discrimination, an EEOC charge must be filed within 300 days after the alleged unlawful

act. Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 706(e), as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §

2000e-5(f)(1). . .

When a charge of discrimination is submitted to both the

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and state agency in a

“deferral state,” the EEOC will not formally file its charge of

discrimination until after the state agency has terminated its

proceedings . . . therefore, state administrative charge of discrimination

must generally be filed within 240 days of the alleged unlawful

practice in order to preserve claimant's right to file a Title VII lawsuit

in federal court. Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 706(e), as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-5(f)(1). . . Mohasco Corp. v. Silver, 447 U.S. 807,

814 n. 16, 100 S.Ct. 2486, 2491 n. 16, 65 L.Ed.2d 532 (1980).

Therefore, the OCRC has ERRED in its handling of Newsome’s “Official

Complaint/Charge Of Discrimination” and the EEOC is to DEFER this matter to the

Ohio Civil Rights Commission. Furthermore, the EEOC ERRED in its issuance of

“Dismissal and Notice of Rights” in that said failure to defer matter to the OCRC

of 59

PRECLUDED/PREVENTED the EEOC from issuing “Dismissal and Notice of

Rights.”

25. Ohio Civil Rights Commission (“OCRC”) Executive Director G.

Michael Payton is an ATTORNEY/LAWYER, therefore, Newsome believes that a

reasonable person/mind may conclude that based upon facts, evidence and legal

conclusions presented in this instant pleading as well as “Official Complaint/Charge

Of Discrimination” KNEW and/or should have known that the OCR may have acted

with DELIBERATE, WILLFUL and MALICIOUS intent to provide Newsome with

FALSE and/or MISLEADING information advising that her “Official

Complaint/Charge Of Discrimination” filed with the OCRC was UNTIMELY filed.

The laws are clear and/or well settled on said matters regarding TIMELINESS for

bringing actions and what constitutes a rebuttal and WAIVER to claims as that of the

OCRC:

Weise v. Syracuse University, 522 F.2d 524 (2nd Cir. 1975), 33

BNA FEP Cas 544 - Court’s dismissal of complaint based on EEOC’s

dismissal of charge because of supposed untimeliness of

charge was ERROR, since District Court was not bound to

accept EEOC’s determination on question as binding and contrary

holding would make meaningless the right to sue after dismissal by

Commission; while EEOC’s findings are ordinarily entitled to great

weight, it seemed to have MISREAD charge, which clearly alleged

CONTINUING discrimination (which would

make filing TIMELY).

American Finance System, Inc. vs. Harlow, 65 FRD 94 (1974)

– NINETY-Day limitation period is INAPPLICABLE if alleged

discrimination CONTINUES until date claim is brought before the

EEOC; acts of past discrimination can be carried forward by

PRESENT pattern of conduct, but only where

unlawful practices have present and recurring

effect on plaintiff-class representative.

Grohal vs. Stauffer Chemical Co., 385 F.Supp 1267 (1974), 10

BNA FEP Cas 785 – If discrimination complained of is

ONGOING or CONTINUING, statutory time

periods are WAIVED; plaintiff claiming such waiver

should allege some instances of CONTINUING

discrimination in her complaint.

Tyson vs. Sun Refining & Marketing Co, 599 F.Supp 136, 36

BNA FEP Cas 875 (1984) – EXCEPTION to 180 day

limitations period is made for “CONTINUING

VIOLATION” under which theory plaintiffs

MUST SHOW SERIES of RELATED acts, one

or more of which falls within limitations period, or

of 59

maintenance of discriminatory system both before

and during limitations period.

Marinelli vs. Chao, 222 F.Supp 2d 402 (2002) – Supreme Court has

abrogated continuing violation doctrine in context of discrimination

claims brought pursuant to Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42

USCS §§ 2000e et seq., employing reasoning that would seem to apply

equally to Age Discrimination in Employment Act and Rehabilitation

Act claims.

Austion v. City of Clarksville, 244 Fed.Appx. 639 (C.A. 6, 2007) - The

“continuing violations theory” is a specific equitable doctrine that tolls

300-day filing period for discrimination charge. Civil Rights Act of

1964, § 706(e)(1), 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-5(e)(1).

Newsome’s “Official Complaint/Charge Of Discrimination” clearly sets forth

CONTINUING discriminatory/retaliatory practices leveled against her by

Respondents. See Pages 26, 38, 58, 64 66, 69, 105, 135 and 189 supporting Newsome

addressing CONTINUED practices of Respondent(s). Moreover, Pages 12, 28, 55,

68, 74, 79, 81, 116 – 118, 120, 129, 136 and 138 addressing the February 3, 2012

MALICIOUS RETALIATORY Lawsuit filed by The Garretson Firm Resolution

Group, Inc. attempting to deprive Newsome of PROTECTED Rights. A copy of the

Docket Sheet can be viewed/received at:


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). TACIT AGREEMENT - Occurs when two or

more persons pursue by their acts the same object by the same means.

One person performing one part and the other another part, so that

upon completion they have obtained the object pursued. Regardless

whether each person knew of the details or what part each was to

perform, the end results being they obtained the object pursued.

Agreement is implied or inferred from actions or statements.

26. Newsome’s “Official Complaint/Charge Of Discrimination” not only

alleges SYSTEMATIC or SERIAL VIOLATIONS but provides facts, EVIDENCE

and legal conclusions to support same:

Moore vs. San Jose, 615 F.2d 1265 (1980), 22 BNA FEP Cas 1053 –

Pervasive policy of SYSTEMATIC discrimination is CONTINUING

violation of Title VII, so that charge which alleges

presence of such policy is NOT time-barred.

Kassaye vs. Bryant College, 999 F.2d 603 (1993), 62 BNA FEP Cas

724 - There are two kinds of CONTINUING violations, systematic

and SERIAL; serial violation is number of discriminatory acts


of 59

emanating from same discriminatory animus, each act constituting

separate wrong actionable under Title VII.

Moore v. City of San Jose, 615 F.2d 1265 (1980) - [18] A pervasive

policy of systematic discrimination is a continuing violation of Title

VII. Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 701 et seq. as amended 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e et seq.

[19] When there has been a pervasive policy of systematic

discrimination, the period of limitations on a suit under Title VII does

not start to run until the time when the policy is discontinued. Civil

Rights Act of 1964, § 706 as amended 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-5.

See Paragraphs Nos. 7, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 29, 33, 37, 38, 55, 63, 71, 73, 76, 87, 96, 99, 100;

moreover, Section “XIV. SYSTEMATIC DISCRIMINATION” of “Official Complaint/

Charge Of Discrimination.” http://www.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a70628a5b6271a86f9f

29 CFR § 1601.28 (3) NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUE: PROCEDURE AND AUTHORITY:

. . . (3) Issuance of a notice of right to sue shall terminate further proceeding of any

charge that is not a Commissioner charge unless the District Director; Field

Director; Area Director; Local Director; Director of the Office of Field Programs or

upon delegation, the Director of Field Management Programs; or the General Counsel,

determines at that time or at a later time that it would effectuate the purpose of title

VII, the ADA, or GINA to further process the charge. Issuance of a notice of right to

sue shall not terminate the processing of a Commissioner charge.

(4) The issuance of a notice of right to sue does not preclude the Commission from

offering such assistance to a person issued such notice as the Commission deems

necessary or appropriate.

27. Newsome hereby OBJECTS to the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission’s UNLAWFUL/ILLEGAL practices in FAILING to issue the

Commissioner Charge demanded in the “Official Complaint/ Charge Of

Discrimination.”

28. Newsome through this instant filing DEMANDS that the Equal

Employment Opportunity provide her with documentation supporting that Commission

Charge has issued and, if not, why the EEOC has FAILED and/or OBSTRUCTED the

Administration of Justice in the handling of Newsome’s request for Commission

Charge to issue.

29. The RECORD evidence will support that while the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission did KNOWINGLY, WILLINGLY, DELIBERATELY and

MALICIOUSLY attempt to keep Newsome’s “Official Complaint/ Charge Of

Discrimination” out of the “Charges of Discrimination” it provided her, Newsome

made the NECESSARY/CRITICAL corrections and submitted noting reference to

typewritten Complaint/Charge submitted as well as NOTING “SYSTEMATIC”

Discriminatory practices involved. See Newsome’s May 24, 2012 "Response To

Letter of May 8, 2012 From Derwin E. Jamison" – which is incorporated by reference

as if set forth in full herein: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/052412-response-to-

eeoc-letter-of-050812




of 59

30. Newsome’s request for Commission Charge to issue does NOT preclude

the Ohio Civil Rights Commission’s duty to perform the ministerial obligations owed

Newsome in the processing and handling of “Official Complaint/ Charge Of

Discrimination.”

II. NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT VIOLATIONS

Morris v. Kaiser Engineers, Inc., 471 N.E.2d 471 (Ohio,1984) - State

filing is a mandatory prerequisite to Age Discrimination in

Employment Act action. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of

1967, § 14, 29 U.S.C.A. § 633.

Piecuch v. Gulf & Western Mfg. Co., 626 F.Supp. 65

(N.D.Ohio.E.Div.,1985) - District court lacked jurisdiction over age

discrimination action, where plaintiff had not filed his charge with

Ohio Civil Rights Commission. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, § 14(b), 29 U.S.C.A. § 633(b).

31. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's issuance of

"Dismissal and Notice of Right" WITHOUT deferring Newsome's “Official

Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” to the Ohio Civil Rights Commission has

resulted in Newsome being INJURED/HARMED and deprived rights

secured/guaranteed under the STATUTES/LAWS governing said matters.

32. Newsome's “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” alleges

"AGE" Discrimination; therefore, it is MANDATORY that her Complaint/Charge be

deferred to the Ohio Civil Rights Commission for handling/processing.

33. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ERRED in its issuance

of "Dismissal and Notice of Rights" which asserts that Newsome has 90-Days bring

action in federal court. As a DIRECT and PROXIMATE result and the WILLFUL,

MALICIOUS and WANTON acts of the EEOC to defer matter to the Ohio Civil Rights

Commission, the District Court "LACKS JURISDICTION" to address matter due to the

"AGE" Discrimination issue raised in “Official Complaint/ Charge Of

Discrimination.” Moreover, the OCRC, as a matter of statute/law is

MANDATORILY required to handle/process Newsome's Complaint/Charge. The

OCRC's May 9, 2012, ACKNOWLEDGES receipt of Newsome's “Official Complaint/

Charge Of Discrimination.”

Ramirez v. National Distillers and Chemical Corp., 586 F.2d 1315

(1978) - [4] Where EEOC has failed to refer employment discrimination charge to state agency as required by Title VII, district

court should retain jurisdiction for period of time sufficient to allow

EEOC to notify appropriate state agency and to allow that agency

statutory deferral period in which to act. Civil Rights Act of 1964, §

706(d) as amended 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-5(e).

. . .This court has held repeatedly that “where the EEOC has

failed to follow section 2000e-5(c), the district court should retain

jurisdiction for a period of time sufficient to allow the EEOC to notify

the appropriate state agency and to allow that agency the statutory

deferral period in which to act.” (Gallego v. Arthur G. McKee & Co.

of 59

(9th Cir. 1977) 550 F.2d 456, 457. Cf. EEOC v. Wah Chang Albany

Corp. (9th Cir. 1974) 499 F.2d 187, 189 n.3 (“deferral is not a

jurisdictional fact in the sense that its absence deprives the court of

power to act”).) Moreover, it is doubtful that a procedural error

committed by the EEOC could bar a plaintiff's right to pursue a Title

VII claim. (See Miller v. International Paper Co. (5th Cir. 1969) 408 F.2d 283, 291 (“The action or inaction of the EEOC cannot affect the

grievant's substantive rights under the statute.”); Cf. Gates v. Georgia-

Pacific Corp. (9th Cir. 1974) 492 F.2d 292, 295.) Because the EEOC

eventually did refer Ramirez's amended charge to the appropriate state

agency, the district court erred in dismissing on jurisdictional grounds

the Title VII claim with respect to the 1974 layoff.

Judulang v. Holder, 132 S.Ct. 476 (2011) - When reviewing an agency

action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), a court must

assess, among other matters, whether the decision was based on a

consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a

clear error of judgment, which involves examining the reasons for the agency's decisions or the absence of such reasons. 5 U.S.C.A. §

706(2)(A).

34. A CLEAR error of judgment and issuance of the "Dismissal and Notice of

Rights" which further requires EXAMINATION of the unlawful/illegal practices of the

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Moreover, requirement of

COMMISSIONER Charge to ISSUE!

