Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
26Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Motion for Reconsideration Denial Of Plaintiff's Rule 60(b) Motion

Motion for Reconsideration Denial Of Plaintiff's Rule 60(b) Motion

Ratings:

2.5

(1)
|Views: 3,189|Likes:
Published by Janet and James
Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of the Denial of Their Rule 60(b) Motion. It is also suggested the Judge Duffey should have disqualified, and that he is bias/prejudice and has subject disparate treatment upon a disabled person, a member of a protected class.
Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of the Denial of Their Rule 60(b) Motion. It is also suggested the Judge Duffey should have disqualified, and that he is bias/prejudice and has subject disparate treatment upon a disabled person, a member of a protected class.

More info:

Published by: Janet and James on Nov 20, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

06/07/2014

pdf

text

original

 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA,Atlanta DivisionJAMES B. STEGEMAN,JANET D. MCDONALD,Plaintiffsvs.SUPERIOR COURT STONEMOUNTAIN JUDICIAL CIRCUIT;SUPERIOR COURT JUDGECYNTHIA J. BECKER, in herindividual capacity;GEORGIA POWER COMPANY;BRIAN P. WATT, Esq., in hisPartnership, Professional andIndividual Capacities;SCOTT A FARROW, Esq., in hisPartnership, Professional andIndividual Capacities;DefendantsCIVIL ACTIONFILE NO: 1:08-CV-1971RULE 60(b) RELIEF FROMJUDGMENT
PLAINTIFFS‟ MOTION FOR 
RECONSIDERATION OF ORDERDENYING PLAINTIFFS RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
COMES NOW, Plaintiffs who file
 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration
 of Order Denying Plaintiffs Relief from Judgment.
Plaintiffs Move the Court to
 
- 2 -
Reconsider it‘s Order Denying them Relief, and to
cite authority supporting this
Court‘s Ruling.
 This Court has failed/refused to address the grounds for which Plaintiffsrequested relief under Rules 60(b)(2),(3),(4), and (6) and stated only that Plaintiffswere barred by the one year statute of limitations, and what was not barred by theone year statute of limitations, Judge Duffey himself has been deemed untimelyanyway.Plaintiffs have shown through undisputed fact that there is newly discoveredevidence; that officers of the Court knowingly, willingly, wantonly, maliciouslyand with intent to harm Plaintiffs fabricated and forged real property documentsand committed a fraud upon the court to obtain rulings in their favor and to defraudthe Plaintiffs.Plaintiffs, only a few days ago, discovered that the Exhibits they hadattached to their Rule 60(b) Motion/Brief, appear nowhere on the Docket as havingbeen filed, and are not included as part of the Brief. It is unconscionable that dueto
the legitimacy of Plaintiffs‘ claims
, their evidence and pleadings are soconclusive, that the
Courts, the court‘s Clerks, and others who are
officers of theCourt, have had to resort to removing documentation
from Plaintiffs‘ filings
,falsifying docket reports, fabrication of evidence, creating fictional discovery
 
- 3 -
disputes, signing and having Orders filed eighteen minutes before the hearing is setto begin, and that a Judge would act as counsel for the defendants as the onlymeans to see that the defendants win this case.It is further unconscionable that the Courts and their clerks have tampered
with and hindered Plaintiffs‘ ability to prosecute their case and their Right to
Appeal.
ARGUMENT AND CITATION OF AUTHORITIESEXHIBIT 1: The Docket Report
- clearly shows that the last entries prior
to Plaintiffs‘
Motion for Relief under Rule 60(b)(2),(3),(4), and (6), was on March31, 2009, and July 08, 2009 respectively.
1
 The Docket Report, and History of Documents shows no Exhibits orattachments included with the March 2010 Motion and Brief. Either the Court or
it‘s clerk removed the
Exhibits of 
―newly discovered evidence‖
, and falsified thedate the Motion was delivered to the Court, so that the claim could be made that
Plaintiffs‘
motion was untimely.
I.
 
FAILURE TO ADDRESS PLAINTIFFS‟ GROUNDS FOR RELIEF
 
1
 
*EXHIBIT 2
from the United States Postal Service, shows they delivered theMotion and Brief on March 31, 2010; the Docket report shows April 1, 2010 JudgeDuffey claimed that the Motion was untimely, because of a one year statute of limitation, thus the explanation of why the Motion was held until the following daybefore being filed.

Activity (26)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1978cranston reviewed this
Rated 1/5
pleading fraud requires specificity, which you have not done. quite doubtful either the appellate clerk or the judge were biased against you, discriminated against you or that you received disparate treatment. my thought is no attorney would take your case because you don't have one but for being dissatisfied with the result of a prior case.
Janet and James added this note
To 1978cranston: Why are you are critical of a case, that you obviously have no knowledge of? I see that you have no followers. Perhaps rather than condemning people that you have no knowledge of, and telling the readers here that we had no case and that is why no attorney would take the case, you should attempt to be kind. Besides, what makes you think we had looked for legal counsel at all?
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
James Ray Bedard added this note
How did your case come out? I have a similar case in court now. Yours was very interesting . James Bedard bedardjamesray@yahoo.com
mnawazraja liked this
Fred Christian liked this
Fred Christian liked this
mnawazraja liked this
packagingwiz liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->