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
12Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Plaintiffs Response to Motion to Dismiss

Plaintiffs Response to Motion to Dismiss

Ratings:

4.75

(4)
|Views: 6,162 |Likes:
Published by nootkabear
Plaintiffs response to Motion to Dismiss the Superior Court/GA Power suit in US District Court. Exhibits are attached.
Plaintiffs response to Motion to Dismiss the Superior Court/GA Power suit in US District Court. Exhibits are attached.

More info:

Categories:Types, School Work
Published by: nootkabear on Sep 14, 2008
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

04/09/2014

pdf

text

original

 
IN
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA,
Atlanta Division
JAMES N
~ENCK
, 1ER
y '-
FILE NO
: 1
08-CV X971-WSD
SUPE
RIOR
C
OU
R
T, et, al
.,
D
ef
endant
s
1
Referred to hereinafter as "GA Power Defendants" or "these Defendants"
~
ILED
IN
S
CLERKS
OFFICE
JUL 11
2008
JAMES B
. STEGEMAN,
JANET D. MCDUNALD,
Plaintiffs
vs
.
C
I
V
I
L ACTION
PLAINTIFFS' BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS
GEORGIA
POWER, BRIAN P
. WATT
AND
SCOTT
A
.
FARROW'S
MOTION
TO
DISMISS
COMES NOW,- Plaintiffs James B
. Stegeman and Janet D
. McDonald and
file Plaintiffs' Brief In Response To Defendants Georgia Power, Brian P. Watt andScott A. Farrow's' Motion To Dismiss
.
FACTS
Plaintiffs filed this action, not as an appeal as the Defendants attempt to havethis Court believe, but as a separate action resulting from "extrinsic fraud", andother "illegal acts" Plaintiffs are not claiming a legal error by the state court, theyare claiming "fraud upon the court" by the opposing parties
.
Case 1:08-cv-01971-WSD Document 9 Filed 07/11/2008 Page 1 of 26
 
-2-
These defendants claim that Plaintiffs have failed to state a valid cause ofaction
. Although Plaintiffs believe they have properly plead, should this Courtdecide that defendants are correct, Plaintiffs MOVE this Honorable Court for achance to amend their pleading in order to plead the causes of action correctly
rather than dismiss this case
.
Matters Irrelevant To This Case
In Defendant's Memorandum of Law In Support Of Motion To Dismiss,2
they attempt to cloud the issues with matters wholly irrelevant to this case
. They
make immaterial, irrelevant statements to discredit, bring bias toward and
prejudice against the Plaintiffs and thereby manipulate the Court and it's processes
.
These defendants begin their "Memorandum of Law
..
." with "No possible
con
s
truction of the rambl
i
ng allegation
s
..
."
; "
With this action
,...
perpe
t
uate
a
di
s
turbing
t
rend
..
. p
r
o
se
lit
i
gant
s,
.
. individual
unfortunate enough
.
.
."
; "Indeed
Plaintiffs themselves are no strangers to this very tactic"; "
.
.
.should not allow
Plaintiffs' misuse of the judicial system
.
.
." (MTD pg
.2) These Defendants make
several unsubstantiated, false statements with the intent to mislead this Court. (See
"Background" of MTD, pgs
. 2-5
.) NOTE
: incorrectly references Plaintiffs
.
These defendants would have Courts of Georgia and the United States
2 Motion to Dismiss referred to hereinafter as "MTD"
Case 1:08-cv-01971-WSD Document 9 Filed 07/11/2008 Page 2 of 26
 
-3-
violate the Rights of the disabled, the Rights of
pro se
litigants, as well as all theRights of any other citizen with whom they disagree
. Denying disabled,
pro sealitigants meaningful access to the Courts falls within violations of Constitutionallyguaranteed Rights see
Te
nn
essee v
. La
n
e
541 U
.S
. 513 (2004)
;
U
.S
. v
. Geo
rgia,
"
..
.interference with access to the judicial process, and procedural due processvi
ola
t
ion
s
..
."
These defendants reference this Court's denial of Plaintiff Stegeman's
Motion To ProceedOn Appeal In
Forma Paoeris,4 (1VITU-pg.2-*fnl) which is
meant to prejudice this Court and has no relevance to this case
. These defendants
should take note that the 11 '' Circuit Appeal has not been dismissed or denied, but
is c
urr
e
n
tly
pend
i
ng
,
.
ARGUMENT AND CITATION OF AUTHORITY
A
.
The Sup
er
i
or Court
Action
Plaintiffs were forced to file the Superior Court action because of MattGoff's allegations to the State Patrol Troopers. Plaintiffs discussed the matter with
3 Plaintiffs arepro se litigants,
Plaintiff Stegeman is a disabled adult as recognized
by The Social Security Act and The Health and Welfare Act and U
.S
.C. Title 42§ 12101 thereby a member of a protected class
.
4 §1915 IFP cases and fee-paid cases are viewed differently by the Court in thatIFP cases can be dismissed much more easily than a fee paid case and are "held todifferent standards and may be dismissed sua sponte"
V
and
erbe
rg
v
.
D
ona
l
d
so
n
,
259 F
.3d at 1323 (11'' Cir. 2001
;
Mit
c
h
e
ll
v
.
Farca
ss,
112 F
.3d 1483 (11b Cir
.
1997)
;
Fare
se v
.
S
c
he
rer
,
3
4
2 F
.3
d
1223 (11~' Cir. 2003)
Case 1:08-cv-01971-WSD Document 9 Filed 07/11/2008 Page 3 of 26

Activity (12)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
Brendon Kuhlman liked this
Marsha Kaye liked this
Tammy Wilson liked this
Marsha Kaye liked this
Jungsup Kim liked this
haotran liked this
quebec1005 liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

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