N. L. R. B. v. Enterprise Ass'n of Steam, Hot Water, Hydraulic Sprinkler, Pneumatic Tube, Ice Mach. and General Pipefitters of New

York and Vicinity, Local Union No. 638, 97 S.Ct. 891 (1977) - When

administrative agency has made error of law, duty of court is to

correct error of law committed by that body and after doing so to

remand case to the agency so as to afford it opportunity of examining

evidence and finding facts as required by law.

Federal Power Commission v. Idaho Power Co., 73 S.Ct. 85 (1952) -

On review of order of Federal Power Commission, the function of the

reviewing court ends when an error of law is laid bare and at that point

the matter once more goes to the Commission for reconsideration. Federal Power Act, § 313(b), as amended, 16 U.S.C.A. § 825 l(b).

35. Newsome further PRESERVES issues and EVIDENCE of the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission's and Ohio Civil Rights Commission's

KNOWLEDGE of their ERRORS being timely, properly and adequately brought to

their attention.

36. Newsome further PRESERVES through the filing of this instant pleading

the ISSUES raised herein. Moreover, that under the statutes/laws governing said

matters, Newsome hereby TIMELY, PROPERLY and ADEQUATELY make known

that rulings from the Ohio Civil Rights Commission and the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission contain FINDINGS OF FACT and CONCLUSION OF LAW

to support the decisions rendered. Moreover, to support that ALL issues raised in

“Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” have been addressed.

of 59

37. Newsome believes that the RECORD evidence will support that

NEITHER the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission NOR the Ohio Civil

Rights Commission handled Newsome's “Official Complaint/ Charge Of

Discrimination” in compliance with the statutes/laws governing said matters and,

therefore, as a direct and proximate result of said FAILURE have subjected Newsome

to injury/harm and deprived her rights secured/guaranteed under the statutes/laws


38. Newsome believes that the Ohio Civil Rights Commission and the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission's handling of Newsome's “Official Complaint/

Charge Of Discrimination” will support ARBITRARY and CAPRICIOUS acts for ill

purposes and to cause her injury/harm PROHIBITED by statutes/laws governing said

matters.

39. Newsome believes that the record evidence will support "CLEAR and

PREJUDICIAL violation of applicable statutes and regulations" by the Ohio Civil

Rights Commission and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in the

handling of Newsome's “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination.”

40. Newsome believes that the record EVIDENCE supports that she has been

INJURED/HARM by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's FAILURE to

defer matter to the Ohio Civil Rights Commission as well as provide "Findings of Fact

and Conclusion of Law" to support the "Dismissal and Notice of Rights;" moreover, the

EEOC's FAILURE to request the COMMISSIONER Charge to ISSUE as demanded in

Newsome's “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” and subsequent May 24,

2012 "Response To Letter of May 8, 2012 From Derwin E. Jamison."

41. Newsome believes that the record EVIDENCE supports her INTERESTS

that sought to be vindicated are arguably WITHIN "ZONE of INTEREST" and are

ISSUES and rights PROTECTED by statutes/laws in question and set forth in “Official

Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” and subsequent "Response To Letter of May

8, 2012 From Derwin E. Jamison."

Kroger Co. v. Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson

County, 286 F.3d 382 (6th Cir. 2002) - Under the arbitrary or

capricious standard of review under the Administrative Procedure Act

(APA), the party challenging the agency's action must show that the

action had no rational basis or that it involved a clear and prejudicial

violation of applicable statutes or regulations, and if there is any

evidence to support the agency's decision, the agency's determination is

not arbitrary or capricious. 5 U.S.C.A. §§ 701 et seq., 706(2)(A).

Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, Dept. of Labor

v. Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co., 115 S.Ct. 1278

(U.S.,1995) - Litigant challenging agency action is required to show, at

outset of case, that he is injured in fact by agency action and that

interest he seeks to vindicate is arguably within zone of interests to be

protected by statute in question. 5 U.S.C.A. § 702.

Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, 110 S.Ct. 3177 (1990) - In order to obtain judicial review under the general review provisions of the

Administrative Procedure Act, the person claiming right to sue must

identify some agency action that affects him in specified fashion and

of 59

must show that he has suffered legal wrong because of the challenged

agency action or is adversely affected or aggrieved by that action

within the meaning of a relevant statute. 5 U.S.C.A. § 702.

Center For Biological Diversity v. Lueckel, 417 F.3d 532 (6th Cir.

2005) - To obtain judicial review under Administrative Procedure Act (APA), plaintiff's complaint must relate to agency action or failure to

act, and plaintiff must have suffered either legal wrong or injury falling

within zone of interests sought to be protected by statute on which

complaint is based. 5 U.S.C.A. § 551 et seq.

Federal Power Com'n v. Colorado Interstate Gas Co., 75 S.Ct. 467

(1955) - Section of Administrative Procedure Act defining scope of

review applies only to situations where question at issue has been

properly presented. Administrative Procedure Act, § 10(e), 5 U.S.C.A.

§ 1009(e).

42. Newsome believes as a direct and proximate result of the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission’s FAILURE to comply with the statutes/laws

governing the handling of “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination,” the

EEOC deprived her the MANDATORY deferral of Complaint/Charge to the Ohio Civil

Rights Commission and, therefore, in said deprivation was subjected to BIAS,

DISCRIMINATORY, PREJUDICIAL, and UNLAWFUL/ILLEGAL processing and

handling of her claim. Furthermore, unlawfully/illegally DEPRIVED Newsome of a

STATUTORY right to have matter presented and investigated by the Ohio Civil Rights

Commission. As a direct and proximate result of the EEOC's unlawful/illegal handling

of Newsome's “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” she has suffered and

continues to suffer legal wrongs and SYSTEMATIC discriminatory practices by the

EEOC and those with whom it CONSPIRES to deprive Newsome rights

secured/guaranteed and provided by statutes/laws governing said matters.

43. Newsome believes that as a direct and proximate result of the Ohio Civil

Rights Commission's unlawful/illegal handling of Newsome's “Official Complaint/

Charge Of Discrimination” she has suffered and continues to suffer legal wrongs and

SYSTEMATIC discriminatory practices in the handling of Complaint/Charge by the

OCRC and those with whom it CONSPIRES to deprive Newsome rights

secured/guaranteed and provided by statutes/laws governing said matters.

44. The Ohio Civil Rights Commission FAILURE to handle and prosecute

Newsome's “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” under the

FALSE/FRIVOLOUS argument alleging it was untimely filed: (a) is an injury/harm

rendered by the OCRC AGAINST Newsome which is concrete and particularized in

that Newsome having approximately 240 days to file Complaint/Charge and her

“Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” submitted to the OCRC is well

within the statute of limitations to file. (b) The record evidence supports that there is a

CONNECTION between the action taken by the OCRC and the EEOC to cause

Newsome the injury/harm sustained in efforts of depriving her protected rights that are

within the "zone of interest" for the relief sought. Furthermore, there is a WELL-

ESTABLISHED systematic discriminatory practice by the EEOC in the handling of

Complaints/Charges brought by Newsome. It appears that once the EEOC received

correspondence from the OCRC alleging that Newsome's “Official Complaint/ Charge

Of Discrimination” was untimely filed, the EEOC thought that Newsome would be

of 59

IGNORANT of the laws and not aware of the CRIMINAL and CIVIL wrongs in the

handling and processing of her Complaint/Charge. To the OCRC's and the EEOC's

disappointment, Newsome sets forth and EXPOSES their DISCRIMINATORY, BIAS

and PREJUDICIAL handling of her “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination.”

(c) Newsome believes that the record evidence will support the likelihood that the

injury/harm she has sustained and continues to sustain in the OCRC's and the EEOC's

handling of Complaint/Charge will be REDRESSED by a FAVORABLE decision of a

court WITHOUT ties/connections and personal/financial/business INTEREST to the

Respondents and those with whom they have conspired to get the EEOC and OCRC to

engage in the unlawful/illegal practices in the handling of Newsome's “Official

Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination.”

Courtney v. Smith, 297 F.3d 455 (6th Cir. Ohio,2002) - For purposes of

judicial review under Administrative Procedure Act (APA), party

cannot be “adversely affected...within the meaning of a relevant

statute” unless the party is within the zone of interest sought to be

protected by that statute. 5 U.S.C.A. § 702. . . .

[4] To satisfy Article III's case-or-controversy requirement,

plaintiff must establish three elements: (1) an injury in fact that is

concrete and particularized; (2) a connection between the injury and the conduct at issue, in that the injury must be fairly traceable to

defendant's action; and (3) a likelihood that the injury would be

redressed by a favorable decision of the court. U.S.C.A.Const. 3, § 2,

cl. 1

[5] [6] Section 10(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act

(APA) permits injured parties to obtain judicial review of agency

actions that allegedly violate federal statutes. 5 U.S.C. § 702 (“A

person suffering legal wrong because of agency action, or adversely

affected or aggrieved by agency action within the meaning of a

relevant statute, is entitled to judicial review thereof.”). A plaintiff

seeking judicial review of agency action under the APA, however,

must not only meet the constitutional requirements of standing, but must also demonstrate prudential standing. Nat'l Credit Union Admin.

v. First Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 522 U.S. 479, 488, 118 S.Ct. 927, 140

L.Ed.2d 1 (1998) ( NCUA ) (“We have interpreted § 10(a) of the APA

to impose a prudential standing requirement in addition to the

requirement, imposed by Article III of the Constitution, that a plaintiff

have suffered a sufficient injury in fact.”). Prudential standing exists if

the interest that the plaintiff seeks to protect is “arguably within the

zone of interests to be protected or regulated by the statute ... in

question.” Id. (ellipsis in original) (quoting Ass'n of Data Processing

Serv. Orgs., Inc. v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150, 153, 90 S.Ct. 827, 25 L.Ed.2d

184 (1970)).

Bunten v. Bunten, 710 N.E.2d 757 (Ohio.App.3.Dist.,1998) - Judgment

entry may be general; where findings of fact and conclusions of law

were not specifically requested by party, regularity of proceedings at

trial level will be presumed. Rules Civ.Proc., Rule 52.

Ng Yip Yee v. Barber, 267 F.2d 206 (9th Cir. 1959) - A court may

vacate the findings of an administrative body if not supported by the

evidence or if upon the record as a whole it appears that a mistake

has been made.

of 59

45. Newsome believes that the record EVIDENCE further supports and

maintains that this instant pleading as well as “Official Complaint/ Charge Of

Discrimination” and subsequent May 24, 2012 "Response To Letter of May 8, 2012

From Derwin E. Jamison" meets the Constitutional standing, but also demonstrates

"PRUDENTIAL" standing supported by the facts, evidence and legal conclusions

presented in Newsome's pleadings.

46. PRUDENTIAL standing exists in that the interest Newsome seeks to

protect is arguably within the zone of interest to be protected and is regulated by

statutes/laws governing said matters.

47. For purposes of PRESERVATION of the issues set forth in this instant

pleading as well as Newsome's “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” and

subsequent May 24, 2012 "Response To Letter of May 8, 2012 From Derwin E.

Jamison," she is SPECIFICALLY requesting that decisions rendered by the Ohio Civil

Rights Commission and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission be supported

by documented "Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law" as to the issues raised in her

Complaint/Charge and her subsequent filings.

48. Newsome timely, properly and adequately asserts her OBJECTION to the

EEOC's "Dismissal and Notice of Rights" in that it INFRINGES upon Newsome's

rights secured/guaranteed by statutes/laws governing said matters. Moreover, that the

OCRC and the EEOC have ERRED in the handling of Newsome's “Official

Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination.”

49. Because the State of Ohio is a "DEFERRAL" State, the EEOC was

PRECLUDED from rendering its "Dismissal and Notice of Rights." Therefore,

Newsome, timely, properly and adequately OBJECTS to the unlawful/illegal acts of the

EEOC and its efforts to deprive her of rights MANDATED by STATUTE to defer this

matter to the OCRC for handling and processing.

50. The EEOC has ERRED in its unlawful/illegal handling of Newsome's

request to have COMMISSIONER Charge to ISSUE.

51. Newsome through the filing of this instant pleading as well as “Official

Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” and subsequent May 24, 2012 "Response To

Letter of May 8, 2012 From Derwin E. Jamison," PRESERVES the ISSUES

contained within these pleadings/documents. ALL Issues which as required by

statute/law MUST be addressed.

III. REQUEST FOR EEOC’S “WRITTEN” DETERMINATION – FINDINGS OF

FACT AND CONCLUSION OF LAW, REQUEST FOR “WRITTEN” TITLE VII

INTERPRETATION/OPINION

of 59

Cleveland v. Posner, 2011 -Ohio- 1370 (Ohio.App.8.Dist., 2011) - For

purposes of determining whether an administrative agency's decision is

supported by substantial, reliable, and probative evidence, “reliable

evidence” is dependable; that is, it can be confidently trusted.

