U.S. v. Jimenez Recio, 123 S.Ct. 819 (2003) - Essence of a conspiracy is an agreement to commit an unlawful act.

     Agreement to commit an unlawful act, which constitutes the essence of a conspiracy, is a distinct evil that may exist and be punished whether or not the substantive crime ensues. Id.

     Conspiracy poses a threat to the public over and above the threat of the commission of the relevant substantive crime, both because the combination in crime makes more likely the commission of other crimes and because it decreases the probability that the individuals involved will depart from their path of criminality. Id.

Amendment VII - Civil Trials: In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right to trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of common law.

Without waiver of the right of trial by jury, by consent of parties, the court errs if it substitutes itself for the jury, and, passing upon the effect of the evidence, finds the facts involved in the issue and renders judgment thereon. Baylis v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 5 S.Ct. 494, 113 U.S. 316, 28 L.Ed. 898.

IMPORTANT TO NOTE: There is NO "Consent of Parties" in the Vogel Denise Newsome vs. Entergy . . . matter waiving a "TRIAL By JURY!"

A reasonable mind may conclude that Entergy (through Legal Counsel Baker Donelson) "PRIVATELY" requested a trial WITHOUT a jury before Judge / Magistrate G. Thomas Porteous - i.e. with KNOWLEDGE such acts are CRIMINAL and PROHIBITED. Furthermore:

CONGRESS's VIEW:

Although there is no constitutional right to an appointment of counsel in civil cases, federal courts are empowered by statute to appoint counsel when circumstances justify it. - - Armstrong v. Snyder, 103 F.R.D. 96 (D.C. Wis. 1984).

     In Castner vs. Colorado Springs Cablevision, 979 F.2d 1417, 1421 (10th Cir. 1992), the decision whether to appoint counsel requires accommodation to two competing considerations. FIRST, the court MUST consider Congress's "special . . . concern with legal representation with Title VII actions." Jenkins vs. Chemical Bank, 721 F.2d 876, 879 (2d Cir. 1983). In enacting the attorney appointment provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and later reaffirming the IMPORTANCE of that provision in the LEGISLATIVE history of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, Congress demonstrated its AWARENESS that Title VII claimants might NOT be able to TAKE ADVANTAGE of the FEDERAL remedy WITHOUT the appointment of counsel. As explained in House Report No. 92-238:

By including this provision in the bill, the committee emphasizes that the nature of Title VII actions more often than not PITS parties of unequal strength and resources against each other. The complainant, who is usually a member of the disadvantaged class, is opposed by an employer who INFREQUENTLY is one of the nation’s MAJOR producers, and who has at his disposal a VAST of resources and LEGAL TALENT.

H.R. Rep. No. 238, 92nd Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in 1972 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2137, 2148. The Court, therefore, must give "serious consideration" to a plaintiff's request for counsel in a Title VII action. Jenkins at 880 and Castner at 1421.

Against such odds, there is record EVIDENCE to support Newsome being able to SUCCESSFULLY present as well as preserve EVIDENCE to support her claims:

[W]hen a litigant unable to afford counsel and unable to present his case is forced to proceed pro se, there is little guarantee that a civil rights action will be successfully prosecuted to appeal so that the denial of counsel may be reviewed. Robbins vs. Maggio, 413 (5th Cir. 1985)

There is evidence to support Koch has a history and / or has begun a PATTERN-Of-ABUSE in obstructing the administration of justice. Koch has knowingly provided FALSE and / or FRIVOLOUS responses / information to FEDERAL entities during Entergy's handling of Newsome's legal actions.

28 USC § 1985 - Conspiracy To Interfere With Civil Rights

  (2) OBSTRUCTING Justice; INTIMIDATING Party, Witness, or Juror

      (3) Depriving Persons Of Right or Privileges

28 USC § 241 - Conspiracy Against Rights

Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct - Rule 8.4 - MISCONDUCT

Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct - Rule 8.4 - CANDOR TOWARD The TRIBUNAL

LIABILITY / ACCOUNTABILITY

28 USC §1985 - Action For NEGLECT To PREVENT

PATTERN-OF-ABUSE (Violation Of Rules Of Professional Conduct)

REQUEST FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE / MAGISTRATE

Request For Reassignment Of Case In Action Sub Judice

Entergy Lawsuit Is WHERE Baker Donelson JUMP-STARTED "SERIAL LITIGATOR" Script:

     The Supreme Court of the United States Justice Brennan WARNED, "IF . . . continue on the course we chart today, we will end by closing the doors to a litigant with a meritorious claim." - - In Re McDonald, supra 489 U.S. 189, 187, 109 S.Ct. 993, 998:

     It is rare, but it does happen that the Supreme Court grant review and even decide in favor of a litigant who has previously presented multiple unsuccessful petitions on the same issue. See, e.g., Chessman vs. Teets, 354 U.S. 156, 77 S.Ct. 1127, 1 L.Ed.2d 1253 (1957); see id., at 173-177, 77 S.Ct. at 1136-1138.

