Read without ads and support Scribd by becoming a Scribd Premium Reader.
See Premium Plans
 
THE SUPERIOR
COURT
OF DEKALB
COUNTY
STATE OF
GEORGIA
F
ILE N
O
: 07CV11398-6
GE
OR
G
I
APOWER
C
OMPANY
et
,
al
.
D
EFE
NDANT
S
~ Plaintiffs bring to this Honorable Court's Attention through "Notice to the Court" instanceswhich cause concern and may be viewed as questionable, and/or inappropriate, and/or unethical,and/or violative of Uniform Superior Court Rules, and/or Georgia Code and/or State of GeorgiaBar Rules and/or other Rules and/or other Regulations
.
JANET D. MCDONALD,JAMES B
STEGEMAN
PLAINTIFFS
V
CIVIL A
'
C
tl'
4N
PLAINTIFFS' STATEMENTS FO
R
THE RECORD AND PLAINTIFFS
R
E
Q
UEST FO
R
T
H
E C
OU
R
T TO TAKE JUDICIAL N
O
TICE
COM
E
S NOW
Janet D
. McDonaldandJames
B
. Stegeman,Plaint
i
ffs and
files
Plaintiffs' Statements For the Record and Requests The Court to Take Judicial Notice
. '
Plaintiffs'
bring to the HonorableCourt's attentionfacts relevant to the Record
_
I
.
FACTS PLA
I
NT
I
FFS'
RE
Q
UEST THE C
O
U
R
T T
OTA
K
E N
O
TICE
Plaintiffs first point out that March 28,
2008
Mr
. Watt had hand delivered to theCourt a letter addressed
: "The Honorable Cynthia
J
.
Beaker, DeKaIb County Superior
Court, 556 North McDonough Street
-
Suite 5240, Decatur, GA
30030"
With the
salutation
: "Dear Judge Becker"
.
"Exhibit A"
Not only is it highly inappropriate it is
i
nv
iolat
i
on o
f
Un
if
onn
Superior
CourtRule4
.
1
.
;
Rule 4
.1
. Prohibition on ex parte communications
.
Except as authorized by law or by rule, judges shall neither initiatenor consider ex parte communications by interested parties or theirattorneys concerning a pending proceeding
.
Case 1:08-cv-01971-WSD Document 9-10 Filed 07/11/2008 Page 1 of 14
 
171
_2_and Georgia Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3, prohibits ex parte communications
"concerning a pending or impending proceeding
."
"judges must scrupulously avoid ex pane communications whether
or not they consider them. Judges should avoid the appearance of
impropriety when they carry out their duties
.
Taylor v. Public
ConvalescentSv
c-
, 245 Ga
.
805,
806
(267 SE2d 242)(1980)
.
See also
:
Ivey v
.
IveyS94AO264
. (264 Ga
. 435) (445 SE2d 258)
LAWSKI
.LLS (1994)"The Code of Judicial Conduct and the Uniform Superior CourtRules could not be more plain in the condemnation of ex partecommunications by judges
. "Judges shall not initiate or consider ex
parte communications, or consider other communications made to
them outside the presence of the parties concerning a pending or
impending proceeding," Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3 (B)
(7),
.
., defined in the canon
.
Id
.
at (a-e). See, to the same effect,
Uniform Superior Court Rule 4
.1 ("[e]xcept as authorized by law
or by rule, judges shall neither initiate nor consider ex pane
communicationsb
y interested parties or their attorneys concerninga pending or impending proceeding")
."
At this po
i
nt
,
Plaintiffs
must
quest
i
on th
i
s act
i
on and the impart
i
ality of the fudge
.
Further, Plaintiffs have been treated with disparity and subjected to injustices byopposing legal counsel and the Clerks of this Court, which again leads to the question ofwhether or not the impartiality of the Judge, the Court, and Plaintiffs Rights to equalityand due process of law should be questioned
.
Plaintiffs show this Honorable Court the following facts
:
A
. Plaintiff S
te
e
eman
's
Di
s
abilitie
s
. 2
Plaintiffs' Verified Complaint stated the following concerning Plaintiff
Stegeman's disabilities
:
•Ist page ¶2: "Plaintiff Stegeman is 100% Federallyy disabled andreceives Supplemental Security Income of 623
.00 monthly
.
Z Plaintiff Stegeman's disabilities and illnesses are attached hereto as
"Exhibit I "
3
Plaintiff Stegeman's SST has had the yearly increase to $634.00 monthly at present
.
Case 1:08-cv-01971-WSD Document 9-10 Filed 07/11/2008 Page 2 of 14
 
0
-
3-
•
page 17, ¶127
: "Further, Plaintiff Stegeman is a Federally
disabled individual, a member of a protected class
."
•
page 17, ¶i2$
: "Plaintiffs informed "Georgia Power" as well as
"
he State Troopers that he is a disabled individual
."
1
. The Defendants not once inquired into Plaintiff Stegeman's disabilities, what
he suffers from, the extent of, his limitations, etc. even though the first page, ¶2of Plaintiffs' Verified Complaint clearly states that Plaintiff Stegeman is
d
isa
bl
ed
.
2. Plaintiffs informed Defendant
'
s legal counsel of Pla
i
ntiff Stege
m
an
'
shealthrelated issues in the first conversation about scheduling depositions
.
3. Plaintiff Stegeman is
100%
Federally disabled, a Level III patient,4 sees a
doctor every th
i
rty (30) days
;
receives Supplemental Secur
i
ty Income
;
a
Med
caid recipient; he ne
i
ther owns
,
nor drives a car, experiences h
i
gh levelsof discomfort from s
i
tt
i
ng
ina small car,and/or
sitt
i
ng for long periods
-
of time
without being
able
to get up and move aroundor lie down
;
has a hardtime
rid
i
ng
i
n any car for long per
i
ods of time
; when extended
walking is involveduses a
wheelchair - which
he owns
;
has been permanently excused from
Jury
Duty
; is also computer
i
lliterate
6
.
B
.
P
lai
nt
i
ff
s'
Pr
o Se
S
tatu
s
1
. Pla
i
nt
i
ffs are acting on the
i
r own behalf
,
not out of desire
,
but out of necess
i
ty
,
toprotect their Rights to Property and Privacy as guaranteed by The State of Georgia andUnited States Constitutions. Unable to afford legal counsel, having been turned down by
¢ Level III patient = sees a Doctor every thirty (30) days5 Due to medications, Plaintiff Stegeman gave up driving a car several years ago for the safety ofhimself as well as the safety of others
.
6
Plaintiff Stegeman has the ability to repair computers, he keeps Plaintiff McDonald's computerrunning, but he personally has no use for or desire to use a computer, he cannot and does not use
McDonald's computer
.
Case 1:08-cv-01971-WSD Document 9-10 Filed 07/11/2008 Page 3 of 14
Search
Search History:
Searching...
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
  • p.
    • Notes
    Load more