Sarr v. Gonzales, 485 F.3d 354 (6th Cir. 2007) - Court of Appeals must sustain an administrative decision if that determination is supported by

reasonable, substantial, and probative evidence on the record

considered as a whole.

Coalition for Government Procurement v. Federal Prison Industries,

Inc., 365 F.3d 435 (6th Cir. 2004) - If there is any evidence to support

agency's decision, agency's determination is not arbitrary or

capricious. . . .

Deferential judicial review of agency action under

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) does not relieve agency of its

obligation to develop evidentiary basis for its findings. 5 U.S.C.A. §

551 et seq.

52. This instant “RFROD&NOR. . .” is presented for purposes of

PRESERVING the issues raised in Newsome's “Official Complaint/ Charge Of

Discrimination” and subsequent May 24, 2012 "Response To Letter of May 8, 2012

From Derwin E. Jamison."

53. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has ERRED in the

handling of Newsome's “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” and


Jamison."

54. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has ERRED in its

FAILURE to defer Newsome's “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” to

the Ohio Civil Rights Commission.

55. Through this instant “RFROD&NOR. . .” Newsome TIMELY,

PROPERLY and ADEQUATELY presents and PRESERVES the ISSUE that the

decision(s) by the Ohio Civil Rights Commission and the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission MUST be supported by substantial, reliable and probative

EVIDENCE.

56. The STATUTES/LAWS governing said matters will support that the

Ohio Civil Rights Commission has JURISDICTION to handle and process Newsome's

“Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination.” Furthermore, the OCRC

ACKNOWLEDGES receipt of Newsome's “Official Complaint/ Charge Of

Discrimination” which may save COSTS/EXPENSES in having to reproduce what the

OCRC has addressed as "VOLUMINOUS."

57. The Ohio Civil Rights Commission advised Newsome that it is in receipt

of, "letter and voluminous documentation regarding a potential charge of discrimination

against your former employer, The Garretson Firm Resolution Group, Inc. and Messina Staffing."

Therefore, a reasonable person/mind may conclude that Newsome's Official Complaint/ Charge

Of Discrimination” is supported by substantial, reliable and probative EVIDENCE!

of 59

58. The record evidence further supports that the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission's unlawful/illegal and BIAS, PREJUDICIAL, and

DISCRIMINATORY handling of Newsome's Official Complaint/ Charge Of

Discrimination.”

59. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's handling of

Newsome's Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” is arbitrary and

capricious.

60. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's FAILURE to defer

Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” to the Ohio Civil Rights Commission

as MANDATORILY required by statute/law is arbitrary and capricious.

61. The Ohio Civil Rights Commission's in failure to handle and process

Newsome's Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” alleging it was untimely

filed is ARBITRARY and CAPRICIOUS! Newsome's Complaint/Charge was filed

WELL within the 240 Days required to bring action with the Ohio Civil Rights

Commission.

62. The Ohio Civil Rights Commission FAILED to present any evidence that

Newsome's Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” was untimely filed

although it ACKNOWLEDGES, "Your letter to us indicates both the Ohio Civil Rights

Commission and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission received

identical documentation." See EXHIBIT "C" attached hereto and incorporated by

reference as if set forth in full herein.

29 CFR § 1601.15(b) INVESTIGATIVE AUTHORITY:

(a) The investigation of a charge shall be made by the Commission, its investigators, or any other representative designated by the Commission. During the course of such

investigation, the Commission may utilize the services of State and local agencies

which are charged with the administration of fair employment practice laws or

appropriate Federal agencies, and may utilize the information gathered by such

authorities or agencies. As part of each investigation, the Commission will accept any

statement of position or evidence with respect to the allegations of the charge which

the person claiming to be aggrieved, the person making the charge on behalf of such

person, if any, or the respondent wishes to submit.

(b) As part of the Commission's investigation, the Commission may require the person

claiming to be aggrieved to provide a statement which includes:

(1) A statement of each specific harm that the person has suffered and the date on

which each harm occurred;

(2) For each harm, a statement specifying the act, policy or practice which is alleged

to be unlawful;

(3) For each act, policy, or practice alleged to have harmed the person claiming to be aggrieved, a statement of the facts which lead the person claiming to be aggrieved to

believe that the act, policy or practice is discriminatory.

of 59

(c) The Commission may require a fact-finding conference with the parties prior to a

determination on a charge of discrimination. The conference is primarily an

investigative forum intended to define the issues, to determine which elements are

undisputed, to resolve those issues that can be resolved and to ascertain whether there

is a basis for negotiated settlement of the charge.

(d) The Commission's authority to investigate a charge is not limited to the procedures

outlined in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this section.

63. The record evidence will support that Newsome's “Official Complaint/

Charge Of Discrimination” and subsequent May 24, 2012 "Response To Letter of

May 8, 2012 From Derwin E. Jamison" present ISSUES and are supported by

STATEMENT of EACH specific harm asserted by Newsome. Therefore, Newsome is

demanding that the decision(s) of the Ohio Civil Rights Commission and Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission contain “Findings of Fact and Conclusion of

Law” to sustain ruling/decision.

64. Newsome's “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” and


Jamison" raises the ISSUES and provides STATEMENTS specifying the act, policy or

practice which is alleged to be unlawful. Moreover, act, policy or practice with

supports Newsome's “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” and subsequent

May 24, 2012 "Response To Letter of May 8, 2012 From Derwin E. Jamison."

65. Newsome's “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” sets forth

the "FACTS OF THIS COMPLAINT" which supports the relief she seeks therein.

66. Through this instant “RFROD&NOR. . .” pursuant to the Fourteenth

Amendment of the Constitution, ,Newsome DEMANDS and REQUIRE that the Ohio

Civil Rights Commission and the Equal Employment Opportunity provide her a copy

of Respondents' ANSWER to “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” so that

she can exercise her right to CONTEST and/or RESPOND in rebuttal (if elected to do

so).

67. Newsome through this instant “RFROD&NOR. . .” OBJECTS to the

unlawful/illegal, BIAS, PREJUDICIAL and DISCRIMINATORY handling of the

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s handling of “Official Complaint/

Charge Of Discrimination.”

68. While the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission/Wilma Javey

advised Newsome regarding Charges filed against Respondents - The Garretson Firm

Resolution Group Inc. and Messina Staffing/Messina Management Systems – which

stated in part:

“We have completed a careful review of the charge of employment

discrimination that you filed against The Garretson Firm

Resolution Group, Inc. (Charge No. 473-2012-00832). Our review

included the assessment of all the information you offered.

As a result of our careful review of the charge you filed, we have

decided to STOP PROCESSING the charge. Our review of the

available evidence reflects that your age and race had no bearing on

of 59

your termination. There is also NO evidence that indicates you were

retaliated against. There is NO indication that further investigation

will result in a finding of a violation. . . .”

“We have completed a careful review of the charge of employment discrimination that you filed against Messina Staffing & Messina

Management Systems (Charge No. 473-2012-00837). Our review

included the assessment of all the information you offered.

As a result of our careful review of the charge you filed, we have

decided to STOP PROCESSING the charge. Our review of the

available evidence reflects that your age and race had no bearing on

your termination. There is also NO evidence that indicates you were

retaliated against. There is NO indication that further investigation

will result in a finding of a violation. . . .”

and provided Dismissal and Notice of Rights which states in part:

DISMISSAL AND NOTICE OF RIGHTS: “The EEOC issues the

following determination: Based upon its investigation, the EEOC is

unable to conclude that the information obtained establishes

violations of the statutes. This does NOT certify that the respondent is in compliance with the statutes. NO finding is made as to ANY

other issues that might be construed as having been raised by this

charge.”

UNMARKED Box: “The EEOC has adopted the findings of the

state or local fair employment practices agency that investigated this

charge.”

this instant “RFROD&NOR. . .” is hereby served on the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission and Ohio Civil Rights Commission for providing

EVIDENCE of the PRESERVATION of the issues contained herein and those raised

in “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” and subsequent May 24, 2012

"Response To Letter of May 8, 2012 From Derwin E. Jamison."

Newsome believes that the DELIBERATE and WILLFUL act of the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission’s FAILURE to mark the Box stating, “The

EEOC has adopted the findings of the state or local fair employment practices

agency that investigated this charge” further supports that it KNEW and/or should

have KNOWN of the MANDATORY requirement and/or statute to defer “Official

Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” to the Ohio Civil Rights Commission.

69. Newsome through this instant “RFROD&NOR. . .” TIMELY,

PROPERLY and ADEQUATELY presents her OBJECTIONS to the unlawful/illegal

handling and processing of “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” by the

Ohio Civil Rights Commissions and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

70. There is NO probative EVIDENCE to support the Ohio Civil Rights

Commission’s assertion that Newsome’s “Official Complaint/ Charge Of

Discrimination” was untimely filed.

of 59

Gladieux v. Ohio State Med. Bd., 728 N.E.2d 459 (Ohio.App.10.Dist.

1999) - “Probative evidence” in support of determination by

administrative agency is evidence that tends to prove the issue in

question, and is relevant.

71. There is NO probative EVIDENCE to support the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission’s FAILURE to defer matter to the Ohio Civil Rights

Commission as MANDATORILY required by STATUTES/LAWS governing said

matters.

72. Newsome through this instant “RFROD&NOR. . .” hereby requires that

the Ohio Civil Rights Commission perform the MINISTERIAL duties owed Newsome

in the handling, processing and investigation of her “Official Complaint/ Charge Of

Discrimination.” Moreover, provide Newsome with its “Findings of Fact and

Conclusion of Law” with any/all decisions rendered in this matter.

Dayton Tavern, Inc. v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm., 732 N.E.2d 465

(Ohio.App.2.Dist. 1999) - In reviewing an administrative order,

common pleas court must defer to administrative agency's findings of

fact unless the court finds they are internally inconsistent, impeached

by evidence of a prior inconsistent statement, rest on improper

inferences, or are otherwise unsupportable.

73. In PRESERVATION of Newsome’s rights and PRESERVATION of

ISSUES, this instant “RFROD&NOR. . .” is hereby submitted to the Ohio Civil Rights

Commission and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

74. In PRESERVATION OF Newsome’s rights and PRESERVATION of

ISSUES, Newsome states that there is NO credible evidence to support the decision of

the Ohio Civil Rights Commission’s failure to prosecute Newsome’s “Official

Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” alleging it was untimely filed. Therefore,

supporting that there is a CLEAR ERROR in judgment by the OCRC!

Wurzelbacher v. Colerain Twp. Bd. of Trustees, 663 N.E.2d 713

(Ohio.App.1.Dist.Hamilton.Co.,1995) - When party claims that

evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to support administrative

decision, Court of Appeals is . . . to determine whether there is any

competent, credible evidence to support administrative decision.

L.P. Cavett Co. v. U.S. Dept. of Labor, 892 F.Supp. 973

(S.D.Ohio.W.Div.,1995) - Court reviewing agency decision should

examine whether decision was based on consideration of relevant

factors and whether there has been clear error of judgment. 5 U.S.C.A.

§ 706(2)(A).

Conley v. National Mines Corp., 595 F.3d 297 (6th Cir. 2010) - . . .

factual determinations must be upheld if they are supported by

substantial evidence in the administrative record, and the decision as a

whole must be affirmed if the . . . decision was rational, supported by

substantial evidence in the record, and consistent with controlling law.

75. Newsome through this instant “RFROD&NOR. . .” timely, properly and

adequately request that the Ohio Civil Rights Commission provide her with its

of 59

“Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law” to support that Newsome’s “Official

Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” was untimely filed. MERE

“verbal/typewritten” assertion of untimely filing is NOT sufficient in that Newsome

has presented facts, evidence and legal conclusion to sustain the acts of the Ohio Civil

Rights Commission being arbitrary and/or capricious.

76. Newsome through this instant “RFROD&NOR. . .” timely, properly and

adequately request that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission provide

provide her with its “Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law” to support its

“FAILURE to defer ‘Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination’ to the Ohio

Civil Rights Commission.” Newsome further believes that the facts, evidence and

legal conclusion supporting this instant filing sustains the EEOC’s handling of

“Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” is arbitrary and capricious.

Moreover, in keeping of its SYSTEMATIC discriminatory and SYSTEMATIC

criminal/civil violations leveled against Newsome.

National Cotton Council of America v. U.S. E.P.A., 553 F.3d 927 (6th

Cir. 2009) - When conducting review under the Administrative

Procedure Act's (APA) “arbitrary and capricious” standard, the

reviewing court ensures that the agency examined the relevant data

and articulated a satisfactory explanation for its action including a

rational connection between the facts and the choice made. 5

U.S.C.A. § 706(2)(A).