There is record EVIDENCE to support Amelia Willam Koch's EAGERNESS to come forth using her "SERIAL Litigator" Script, BLINDED her against the MANY lawsuit that have been brought against Entergy and SETTLED for DISCRIMINATION - - i.e. As Walker vs. Entergy LA Inc., et al. (Eastern District - Civil Action Number 97-736) and Hassan, et al. vs. Entergy Corp. et al. (Civil Action Number 89-2794), etc.!

CONGRESS'S JURISDICTION OVER THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS

Wright, Miller & Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure: Jurisdiction 2d § 3526:

Congressional Control Of Lower Federal Court Jurisdiction - -

     Congress has considerable discretion in dealing with the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts. It can provide that a particular court hear certain questions and deny all other courts the power to consider the questions referred to that court. (Lockerty vs. Phillips, 63 S.Ct. 1019, 319 U.S. 182, 87 L.Ed. 1339).

    Simply stated, Congress may impact as much or as little of the judicial power as it deems appropriate and the Judiciary may NOT thereafter on its own motion recur to the Article III storehouse for additional jurisdiction. When it comes to jurisdiction of the FEDERAL courts, truly, to paraphrase the scripture, the Congress giveth, the Congress taketh away. [(Judge Sirica - 366 F.Supp. at 55. (D.C.D.C. 1973). Wright, Miller & Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure: Jurisdiction 2d § 3526, p. 241.]

CONGRESS' CREATION OF "EMERGENCY" COURT

Lockerty vs. Phillips, 1943, 63 S.Ct. 1019, 319 U.S. 182, 87 L.Ed. 1339 - (n.5) Congress had authority to require that a plaintiff seeking equitable relief against enforcement of . . . Act, or of regulations promulgated under it, resort to the EMERGENCY Court of Appeals only AFTER first pursuing prescribed administrative procedure. Id. 1020

     Article III left Congress free to establish inferior FEDERAL courts or not as it though appropriate. It could have declined to create any such courts, leaving suitor to the remedies afforded by state courts, with appellate review by this Court as Congress might prescribe. Kline vs. Burke Construction Co. 260 U.S. 226, 234, 43 S.Ct. 79, 82, 67 L.Ed. 226, 24 A.L.R. 1077, and cases cited.

Lockerty vs. Phillips (n.3) - The congressional power to "ordain and establish" inferior courts INCLUDES the power of investing them with jurisdiction either limited, concurrent, or exclusive, and of withholding jurisdiction from them in the exact degrees and character with Congress may seem proper for PUBLIC good. U.S.C.A. Const. Art. 3, § 1. Cary vs. Curtis, 3 How. 236, 245, 11 L.Ed 576; Lauf vs. E. G. Shinner & Co., 303 U.S. 323, 330, 58 S.Ct. 578, 582, 82 L.Ed. 872.

RELIEF SOUGHT / DESIRED THROUGH SUBMITTAL OF 09/17/2004 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE COMMUNICATIONS . . .

     The United States Department of Justice and / or Congress RETAIN jurisdiction . . . see that Newsome is provided with legal REPRESENTATION / COUNSEL . . .

. . . pursuant to Seventh Amendment of the United States Constitution . . .lawsuit be allowed to proceed to TRIAL . . .

     . . . lawsuit be assigned to another Judge, Court and venue that can decide the issues in a legal, lawful, fair and just manner WITHOUT any bias and prejudice towards Newsome because of KNOWLEDGE of other lawsuits by her . . .

PRIOR TO September 11, 2001, it is reported that the United States of America’s Officials, etc. took the time to TRAIN TERRORISTS they brought in from Saudi Arabia!

     For those who are familiar with the United States of America’s DESPOTISM . . . practices, USA Officials and their Legal Counsel Baker Donelson [i.e. a Law Firm owned and controlled by Germany's . . . Nazis / WHITE Supremacists / Ku Klux Klan / Jews / Zionists] like to “CONTROL” the information that the Public / World receives. Therefore, in RETALIATION to PressTV.com reporting on the USA’s TERRORISTS’ activities, etc., Iran’s PressTV.com website was UNLAWFULLY seized! However, in a “POWER MOVE,” it appears PressTV News is NOW provided through Iran’s hosting services and may be accessed at the following link:

CLICK HERE To Go To Iran’s PressTV Website