77. This instant “RFROD&NOR. . .” is submitted for purposes of preserving

the ISSUES of Newsome’s “Request for EEOC's 'WRITTEN' Determination -

Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law and Request for 'WRITTEN' Title VII

Interpretation/Opinion” as well as her formal/official request that the Ohio Civil

Rights Commission provide its “Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law” that it relied

upon and alleging that Newsome’s “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination”

was untimely filed.

Alliance for Community Media v. F.C.C., 529 F.3d 763 (6th Cir. 2008) -

Courts deem agency action to be arbitrary and capricious if the agency

has relied on factors which Congress has not intended it to consider,

entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, offered

an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before

the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a

difference in view or the product of agency expertise. . .

Agency action is not in accordance with the law when it is in

conflict with the language of the statute relied upon by the agency. . . .

Pursuant to arbitrary-and-capricious review of agency action, a court must canvass the record to determine whether there exists a

rational connection between the facts found and the choice made; upon

conducting this searching inquiry, the court is required to grant

controlling weight to the agency's regulatory activity unless it is plainly

erroneous or inconsistent with the underlying statute.

Rapier v. Philpot, 130 S.W.3d 560 (2004) - The filing of exceptions to

a agency's findings of fact and recommendation provides the means for

preserving and identifying issues for review by the agency head; in

turn, filing exceptions is necessary to preserve issues for further judicial

review. . . . When a party in an administrative hearing fails to file

exceptions to the hearing officer's findings of fact and recommendation,

of 59

the issues the party can raise on judicial review are limited to those

findings and conclusions contained in the agency head's final order that

differ from those contained in the hearing officer's recommended order.

Gashgai v. Board of Registration in Medicine, 390 A.2d 1080 (1978) -

Courts need to know what an agency has really determined in order to know even what to review.

78. This instant “RFROD&NOR. . .” further supports that Newsome has

timely, properly and adequately submitted her OBJECTIONS to the Ohio Civil Rights

Commission’s failure to handle and prosecute “Official Complaint/ Charge Of

Discrimination” alleging untimely filing as well as Newsome’s OBJECTIONS to the

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s ERROR in failing to defer matter to the

Ohio Civil Rights Commission and VERIFICATION/PROOF of Newsome’s request

for “Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law” to support ALL decisions rendered in

this matter by both the Ohio Civil Rights Commission and EEOC.

Stevens v. Highland Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 2005 -Ohio- 2338

(Ohio.App.4.Dist.,2005) - Trial court did not have duty to elaborate as

to how it arrived at decision . . . where state employee did not make

request for findings of fact and conclusions of law. R.C. § 2315.19;

Rules Civ.Proc., Rule 52.

U.S. v. L. A. Tucker Truck Lines, Inc., 73 S.Ct. 67 (1952) - Generally,

court should not topple over administrative decisions unless the

administrative body not only has erred but has erred against objection

made at the time appropriate under its practice.

LeBlanc v. E.P.A., 310 Fed.Appx. 770 (6th 2009) - A reviewing court

may not consider arguments that were not previously raised before an

administrative agency under the doctrine of issue exhaustion or the

administrative waiver doctrine.

Wilson Air Center, LLC v. F.A.A., 372 F.3d 807 (6th Cir. 2004) - The

administrative waiver doctrine, commonly referred to as issue

exhaustion, provides that it is inappropriate for courts reviewing

agency decisions to consider arguments not raised before the

administrative agency involved.

Stauffer Laboratories, Inc. v. F.T.C., 343 F.2d 75 (9th Cir. 1965) - [8]

Findings which would satisfy requirements of Federal Rule of

Procedure relating to findings by court in case tried without jury

would satisfy requirements of section of Administrative Procedure Act requiring that findings of administrative commission include

statement of findings and conclusions as well as reasons or basis

therefor upon all material issues of fact. Administrative Procedure

Act, § 8(b), 5 U.S.C.A. § 1007(b); Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. rule 52, 28

U.S.C.A.

Brown v. Rock Creek Min. Co., Inc., 996 F.2d 812 (6th Cir. 1993) -

Administrative law judge is statutorily obliged to consider all of the

evidence and make findings of fact and conclusions of law which

adequately set forth factual and legal basis for his decision.

of 59

Brae Corp. v. U.S., 740 F.2d 1023 (1984) - [2] Administrative agency

must consider all critical aspects of problem before it, and must

articulate reasoned explanation for its action, including rational

connection between facts found and choice made.

Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, U.S. Dept. of Labor vs. Georgia Congleton, 743 F.2d 428 (6th Cir. 1984) - [1] It is

critical to the appellate review process that administrative law judge

clearly set forth rationale for his findings of fact and conclusions of

law. 5 U.S.C.A. § 557(c)(3)(A).

. . . [1] The ALJ found that the miner worked “well over

twenty-five years” in the coal mines. This finding of fact can be upheld

only if it is supported by substantial evidence. Haywood v. Secretary,

699 F.2d 277 (6th Cir.1983). However, it is critical to the appellate

review process that the ALJ clearly set forth the rationale for his

findings of fact and conclusions of law. Section 557(c)(3)(A) of the

Administrative Procedures Act mandates that “... all decisions shall

include a statement of-(A) findings and conclusions, and the reasons or basis therefore, on all the material issues of fact, law or discretion

presented on the record ...” (emphasis added). The courts have

respected this requirement by remanding cases where the reasoning for

the ALJ's conclusion is lacking and therefore presents inadequate

information to accommodate a thorough review. See, e.g., Maxey v.

Califano, 598 F.2d 874, 875, 876 (4th Cir.1979); Schaaf v. Mathews,

574 F.2d 157 (3rd Cir.1978); Arnold v. Secretary, 567 F.2d 258 (4th

Cir.1977).

Brown v. Rock Creek Min. Co., Inc., 996 F.2d 812 (6th Cir. 1993) - [4]

Administrative law judge is statutorily obliged to consider all of the evidence and make findings of fact and conclusions of law which

adequately set forth factual and legal basis for his decision.

. . . In light of this conclusion, we find that we must remand

the case . . An administrative . . . is statutorily obliged “to consider all

of the evidence and make findings of fact and conclusions of law which

adequately set forth the factual and legal basis for his decision.”

Director, OWCP v. Rowe, 710 F.2d 251, 254-55 (6th Cir.1983).FN2

(Emphasis supplied). (Citations omitted).

FN2. See 5 U.S.C. § 557(c)(3)(A) (1977) (The Administrative

Procedure Act requires that an administrative . . . decision be

accompanied by “findings and conclusions, and the reasons or basis

therefor, on all material issues of fact, law or discretion presented on the record.”) (Emphasis added.); see also 20 C.F.R. § 725.477(b)

(1992); Director, OWCP v. Congleton, 743 F.2d 428, 429 (6th

Cir.1984).

79. Newsome through this instant “RFROD&NOR. . .” further

request/demand that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission provide her with

documentation setting forth information for Claimants to APPEAL the EEOC’s

“Dismissal and Notice of Rights” when issued in ERROR and/or when Claimants may

want to challenge the EEOC decision. Newsome did NOT receive APPEAL

information advising her of what her rights are to APPEAL the EEOC’s “Dismissal

and Notice of Rights” through the Appeal process. This request is made in GOOD

FAITH and in PRESERVATION of this ISSUE:

29 CFR § 1601.91 REQUEST FOR TITLE VII INTERPRETATION OR OPINION:

Any interested person desiring a written title VII interpretation or opinion

of 59

from the Commission may make such a request. . . .

29 CFR § 1601.92 CONTENTS OF REQUEST: WHERE TO FILE:

A request for an “opinion letter” shall be in writing, signed by the person

making the request, addressed to the Chairman, Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission, 131 M Street, NE., Washington, DC 20507 and

shall contain:

(a) The names and addresses of the person making the request and of other

interested persons.

(b) A statement of all known relevant facts.

(c) A statement of reasons why the Title VII interpretation or opinion

should be issued.

IV. REQUEST FOR DEFERRAL TO THE OHIO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION

Newsome through this instant “RFROD&NOR. . .” Request for Deferral to the Ohio Civil

Rights Commission sets forth the following:


Toledo, Ohio, Local Union No. 3, 679 F.Supp. 716 (N.D. Ohio W. Div.

1987) - In “deferral states” such as Ohio, where the EEOC defers to

the state agency established to investigate charges of discrimination, an

EEOC charge must be filed within 300 days after the alleged unlawful

act. Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 706(e), as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §

2000e-5(f)(1). . .

When a charge of discrimination is submitted to both the

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and state agency in a “deferral state,” the EEOC will not formally file its charge of

discrimination until after the state agency has terminated its

proceedings . . . therefore, state administrative charge of discrimination

must generally be filed within 240 days of the alleged unlawful

practice in order to preserve claimant's right to file a Title VII lawsuit

in federal court. Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 706(e), as amended, 42

U.S.C.A. § 2000e-5(f)(1). . . Mohasco Corp. v. Silver, 447 U.S. 807,

814 n. 16, 100 S.Ct. 2486, 2491 n. 16, 65 L.Ed.2d 532 (1980).

Perazzo v. Top Value Enterprises, Inc., 590 F.Supp. 428

(S.D.Ohio.W.Div.,1984) - Ohio qualified as a deferral state under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and, accordingly, 300-day

statutory period would be applied in analyzing timeliness of filing of

complaint. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, §§ 7(d),

14(b), 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 626(d), 633(b).

29 CFR § 1601.13 FILING; DEFERRALS TO STATE AND LOCAL AGENCIES

of 59

. . . (3) Charges arising in jurisdictions having a FEP agency with subject matter

jurisdiction over the charges are to be processed in accordance with the Commission's

deferral policy set forth below and the procedures in paragraph (a)(4) of this section. . .

.

(i) In order to give full weight to the policy of section 706(c) of title VII, which affords State and local fair employment practice agencies that come within the provisions of

that section an opportunity to remedy alleged discrimination concurrently regulated by

title VII, the ADA, or GINA and State or local law, the Commission adopts the

following procedures with respect to allegations of discrimination filed with the

Commission. It is the intent of the Commission to thereby encourage the maximum

degree of effectiveness in the State and local agencies. The Commission shall endeavor

to maintain close communication with the State and local agencies with respect to all

matters forwarded to such agencies and shall provide such assistance to State and local

agencies as is permitted by law and as is practicable. . .

(iii) A FEP agency may waive its right to the period of exclusive processing of charges provided under section 706(c) of title VII with respect to any charge or category of

charges. Copies of all such charges will be forwarded to the appropriate FEP agency.

(4) The following procedures shall be followed with respect to charges which arise in

jurisdictions having a FEP agency with subject matter jurisdiction over the charges:

(i) Where any document, whether or not verified, is received by the Commission as

provided in §1601.8 which may constitute a charge cognizable under title VII, the

ADA, or GINA, and where the FEP agency has not waived its right to the period of

exclusive processing with respect to that document, that document shall be deferred to

the appropriate FEP agency as provided in the procedures set forth below:

(A) All such documents shall be dated and time stamped upon receipt.

(B) A copy of the originial document, shall be transmitted by registered mail, return

receipt requested, to the appropriate FEP agency, or, where the FEP agency has

consented thereto, by certified mail, by regular mail or by hand delivery. State or local

proceedings are deemed to have commenced on the date such document is mailed or

hand delivered.

(C) The person claiming to be aggrieved and any person filing a charge on behalf of

such person shall be notified, in writing, that the document which he or she sent to the

Commission has been forwarded to the FEP agency pursuant to the provisions of

section 706(c) of title VII. . .

Gorman v. Hughes Danbury Optical Systems, 908 F.Supp. 107 (1995) -

Provision extending, for 300 days, the filing period for bringing claim

under Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) in deferral

state does not restrict commencement of state

proceedings, and filing charge with state agency

need not precede filing charge with Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, § 7(d), 29 U.S.C.A. §

626(d).

of 59

Davis v. Wesley Retirement Communities, Inc., 913 F.Supp. 1437

(1995) - In a deferral state . . . a Title VII claimant must file his or her

discrimination charge with appropriate state or local agency, or with

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), within three

hundred days of alleged unlawful act. Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 701 et seq., as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e et seq.

Johnson-Romaker v. Kroger Ltd. Partnership One, 609 F.Supp.2d 719

(N.D.Ohio.W.Div.,2009) - Plaintiff who first files Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charge with state or local agency

must file it within 300 days of alleged

discriminatory event. Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 706, 42

U.S.C.A. § 2000e-5.

Hout v. City of Mansfield, 550 F.Supp.2d 701 (N.D.Ohio.E.Div.,2008)

- In deferral states such as Ohio, 300-day limitations period under Title

VII for filing complaint with Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (EEOC) begins to run once employee is aware or reasonably should be aware of allegedly unlawful employment

decision, not when employee learns that employment decision may

have been discriminatorily motivated. Civil Rights Act of 1964, §

706(e)(1), 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-5(e)(1).

Woodford v. Ngo, 126 S.Ct. 2378 (U.S.,2006) - Under Title VII, a

complainant who initially institutes proceedings with a state or local

agency with authority to grant or seek relief from the practice charged

must file a charge with that agency, or have the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) refer the

charge to that agency, within 240 days of the alleged

discriminatory event. Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 706(e), 42

U.S.C.A. § 2000e-5(e).

Nichols v. Muskingum College, 318 F.3d 674 (C.A.6.Ohio,2003) -

Aggrieved person does not necessarily have to file a

state charge within the state statute of limitations

period to preserve the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission (EEOC) 300-day filing

period. Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 706(d)(1) et seq., as amended, 42

U.S.C.A. § 2000e-5(e)(1).


Toledo, Ohio, Local Union No. 3, 679 F.Supp.

(N.D.Ohio.W.Div.,1987) - In “deferral states” such as Ohio, where

the EEOC defers to the state agency established to

investigate charges of discrimination, an EEOC

charge must be filed within 300 days after the

of 59

alleged unlawful act. Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 706(e), as

amended, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-5(f)(1).

Morris v. Russell, Burdsall & Ward Corp., 577 F.Supp. 147

(N.D.Ohio.E.Div.,1983) - Ohio has law prohibiting age discrimination

and an authorized state authority to grant or seek relief from

discriminatory practice and, therefore, Ohio is “deferral

state” and 300-day limitation for filing charge

with Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

was applicable. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967,

§ 14(b), 29 U.S.C.A. § 633(b); Ohio R.C. §§ 4112.01, 4112.02,

4112.05.

Jackson v. Ohio Bell Telephone Co., 555 F.Supp. 80

(S.D.Ohio.W.Div.,1982) - Title VII plaintiff in a “deferral” state has

300 days to file after alleged unlawful practice. Civil Rights Act of

1964, § 706(d), as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-5(e); Ohio R.C. §

4112.05(B).

Oscar Mayer & Co. v. Evans, 99 S.Ct. 2066 (U.S.,1979) - Though the

Age Discrimination in Employment Act makes resort to administrative

remedies mandatory in states with agencies empowered to remedy age

discrimination in employment, a person aggrieved by

alleged age discrimination is not required by the

ADEA to commence the state proceedings within

the time limit specified by state law. Age Discrimination

in Employment Act of 1967, §§ 7(c), 14(b), 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 626(c),

633(b).

Nichols v. Muskingum College, 318 F.3d 674 (C.A.6.Ohio,2003) -

Aggrieved person does not necessarily have to file a

state charge within the state statute of limitations

period to preserve the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission (EEOC) 300-day filing

period. Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 706(d)(1) et seq., as amended, 42

U.S.C.A. § 2000e-5(e)(1).

80. The relief Newsome seeks through this instant “RFROD&NOR. . .” is

MANDATORY and is NOT a discretionary action to be determined by the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission. As a matter of statutes/laws it is the

MANDATORY duty of the Ohio Civil Rights Commission to handle and process

Newsome’s “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination.” In the OCRC May 9,

2012 correspondence entitled, “Your Inquiry Regarding Potential Charge of

Discrimination,” it advised Newsome that:

Our agency, the Ohio Civil Rights Commission, is the state

administrative law enforcement agency that administers the Ohio Civil

of 59

Rights Act, Ohio Revised Code Chapter 4112, and we are

RESPONSIBLE for INVESTIGATING charges of race, color, sex,

national origin, military status, disability, age and religion

discrimination in the areas of employment. . .

Therefore, a reasonable person/mind may conclude that Newsome’s “Official

Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” falls within the jurisdiction of the Ohio Civil

Rights Commission and has been TIMELY filed in accordance with the statutes/laws


Ramirez vs. National Distillers and Chemical Corp., 586 F.2d 1315 (9th

Cir. 1978) – Where Commission has failed to refer employment

discrimination charge to state agency as REQUIRED by this

subchapter, district court should retain jurisdiction for period of time

sufficient to allow Commission to notify appropriate state agency and

to allow Commission to notify appropriate state agency and allow that

agency STATUTORY DEFERRAL PERIOD in which to act.

81. Newsome’s “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” meets the

pleading requirements for state and federal statutes/laws governing the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission’s deferral of matter to the Ohio Civil Rights

Commission: (a) the acts in Newsome’s “Official Complaint/ Charge Of

Discrimination” constitutes unlawful employment under state and federal laws

governing said matters; (b) the unlawful employment violations addressed in

Newsome’s “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” violate a state and/or

local law; and (c) there is an ESTABLISHED authorized agency – Ohio Civil Rights

Commission – in the State of Ohio to remedy or seek criminal violation for the wrongs

complained on of Newsome’s “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination.”

Duke vs. University of Texas at El Paso, 663 F.2d 522 (5th Cir. 1981) –

Three circumstances MUST exist before the referral requirement of this

section is triggered; the acts alleged must constitute an unlawful

employment under this subchapter, they must violate a state or local

law, and the state or locality MUST have established or authorized

some agency to remedy the violation or to seek criminal penalties.

82. The Ohio Civil Rights Commission ERRED in its failure to retain

jurisdiction over Newsome’s “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination”

alleging 180-day statute had expired with KNOWLEDGE and/or should have known

that it was subject to the 240-day statute of limitations.

Rasimas v. Michigan Dept. of Mental Health, 714 F.2d 614 (6th

Cir.

1983) - United States Supreme Court decision interpreting statutory

Title VII filing requirement to preclude charges being filed with Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in deferral states until

60 days after state fair employment agency has received notice of

allegations may not be applied retroactively, and therefore instant

action, where plaintiff initiated complaint with EEOC and state civil

rights commission 244 days after he was terminated, was timely filed.

Civil Rights Act of 1964, §§ 701 et seq., 706(b), as amended, 42

U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e et seq., 2000e-5(c).

E.E.O.C. v. Dayton Tire & Rubber Co., 573 F.Supp. 782

(S.D.Ohio.W.Div.,1983) - Ohio is a “deferral” state in which

of 59

employees have 300 days following act of discrimination to file

complaint with the EEOC. Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 706(d), as

amended, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-5(e).

83. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ERRED in its

ISSUANCE of “Dismissal and Notice of Rights” in that it KNEW that under federal

laws that it was MANDATORILY required to DEFER Newsome’s “Official

Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” to the Ohio Civil Rights Commission for

handling and prosecution.

Duke v. University of Texas at El Paso, 663 F.2d 522 (1981) - Three

circumstances must exist before the referral requirement of Title VII is

triggered; the acts alleged must constitute an unlawful employment

practice under Title VII, they must violate a state or local law, and the

state or locality must have established or authorized some agency to

remedy the violation or to seek criminal penalties. Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 706(b) as amended 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e–5(c).

[1] Section 706(b) of Title VII . . . “is intended to give state

agencies a limited opportunity to resolve problems of employment

discrimination and thereby to make unnecessary resort to federal relief

by victims of the discrimination.” Oscar Mayer & Co. v. Evans, 441

U.S. 750, 755, 99 S.Ct. 2066, 2071, 60 L.Ed.2d 609 (1979). Three

circumstances must exist before the referral requirement is triggered:

(1) The acts alleged must constitute an unlawful employment practice

under section 703 of Title VII; (2) they must violate a state or local

law; and (3) the state or locality must have established or authorized

some agency to remedy the violation or to seek criminal penalties. White v. Dallas Independent School District, 581 F.2d 556, 558-59 (5th

Cir. 1978) (en banc); 42 U.S.C.S. 2000e-5(c). Complainants themselves

need not determine when these requirements are satisfied and file with

state authorities. In Love v. Pullman, 404 U.S. 522, 92 S.Ct. 616, 30

L.Ed.2d 679 (1972), the Supreme Court approved a “referral and

deferral system” by which the EEOC refers complaints to the

appropriate state agency when required. New York Gaslight Club, Inc.

v. Carey, 447 U.S. 54, 64, 100 S.Ct. 2024, 2031, 64 L.Ed.2d 723

(1980).

84. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ERRED in its

FAILURE to MANDATORILY defer matter to the Ohio Civil Rights Commission.

Said FAILURE and NEGLIGENCE deprives any Court jurisdiction. Therefore, the

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ERRED in its issuance of “Dismissal and

Notice of Rights” for FAILURE to defer as well as based on the fact that Newsome’s

“Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” alleges “AGE” discrimination.

Therefore, MANDATORILY requiring that the EEOC defer Newsome’s

Complaint/Charge to the Ohio Civil Rights Commission for handling and processing.

Morris v. Kaiser Engineers, Inc., 471 N.E.2d 471 (Ohio,1984) - State

filing is a mandatory prerequisite to Age Discrimination in

Employment Act action. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of

1967, § 14, 29 U.S.C.A. § 633.

85. As a direct and proximate result of the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission’s NEGLIGENCE and UNLAWFUL/ILLEGAL handling of Newsome’s

of 59

“Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination,” she has injured/harmed. Moreover,

Newsome suffers irreparable injury/harm as a direct and proximate result of the

unlawful/illegal handling of her Complaint/Charge.

86. While the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued an

UNAUTHORIZED and unlawful/illegal “Dismissal and Notice of Rights,” it does

NOT have any bearing on the COMMISSION Charge Newsome has requested be

issued as a DIRECT and PROXIMATE result of the SYSTEMATIC discriminatory as

well as SYSTEMATIC criminal/civil violations leveled AGAINST Newsome and have

been set forth in “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination.” Therefore, through

this instant “RFROD&NOR. . .” Newsome PRESERVES this ISSUE as well to assure

that JUSTICE is served.

29 CFR § 1601.28 (3) NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUE: PROCEDURE AND AUTHORITY:

. . . (3) Issuance of a notice of right to sue shall terminate further proceeding of any

charge that is not a Commissioner charge unless the District Director; Field

Director; Area Director; Local Director; Director of the Office of Field Programs or

upon delegation, the Director of Field Management Programs; or the General Counsel,

determines at that time or at a later time that it would effectuate the purpose of title

VII, the ADA, or GINA to further process the charge. Issuance of a notice of right to

sue shall not terminate the processing of a Commissioner charge.

(4) The issuance of a notice of right to sue does not preclude the Commission from

offering such assistance to a person issued such notice as the Commission deems

necessary or appropriate.

87. Newsome believes that the record evidence will further support that that

the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s acts are arbitrary and capricious.

Moreover, it attempted through FALSE and MALICIOUS practices in the drafting of

“Charges of Discrimination” attempted to COVER-UP its KNOWLEDGE of

MANDATORY requirement(s) to defer matter to the Ohio Civil Rights Commission as

well as execute the proper proceedings regarding Newsome’s request that

COMMISSION Charge issue for SYSTEMATIC Discrimination.

88. As a matter of Statutes/Laws governing said matters, Newsome through

this instant “RFROD&NOR. . .” DEMANDS that the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission defer her “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” to the Ohio

Civil Rights Commission.

89. Because of the PUBLIC/GLOBAL Interest in this matter, Newsome is

DEMANDING that Equal Employment Opportunity Commission NOTIFY the Ohio

Civil Rights Commission of its duty to act on Newsome’s “Official Complaint/

Charge Of Discrimination.” Furthermore, that the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission shall notify the PUBLIC by PUBLICATION in the Federal Register as

required by statutes/laws governing said matters. In the meantime, Newsome will be

providing a copy of this pleading in PUBLIC/SOCIAL Forums (i.e. as the INTERNET)

viewing.

of 59

29 CFR § 1601.70 FEP AGENCY QUALIFICATIONS:

(a) State and local fair employment practice agencies or authorities which qualify under section 706(c) of title VII and this section shall be designated as “FEP agencies.”

The qualifications for designation under section 706(c) are as follows:

(1) That the State or political subdivision has a fair employment practice law which

makes unlawful employment practices based upon race, color, religion, sex, national

origin or disability; and

(2) That the State or political subdivision has either established a State or local

authority or authorized an existing State or local authority that is empowered with

respect to employment practices found to be unlawful, to do one of three things: To grant relief from the practice; to seek relief from the practice; or to institute criminal

proceedings with respect to the practice.

(b) Any State or local agency or authority seeking FEP agency designation should submit a written request to the Chairman of the Commission. However, if the

Commission is aware that an agency or authority meets the above criteria for FEP

agency designation, the Commission shall defer charges to such agency or authority

even though no request for FEP agency designation has been made.

(c) A request for FEP agency designation should include a copy of the agency's fair

employment practices law and any rules, regulations and guidelines of general

interpretation issued pursuant thereto. . .

29 CFR § 1601.71 FEP AGENCY NOTIFICATION:

(a) When the Commission determines that an agency or authority meets the criteria

outlined in section 706(c) of title VII and §1601.70, the Commission shall so notify

the agency by letter and shall notify the public by publication in the

Federal Register of an amendment to §1601.74.

V. OBJECTIONS TO EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION’S MAY

31, 2012 DISMISSAL AND NOTICE OF RIGHTS

90. Through this instant “RFROD&NOR. . .” Newsome PRESERVES this

ISSUE and relies upon same to support TIMELY, PROPERLY and ADEQUATELY

submitted “Objections to Employment Opportunity Commission’s May 31, 2012

Dismissal and Notice of Rights.”

91. Newsome furthermore, REITERATES her demand that the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission provide her with “Findings of Fact and

Conclusion of Law” to support its FAILURE to defer matter to the Ohio Civil Rights

Commission as well as “Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law” to sustain its

usurpation of authority and issuance of the “Dismissal and Notice of Rights” without

of 59

deferring matter to the Ohio Civil Rights Commission which is a MANDATORY

requirement under statutes/laws governing said matters.

92. Newsome further OBJECTS through this instant “RFROD&NOR. . .” the

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s FAILURE to execute the

COMMISSIONER Charge requested of Newsome. Therefore, DEMANDS that

COMMISSIONER Charge Issue IMMEDIATELY!

VI. RESPONSE TO OHIO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION’S LETTER DATED

MAY 9, 2012 REGARDING “YOUR INQUIRY REGARDING POTENTIAL

CHARGE OF DISCRIMINATION

93. For purposes of PRESERVATION of this ISSUE, in regards to

“Response to Ohio Civil Rights Commission’s Letter Dated May 9, 2012 Regarding

‘Your Inquiry Regarding Potential Charge of Discrimination,” Newsome

incorporates by reference as if set forth in full herein Paragraphs 1 through 92 of this

instant “RFROD&NOR. . .”

94. Newsome furthermore, through this instant “RFROD&NOR. . .”

DEMANDS that the Ohio Civil Rights Commission provide her PROOF of filing of

“Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” – i.e. Charge/Complaint Number(s)

assigned.

VII. REQUEST FOR STATUS OF COMMISSION CHARGE TO ISSUE

29 CFR § 1601.6 SUBMISSION OF INFORMATION:

(a) The Commission shall receive information concerning alleged violations of Title VII, the ADA, or GINA from any person. Where the information discloses that a

person is entitled to file a charge with the Commission, the appropriate office shall

render assistance in the filing of a charge. Any person or organization may request the

issuance of a Commissioner charge for an inquiry into individual or systematic

discrimination. Such request, with any pertinent information, should be submitted to

the nearest District, Field, Area, or Local office.

(b) A person who submits data or evidence to the Commission may retain or, on

payment of lawfully prescribed costs, procure a copy of transcript thereof, except that a witness may for good cause be limited to inspection of the official transcript of his or

her testimony.

95. Newsome through this instant “RFROD&NOR. . .” REITERATES

her request that COMMISSIONER Charge ISSUE in regards to claims/allegations set

of 59

forth in “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination” in that Newsome believes

that the facts, evidence and legal conclusion set forth therein supports SYSTEMATICE

Discriminatory practices; moreover CONTINUING Discriminatory practices which are

motivated by criminal intent and discriminatory practices.

96. Newsome through this instant “RFROD&NOR. . .” request that the

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission provide her with the RESPONDENTS’

Answers to “Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination.”

VIII. 2ND REQUEST TO BE ADVISED OF ALL “CONFLICT-OF-INTERESTS

97. For the PRESERVATION this ISSUE, Newsome, through this instant

“RFROD&NOR. . .,” hereby for the SECOND TIME request that the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission and the Ohio Civil Rights Commission advise

her of any/all “CONFLICTS-OF-INTERESTS” that exist in the handling of her

“Official Complaint/ Charge Of Discrimination.”

CONCLUSION

Newsome believes that as a DIRECT and PROXIMATE result of the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commissions SYSTEMATIC Discriminatory Practices in the

handling of Complaints brought by Newsome, it ENCOURAGED and/or ALLOWED such

WHITE RACIST Employers as The Garretson Firm Resolution Group Inc. and Messina

Staffing/Messina Management Systems and their Legal Counsel/Advisors to CONSPIRE

with such TERRORIST Law Firms as Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz and

its CLIENTS to go on to COMMIT more HIDEOUS Criminal Actions that may have

resulted in MURDER! In support thereof, Newsome state the following:

LIKE “ALL” CAREER CRIMINALS (SUCH AS BAKER

DONELSON) WHEN THEY ARE NOT STOPPED, THEY GO

ON TO COMMIT ONE CRIME TOO MANY WHICH LEADS TO

THEIR DOWNFALL!”

A) Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz

(“Baker Donelson”) is Legal Counsel/Advisor to United States of America

of 59

President Barack Obama and is Legal Counsel/Advisor to past United States of

America Presidents REPUBLICAN and DEMOCRAT (i.e. for instance

Ronald Reagan/where it appears Baker Donelson occupied and ran the White

House with knowledge that President Reagan was in the early stages of

Alzheimer; William “Bill” Clinton, and George W. Bush). In other words,

Baker Donelson, it appears, NEVER leaves and CONTROLS and run the

White House, CONGRESS and SUPREME Court:

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

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

Howard Baker: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/bd-howard-

baker-wiki-info

B) Baker Donelson making itself known to Newsome through the 1999

(EMPHASIS Added) Lawsuit brought by Newsome against Entergy Services,

Inc. – Newsome vs. Entergy Services, Inc.:

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/ex-33-docket-sheet-entergy

A lawsuit in which it appears Baker Donelson TOOK A SHELLACKING that

it had to relying upon relationships to the Judges/Justices assigned (i.e. which

includes the Supreme Court of the United States of America) to THROW the

Lawsuit through the use of BRIBES, BLACKMAIL, EXTORTION,

COERCION, etc.

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/baker-donelson-ties-to-

judgesjustices-as-of120911

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/ex-7-judge-g-thomas-

porteous-impeachment

Judge G. Thomas Porteous was IMPEACHED and removed from the bench;

however, this is information that President Barack Obama and CONGRESS

wants to keep out of the Media.

C) FAILURE to act on the CRIMINAL/CIVIL wrongs reported by

Newsome in the handling of the Newsome vs. Entergy matter it appears allowed

for Baker Donelson and its CLIENTS (i.e. United States of America

PRESIDENTS and United States of America CONGRESS:


to go on approximately TWO (2) Years later and carry out more HIDEOUS

CRIMINAL acts on September 11, 2001 “DOMESTIC” Terrorists Attacks on

the World Trade Center Buildings and alleged other TARGETS that day.

D) Failure to act resulting in Newsome filing an OFFICIAL

Complaint with the United States Department of Justice AGAINST Baker


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

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/bd-howard-baker-wiki-info

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/bd-howard-baker-wiki-info

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/ex-33-docket-sheet-entergy

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

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

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/ex-7-judge-g-thomas-porteous-impeachment

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/ex-7-judge-g-thomas-porteous-impeachment


of 59

Donelson and those with whom they CONSPIRED to carry out

CRIMINAL/CIVIL wrongs leveled against Newsome:

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/ex-34-091704-petition-

seekingintervention-entergymatter

E) FALURE to act resulted in one of the MOST Horrific PONZI

Scams in History – Bernard “Bernie” Madoff Ponzi Scheme/Scam. Bernie

Madoff appears to be a client of Baker Donelson. Bernie Madoff is a client of

J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank is a

TOP/KEY/MAJOR Client of Baker Donelson:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487036521045761223

00990479090.html

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/madoff-bernie-info

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/garretson-resolution-group-

bernie-madoff-settlement-payouts

It appears that Baker Donelson relied upon Ties/Relationships with the

Securities and Exchange Commission as well as the United States of

America’s Congress to COVER-UP and DESTROY evidence:

http://www.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a7066875f676e7da3a5

Now the PUBLIC/WORLD may see for themselves how and WHY it appears

Bernie Madoff was able to carry off his CRIMINAL practices UNPUNISHED

for so many years.

F) FAILURE to act resulted in Baker Donelson and its Clients

(i.e. United States of America President Barack Obama, United States

Department of Justice, United States Department of Treasury and other

CONSPIRATORS) to target Newsome and ATTACK her for purposes of her

RELEASING documents to the PUBLIC-AT-LARGE/WORLD! For instance

in RETALIATION to Newsome’s July 13, 2010 Email to President Barack

Obama and those in his Administration entitled, "U.S. PRESIDENT BARACK

OBAMA: THE DOWNFALL/DOOM OF THE OBAMA

ADMINISTRATION - Corruption/Conspiracy/Cover-Up/Criminal Acts Made

Public"

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/071310-email-toobamaholder

Newsome was subjected to RETALIATORY and CRIMINAL practices

approximately FOUR (4) Days later when United States of America President

Barack Obama had his Legal Counsel/Advisor Baker Donelson and members of

his Administration go after Newsome’s Bank Account(s) with J.P. Morgan

Chase Bank for “CHILD SUPPORT:”

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/071710-kydorjp-

morganchasedocs

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/ex-34-091704-petition-seekingintervention-entergymatter

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/ex-34-091704-petition-seekingintervention-entergymatter

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703652104576122300990479090.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703652104576122300990479090.html

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/madoff-bernie-info

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/garretson-resolution-group-bernie-madoff-settlement-payouts

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/garretson-resolution-group-bernie-madoff-settlement-payouts

http://www.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a7066875f676e7da3a5


http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/071710-kydorjp-morganchasedocs

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/071710-kydorjp-morganchasedocs

of 59

In so doing United States of America President Barack Obama and those with

whom he CONSPIRED “EMBEZZLED” monies and committed other

CRIMINAL/CIVIL violations leveled against Newsome. Furthermore, record

evidence SUPPORTS that Newsome’s July 13, 2010 email appears to have lead

to Baker Donelson and its Clients (i.e. President Barack Obama, CONGRESS,

etc.) to begin the PROCESS of COVERING up the LIES the

United States of America told regarding its “DOMESTIC”

Terrorists Attacks on its OWN Citizens and others and the

FRAMING of others for its TERRORISTS Acts – i.e. COMMON

and WELL-ESTABLISHED practices by Corrupt Government

Officials. An example of this is the Pat Tillman matter. Had Mr. Tillman not

had a family who was DETERMINED to get to the TRUTH the United States

of America Government may have blamed the OUT-RIGHT-

KILLING/MURDER of Pat Tillman (i.e. with THREE (3) Gunshots to his

HEAD) on the Taliban or Al Qaeda. The United States of America’s Military

tried to COVER UP its KILLING/MURDER of Pat

Tillman by DESTROYING EVIDENCE – i.e. a Pattern-Of-

Practice by Baker Donelson, the United States of America MILITARY, United

States of America PRESIDENTS, United States of America CONGRESS and

those with whom they CONSPIRE:

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/pat-tillman-wikipedia-info

Record evidence supports that in efforts of Baker Donelson, United States of

America President Barack Obama/his Administration and the United States of

America Congress claiming to have located Osama Bin Laden in August 2010 – i.e. based on timing,

APPROXIMATELY THE NEXT MONTH AFTER

Newsome’s July 13, 2010 Email.


of 59

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/obama-050111-

speechosama-binladen

Clearly they could see the “HANDWRITING ON THE WALL”

and the need to now move forward and “KILL the LIES” the

United States of America is telling regarding the 911 Attacks.

G) Failure to act resulted in on or about October 9, 2010, Newsome

submitting to the Supreme Court of the United States of America her pleading

entitled, "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."

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/100910-emergency-motion

It appears that based upon this pleading Baker Donelson and its Clients (i.e.

United States of America President Barack Obama, Congress and other

CONSPIRATORS/ CO-CONSPIRATORS) moved forward to “KILL

OFF” people they believed to be a THREAT in exposing their

Terrorists Acts and/or considered DISPOSABLE witnesses and

having KNOWLEDGE behind the TRUTH behind the 911 Attacks and other

HIDEOUS Criminal Acts of the United States of America’s Government:

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/obama-050111-speechosama-binladen

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/obama-050111-speechosama-binladen

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/100910-emergency-motion

of 59

Apparently, based on information found, the following people appear to have

been placed on Baker Donelson’s, United States of America President Barack

Obama’s and former President George W. Bush’s “KILL LIST:”

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

President Barack Obama’s creation and use of an UNLAWFUL/ILLEGAL

“Kill List” has recently made the News.

Furthermore, it may further support what appears to be Baker Donelson’s and

United States of America President Barack Obama’s role in the August 6,

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

of 59

2011 “KILLING/MURDER” of Navy Seals claimed to

be members out of the SAME Unit (Seal 6) that was in the alleged May 1, 2011 killing/murder of Osama Bin

Laden. It is OBVIOUS that these Navy Seals may have been

KILLED/MURDERED based on their KNOWLEDGE of the May 1, 2011

LIES and for purposes of SILENCING them. Killings/Murders of these Navy

Seals were blamed on the Taliban:

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

down-080611

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

080611

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/taliban-insurgents-killed-

navy-seal

Then the United States of America moved SWIFTLY alleging to have

killed/murdered the Terrorist responsible – i.e in other words, “CLEANING

UP LOOSE ENDS!”

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

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

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

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

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/taliban-insurgents-killed-navy-seal

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/taliban-insurgents-killed-navy-seal

of 59

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/taliban-insurgents-

killednavy-seals-matter

DON’T forget the United States of America Military’s

Practices and “CREATING OF DOCUMENTS” to

COVER UP and support its CRIMINAL ACTS!

Remember the PAT TILLMAN COVER-UP:


Using the United States of America’s Citizens TAXES to pay for their

TERRORISTS Acts:

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/taliban-paid-360-million-us-

tax-dollars

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/taliban-us-paysterrorist2

Baker Donelson and United States of America President Barack Obama/his

Administration it appears used the United States of America Navy Seals

because Baker Donelson’s employee Raymond Maybus serves as Secretary of

the Navy:

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

info

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/mabus-raymondwiki-info

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

The PUBLIC-AT-LARGE/WORLD needs to know this information so they can

better understand why there was NEVER any “LIVE” Footage of

the alleged Killing/Murder of Osama Bin Laden and “ALL”

accounts of the LIES about the Killing/Murder of Osama Bin Laden were

“CREATED” on a COMPUTER!

It is important to understand why the PAKISTAN Government may

have really been upset about the LIES the United States of America President

Barack Obama and his Administration told about Osama Bin Laden being

found at the alleged Abbottabad, Pakistan Compound. Pakistan being a country

that the United States of America began paying approximately $2 BILLION

Dollars a year shortly AFTER the 911 Attacks:

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/pakistan-united-states-relations

It appears Pakistan may now be upset because the United States of America

BREACHED its Agreement with it and now has attempted to FRAME Pakistan

for hiding Osama Bin Laden on its soil when they have KNOWLEDGE that

Osama Bin Laden was NOT there; nevertheless, going along for fears of losing

the BLOOD/BLACKMAIL MONIES (i.e. approximately $2 BILLION Dollars)

that the United States Of America has been paying it to keep their LIES alive!

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/taliban-insurgents-killednavy-seals-matter

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/taliban-insurgents-killednavy-seals-matter


http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/taliban-paid-360-million-us-tax-dollars

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/taliban-paid-360-million-us-tax-dollars

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/taliban-us-paysterrorist2

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

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

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/mabus-raymondwiki-info

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

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/pakistan-united-states-relations

of 59

The United States of America, based on information provided by Newsome,

KNEW that it had to “KILL the LIE” regarding Osama Bin Laden and those

with whom they considered could EXPOSE the 911 “DOMESTIC” Terrorists

Attacks of the United States of America CORRUPT Government Officials

involved.

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/pakistan-obl-has-been-

dead-for-seven-years

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/pakistan-obl-has-been-

dead-for-years

H) Failure to act has resulted in what appears to be Baker

Donelson and its Clients (i.e. United States of America White House/President

Barack Obama/his Administration and the United States of America

CONGRESS and those with whom they CONSPIRE) engaging in

UNLAWFUL/ILLEGAL acts which involved the EMBEZZLEMNT of United

States of America TAXPAYERS’ Dollars to COVER-UP their CRIMINAL

ACTS. Then Baker Donelson engaging the United States of America White

House/Presidents and the CONGRESS to push through its BAILOUT Packages

regarding BANKS, Housing Industry and Automobile Industry. For instance

look at the FINANCIAL Institutions which have benefitted from Baker

Donelson CONTROL – i.e. names as BENEFACTORS such as J.P. Morgan

Chase Bank, Bank of America, and MANY more of Baker Donelson’s Clients

are clearly on this list:

http://www.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a70668a5d606dad73af

I) Failure to act has resulted in Baker Donelson moving its

operations into Florida – i.e. in PREPARATION of the November 2012

Presidential Elections:

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/baker-donelson-expands-

intoflorida2


intoflorida

When Florida A & M University (“FAMU”) had a loss of one of its

Band Members (Robert Champion) in or about November 2011, it appears

Baker Donelson, United States of America President Barack Obama, the United

States of America Congress and their CONSPIRATORS/CO-

CONSPIRATORS having KNOWLEDGE that Newsome is a FAMU Alumni

resorted to OVERKILL in the MEDIA COVERAGE of this

tragedy and attempted to use it to DIVIDE and/or cause

DIVISION in the FAMU Family. However, they were

DISAPPOINTED when the FAMU Family UNITED

TOGETHER and WITHSTOOD such attacks to take down

FAMU’s President (James Ammons) and FAMU! Was the

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST (i.e. Baker Donelson’s

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/pakistan-obl-has-been-dead-for-seven-years

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/pakistan-obl-has-been-dead-for-seven-years

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/pakistan-obl-has-been-dead-for-years

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/pakistan-obl-has-been-dead-for-years

http://www.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a70668a5d606dad73af

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/baker-donelson-expands-intoflorida2

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/baker-donelson-expands-intoflorida2

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/baker-donelson-expands-intoflorida


of 59

ROLE and Ties/Relationships to the Federal Bureau of

Investigation [“FBI”]/Prosecutors/Governor) in the handling of Investigations leveled against FAMU made

KNOWN to the PUBLIC-AT-LARGE? NO! It appears

Baker Donelson RECRUITING Florida Governor Rick Scott to carry out their

RACIST/DISCRIMINATORY attacks – i.e. in that NO White

LARGE/FAMOUS University (i.e. University of Georgia, Indiana State

University, University of Tennessee, University of Miami, etc.) that may have

experienced a similar tragedy received such MASSIVE, EXCESSIVE and

OVERWHELMING Coverage as the FAMU incident:

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/hazing-deaths-at-universities

United States of America President Barack Obama, his White

Racist/Supremacist Legal Counsel/Advisor Baker Donelson and those with

whom they conspired, FAILED to release to the PUBLIC-AT-

LARGE/WORLD their ROLE in the CONSPIRACIES to destroy FAMU.

Therefore, Newsome took the initiative to go PUBLIC/GLOBAL and EXPOSE

this FIRST alleged BLACK-American/HOUSE-Negro President (Barack

Obama) living in “UNCLE TOM’S CABIN” with his UNDERCOVER Ku

Klux Klan Legal Team Baker Donelson.

BAKER DONELSON = SUPREMACIST: A person who believes in

or advocates the supremacy of a particular group, esp. a racial group.

One who believes that a certain group is or should be supreme.

Somebody who holds the view that a particular group is innately

superior to others and therefore, is entitled to dominate them.

Baker Donelson is a White Supremacist Group and believes

that it is SUPERIOR and better than any other racial group. It believes

that it is SUPREME and that all other races are INFERIOR to it. It

holds the MENATLITY that ALL RACES and COUNTRIES are

Inferior to the United States and therefore, is entitled to be DOMINATED and CRUSHED by the United States powers/forces.

Baker Donelson takes the position of SUPERIORITY or AUTHORITY

over all others and is EVIDENCED through its ADVERTISEMENTS

on the Internet.

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/hazing-deaths-at-universities

of 59

Newsome releasing her January 10, 2012 “NOTIFICATION FOR

TERMINATION - REQUEST FOR IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II – RESPONSE TO THE ATTACKS ON

FLORIDA A&M UNIVERSITY REGARDING ALLEGED HAZING

INCIDENT – REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL MILITARY

INTERVENTION MAY BE NECESSARY”

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/022712-updated-links-for-

obama-eviction-notice-011012final

Along with “PINK SLIP!”

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/011012-pink-slip-president-barack-obamasigned

Which was LEGALLY and properly served on United States of America

President Barack Obama with copies to United States of America Kentucky

Senator Rand Paul and United States of America Joint Chief of Staff Admiral

Michael G. Mullen. Nevertheless, United States of America President Barack

Obama attempted to COVER-UP evidence of being served by having the

“Certified Mail Return Receipt” GREEN Card DESTROYED! It was

ONLY AFTER Newsome’s going PUBLIC/GLOBAL and advising of

President Barack Obama’s CRIMINAL activities – i.e. Mail Tampering, etc. -

that it appears he had the GREEN Card TAPED back together and returned to

Newsome.

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/011012-usps-mailing-

receipts-green-cardreturned

J) Failure to act has resulted in what appears to be Baker

Donelson and its Clients (i.e. United States of America President Barack

Obama and J.P. Morgan Chase Bank and those with whom they CONSPIRE)

going on to commit other HIDEOUS crimes which affects/impacts the

ECONOMY by CONTINUING to engage in CRIMINAL Acts and making

RISKY and UNLAWFUL/ILLEGAL financial transactions as the

recent J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK Scandal:

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/jp-morgan-chasebank-

scandal-3

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/jp-morgan-chasebank-

scandal


intoflorida

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/baker-donelson-florida-

governorship-history

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/022712-updated-links-for-obama-eviction-notice-011012final

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/022712-updated-links-for-obama-eviction-notice-011012final

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/011012-pink-slip-president-barack-obamasigned

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/011012-usps-mailing-receipts-green-cardreturned

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/011012-usps-mailing-receipts-green-cardreturned

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/jp-morgan-chasebank-scandal-3

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/jp-morgan-chasebank-scandal-3

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/jp-morgan-chasebank-scandal

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/jp-morgan-chasebank-scandal



http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/baker-donelson-florida-governorship-history


of 59

Again, J.P. Morgan Chase Bank is one of Baker Donelson’s TOP/KEY/

MAJOR Clients. Continued PATTERN-OF-PRACTICE by Baker Donelson

and its client J.P. Morgan Chase Bank. CRIMINAL Activities in which they

have been SUCCESSFUL in bringing DOWN Governments and making

“PERSONAL” Financial Gains for themselves while their

VICTIMS SUFFER:

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/baker-donelson-jp-morgan-

chasebaddealingsinfo-swap

K) Failure to act has resulted in what appears to be Baker

Donelson and its Clients (i.e. United States of America President Barack

Obama and Morgan Stanley and those with whom they CONSPIRE) going on

to commit other HIDEOUS crimes which affects/impacts the

ECONOMY by CONTINUING to engage in CRIMINAL Acts

and making RISKY and FINANCIAL BUSINESS transactions as

the recent FACEBOOK Debacle:

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/morgan-stanley-facebook-sued

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/morgan-stanley-facebook

These CAREER Criminals will attempt to “THROW MARK ZUCKERBERG

TO THE WOLVES AS ITS SACRIFICIAL GOAT;” however, it appears Baker

Donelson and Morgan Stanley are the PUPPETMASTERS! Yes, Morgan

Stanley is also one of Baker Donelson’s TOP/KEY Clients:

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/baker-donelson-morgan-

stanley

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/baker-donelson-morgan-

stanleyunderwriting

L) Failure to act has resulted in what appears to be Baker

Donelson and its Clients (BIG MONEY Investors and CONSPIRATORS/CO-

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/baker-donelson-jp-morgan-chasebaddealingsinfo-swap

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/baker-donelson-jp-morgan-chasebaddealingsinfo-swap

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/morgan-stanley-facebook-sued

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/morgan-stanley-facebook

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/baker-donelson-morgan-stanley

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/baker-donelson-morgan-stanley

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/baker-donelson-morgan-stanleyunderwriting

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/baker-donelson-morgan-stanleyunderwriting

of 59

CONSPIRATORS) looking at ways to pull their monies out of the

Stock Markets and moving to U.S. Treasury Bonds while they

“Sit back and LAUGH” at their MASTERPIECE – the

GLOBAL DEMISE/ECONOMIC TAKEDOWN – and

employees hopelessly watching the WIPEOUT of their 401Ks:

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/investors-chasing-us-bonds

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/investors-chasing-cheaper-

havens

M) Failure to act may have resulted in Baker Donelson,

United States of America President Barack Obama, the United States of

America’s CONGRESS and those with whom the CONSPIRE engaging in

further TERRORISTS Acts and “BOMBING” a Jetliner!

Newsome believes that had it NOT been for her filing of the April 30,

2012 Equal Employment Opportunity Complaint/Ohio Civil

Rights Commission Complaint wherein she ADDRESSES the

CONTINUED Terrorists acts of Baker Donelson, United States

of America President Barack Obama and their

CONSPIRATORS/CO-CONSPIRATORS, these CAREER

Criminals would have moved forward to BOMB a Jetliner of

INNOCENT Victims – i.e. probably appearing on President

Barack Obama’s KILL LIST! WHY? It appears for purposes of

“INSTILLING FEAR” in American Citizens because 2012 is a

PRESIDENTIAL Election Year and Baker Donelson and United States of

America President Barack Obama and those with whom they CONSPIRE are

thinking that FEAR will place President Obama back in the White

House for a SECOND Term because Americans may not want a

NEW President in a “Time of Crisis!” In other words, the May

1, 2011 LIE about the killing/murder of Osama Bin Laden has

been EXPOSED; therefore, President Barack Obama know that

any such claims have FALTERED! While a LIE, United States

of America President Barack Obama is now being SLAMMED

by the Navy Seals: http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/navy-seals-slam-

obama

N) Failure to act resulted in Baker Donelson’s CONTROL of

JUSTICES in the Supreme Court of the United States of America getting the

ruling in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission which has allowed

for CAREER CRIMINALS as Baker Donelson and its Counterpart

CONSPIRATORS/CO-CONSPIRATORS who have HIJACKED the United

States of America Government to “CARRY OUT DOMESTIC TERRORISTS

ACTS” not only against United States of America Citizens but TERRORISTS

Attacks on FOREIGN Nations/Countries and their Citizens. Now they are

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/investors-chasing-us-bonds

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/investors-chasing-cheaper-havens

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/investors-chasing-cheaper-havens

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/navy-seals-slam-obama

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/navy-seals-slam-obama

of 59

attempting to use the Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission

decision to MASK/HIDE their BIG MONEY INFLUENCES to HIJACK the

2012 Presidential Elections through the use of BRIBES, BLACKMAIL,

EXTORTION, CORRUPTION and INTIMIDATION masked as “SUPER

PACS!”

Approximately ONE (1) Year out, Baker Donelson moving into

Florida (i.e. considered one of the KEY Battlegrounds) and it is WELL

UNDER WAY in taking this State DOWN through the use of Florida Governor

Rick Scott (i.e. another CAREER Criminal with DIRTY HANDS).

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/rick-scott-wikipedia-info

Baker Donelson it appears has TIES/HISTORY with Florida Governorship:

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/baker-donelson-florida-

governorship-history

The Florida Governor being used by Baker Donelson and their

CONSPIRATORS/CO-CONSPIRATORS it appears for leveling ATTACKS

on Florida A&M University and COVER-UP of the “FIRST-

DEGREE/PREMEDIATED” Murder of Trayvon Martin is just the “TIP-OF-

THE-ICEBERG” for Baker Donelson, United States of America President

Barack Obama, United States of America CONGRESS [i.e. with a Senate with

is approximately 100% WHITE and House of Representatives approximately

90% WHITE]. This is how WHITE RACIST/SUPREMACIST Law Firms as

Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz operate and remain HIDDEN

from PUBLIC/GLOBAL view. However, Newsome has come forward and is

“YANKING OFF THEIR KU KLUX KLAN HOODS”

The following PowerPoint Presentation was created in

PowerPoint 2010 - FREE Download:

http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/try

It may be viewed better using the Firefox Browser – FREE

Download: http://www.mozilla.org/en-

US/firefox/new/?from=sfx&uid=290713&t=478

PowerPoint Presentation:

http://www.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a70658660627475ae6c

so that the WORLD can see for themselves who the United States of America

TERRORISTS are and where they are HIDING! Moreover, it is

IMPORTANT to understand why it is that AFRICAN-

Americans, People of Color and MUSLIMS have come under

attacks and are being FRAMED for the Terrorists Acts carried

out by WHITE RACIST/SUPREMACIST Groups as Baker

Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz and the United States

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/rick-scott-wikipedia-info



http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/try

http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/new/?from=sfx&uid=290713&t=478

http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/new/?from=sfx&uid=290713&t=478

http://www.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8a70658660627475ae6c

of 59

of America’s CONGRESS. Who AUTHORIZES the Terrorists

Wars of the United States of America? The United States of America

Presidents and the United States of America’s CONGRESS. Who is

Legal Counsel/Advisor to the United States of America President and United States of America Congress?

Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz:


O) Failure to act it appears has resulted in Baker Donelson Bearman

Caldwell & Berkowitz’ and those with whom it conspires creation of a

DISCRIMINATORY Supreme Court of the United States of America which

requirement appears to be that one has to be either JEWISH and/or

CATHOLIC:

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/alito-samuel-wikipedia-info

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/sotomayor-sonia-wikipedia-info-11693471

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/kennedy-anthony-wikipedia-info

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/ginsburg-ruth-bader-wikipedia-info

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/justice-john-g-roberts-wikipedia-info

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/breyer-stephen-wikipedia-info


http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/alito-samuel-wikipedia-info

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/sotomayor-sonia-wikipedia-info-11693471

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/kennedy-anthony-wikipedia-info

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/ginsburg-ruth-bader-wikipedia-info

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/justice-john-g-roberts-wikipedia-info

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/breyer-stephen-wikipedia-info

of 59

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/kagan-elena-wikipedia-info

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/thomas-clarence-wikipedia-info

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/scalia-antonin-wikipedia-info

P) Here are instances of how it appears Baker Donelson and its

CONSPIRATORS/CO-CONSPIRATORS engages in TERRORIST acts:

REITERATING FOR FOREIGN TRANSLATION PURPOSES:

WHO IS BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC?

MEET THEM:

BAKER DONELSON = TERRORISM: The unlawful use or threatened use

of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or

property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments

often for ideological or political reasons.

Baker Donelson. . .is an ORGANIZED White Supremacist Group that

has relied upon its power, positions and CONTROL over the United States Government to UNLAWFULLY use and THREATEN use of FORCE or

VIOLENCE against people (i.e. such as Newsome, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.)

or property with the intention of INTIMIDATING or COERCING societies or

governments for EVIL/WICKED and POLITICAL POWER/GAIN.

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/kagan-elena-wikipedia-info

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/thomas-clarence-wikipedia-info

http://www.slideshare.net/VogelDenise/scalia-antonin-wikipedia-info

of 59


BAKER DONELSON = DOMESTIC TERRORISM: Terrorism that occurs

primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States [18 USCA §

2331(5)]. Terrorism that is carried out AGAINST one's OWN Government

or FELLOW CITIZENS. This is what happened on 9/11 (September 11, 2001) - Under the DIRECTION/LEADERSHIP/CONTROL of its Legal Counsel/Advisors (i.e.

Baker Donelson, etc.), President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard

Bruce "Dick" Cheney, the United States Congress/Legislature, etc. carried out

one of the MOST HORRIFIC Crimes on United States soil - - the bombing of

its OWN "World Trade Centers" and the DOWNING of its OWN

Passenger Jets on United States soil which cost the lives of MANY. .

.MANY. . .Innocent people/citizens. 9/11 was a TERRORIST Act carried out

by Baker Donelson, the United States Government and other

CONSPIRATORS/CO-CONSPIRATORS against its OWN Country. 9/11

WAS NOT the acts of the man claimed to be Osama Bin Laden. 9/11 was

the United States Government and was done to INSTILL Fear in the United

States citizens to provide TERRORIST Groups like Baker Donelson and the

United States Government, etc. with an EXCUSE to INVADE Afghanistan,

Iraq, Iran and other countries under FALSE PRETENSE - to

UNLAWFULLY/ILLEGALLY take control of their RESOURCES: Oil,

Gas, Gold, Coal, Monies, Lands, etc.

of 59


BAKER DONELSON = DOMESTIC TERRORISM: Terrorism that occurs

primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States [18 USCA §

2331(5)]. Terrorism that is carried out AGAINST one’s OWN Government or

FELLOW CITIZENS.

of 59


BAKER DONELSON = INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM: Terrorism that

occurs primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or that

transcends national boundaries by the means in which it is carried out, the

people it is intended to intimidate, or the place where the perpetrators operate to seek asylum.

Terrorist Groups as Baker Donelson/United States Presidents/United

States Government and their CONSPIRATORS/CO-CONSPIRATORS for

Decades/Years have taken their TERRORIST acts OUTSIDE the United States

INTO Foreign Countries/Lands - - for purposes of DESTROYING lives,

INTIMIDATION, COERCION/THREATS/FEAR, OPPRESSION and

CONTROL- - where such Terrorist Groups as Baker Donelson/United States

Government, etc. OPERATE to seek asylum and set up CAMPS/FORTS to

SURVEY their Targets/Victims that they seek to OVERTHROW.

of 59


BAKER DONELSON = TERRORIST: One who engage in acts or an act of

terrorism. Somebody who uses VIOLENCE or the THREAT of violence,

especially BOMBING, KIDNAPPING, and ASSASSINATION, to

INTIMIDATE, often for POLITICAL purposes. Terrorist Groups as Baker Donelson/United States Presidents/United

States Government and their CONSPIRATORS/CO-CONSPIRATORS have

engaged in acts of TERRORISM. They have not ONLY subjected Newsome to

VIOLENCE, THREATS and having her KIDNAPPED, etc. but have used such

TERRORIST acts not only in the PAST but now in the PRESENT in its

ASSASSINATIONS of: (1) Former Presidents Abraham Lincoln; (2)

Former President John F. Kennedy; (3) President Kennedy's brother

Robert Kennedy; (4) Civil Rights Leader Malcolm X; (5) Civil Rights

Leader Medgar Evers; (6) Civil Rights Leader Martin Luther King Jr., and

MANY others who OPPOSED Slavery, OPPRESSION, BONDAGE and

sought to move the United States forward RATHER than back to the Past as Baker Donelson and the United States Government is trying to do now.

To INSTILL FEAR in people and a TOOL of

CONTROL/INTIMIDATION, these people were ASSASSINATED for political

purposes/power.

of 59


BAKER DONELSON = TERRORIST/RACIST: Attempts to CHANGE

THE FACES/WIPE OUT THE FACES of the African-American Male from

what they think are TOO BLACK (Malcolm X, Medgar Evers and Martin

Luther King Jr.) to get “WHITE America” to accept them by focusing on the INTERRACIAL (those Baker Donelson think will be easily accepted if they

appear WHITE) – U.S. President Barack Obama; United States Attorney

General Eric Holder and NAACP President/CEO Benjamin Jealous. In the days

of SLAVERY these are the faces of what were known as “HOUSE NEGROS” .

. . or the product of the WILLIE LYNCH Practices.

LIKE “ALL” CAREER CRIMINALS WHEN THEY ARE NOT

STOPPED, THEY GO ON TO COMMIT ONE CRIME TOO

MANY WHICH LEADS TO THEIR DOWNFALL!”

It is like Noah when he warned the people of the “IMPENDING FLOOD TO

COME.” The people just LAUGHED and MOCKED him – i.e. perhaps calling

him crazy, a lunatic, paranoid, etc. However, in the END, Noah and his family had the

of 59

LAST LAUGH in that his obedience to GOD and the building of the Ark, spared him

and his family from the DISASTER that God had told Noah was to come. On or

about July 13, 2010, United States of America President Barack Obama, his Legal

Counsel/Advisor Baker Donelson, his Administration, and members of the United States of America

CONGRESS were made aware of the IMPENDING/INEVITABLE

“DOWNFALL/DOOM OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION -

Corruption/Conspiracy/Cover-Up/Criminal Acts Made Public”


Nevertheless, Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz along with its Clients -

United States of America President Barack Obama and members of his Administration and

the United States of America CONGRESS - elected to RETALIATE AGAINST Newsome

and come after her Bank Account(s) and Job(s) for purposes of SILENCING her and

FINANCIALLY devastating her so that Newsome is NOT able to WARN the

PUBLIC-AT-LARGE/FOREIGN Nations and their Leaders/Citizens.

Nevertheless, approximately ONE (1) Year from Newsome’s July 13,

2010 WARNING, the United States of America SUFFERED its

FIRST “Downgrade” and will continue to FALL! The United

States of America has FALLEN from its NO. 1 holding as China and other countries are SURGING forward! NOW look at the

GLOBAL ECONOMIC DEMISE!

Respectfully Submitted By:

_____________________________________

Vogel Denise Newsome

Post Office Box 14731

Cincinnati, Ohio 45250

(513) 680-2922 or (601) 885-9536


06/08/12 - eeoc response to dismissal & notice of rights

News & Politics

rock creek min

messinastaffing messina management systems

osama bin laden

oscar mayer

workers compensation programs

instant rfrod

including pertinent dates

equal employment opportunitycommission