I
N T
H
E UNITE
D
STATES
D
ISTRICT COURT CLERK
F
OR
T
H
E N
OR
T
H
E
RN
DI
ST
RI
CT
O
F GE
OR
C~~5 N- ~'~ ~ ~
A
tl
a
nta
D
ivisio
n
Choa*
.
j
F
I
LE N
O
: 1
:08-CV-1971
SUPE
RIOR
C
O
U
RT
, et., al
.,
D
ef
e
ndant
s
FILED
IN C
LE
R
K
S OF
R
C
E
u
.s,a
.
c
.
Atlanta
SEP - 9
ZOOS
JAMES B
. STEGEMAN,
JANET D
. MCDONALD,
Plaintiffs
vs
.
C
I
VIEL AC
TIO
N
P
L
A
I
N
TIFFS' M
O
T
IO
N F
O
R REC
O
NS
ID
ERAT
ION UNDER RULE 59(e)
AN
D
/
OR
M
TIO
N F
OR
RECONSIDERATION U
ND
ER R
ULE 60
(
b
)
Comes now Plaintiffs, who file their Motion For Reconsideration pursuant
to and in compliance with Fed
. R. Civ
. P
. Rule 59(e) and Rule60(b)within ten(10)days of this Court's Order and Judgment dated August 26, 2008
.
BRIEF
B
ACKGRO
UN
D
Plaintiffs filed their complaint' in this Court June 9,
2008
.
Service perfectedupon all Defendants June 10,
2008
.
Judge Becker dismissed Plaintiffs SuperiorCourt action dune 11
,
2008 in retaliation for being named Defendant
i
n th
is
act
i
on
.
This Court Dismissed the case August26, 2008
.
1 This case was brought to US district Court due to illegal acts, fraud upon theCourt, and conspiracy in a Superior Court action between Plaintiffs and GeorgiaPower Company that resulted in Dismissal of Plaintiffs' Superior Court complaint
and leaving only Georgia Power Company' counterclaim
.
_2_
AUGUST 26, 2008
OPINION
AND ORDER
Superior Court and Judge Becker (Superior Court Defendants) Moved toDismiss June 17, 2008; Georgia Power, Brain Watt and Scott Farrow
(GA
Power
Defendants) moved to dismiss June 27, 2008; all defendants claimed Rooker-Feldman, and Younger Abstention. This Court Dismissed the case August 26,2008 on the grounds of lounger
.
Plaintiffs address the Court's Opinion and Order in the same sequence asaddressed by this Court. Plaintiffs had asked that irrelevant and immaterial matters
be disregarded (Response to Superior Courts Defendants' Motion to Dismiss(doc
.8, pg
.2) and Response to GA Power Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (doc
.9,
pgs
.2-3)
; Nevertheless, this Court addressed several of the issues, and made
incorrect statements, which must not be allowed to stand as stated
.
Concerning
Stegeman v
. Georgia, ef
., aL,
No
.
: 1
:06-cv-02954-WSD (fnl
pg
.
2 Order and
Opinion)
see the following
:
Page 2, fnl, l
"
¶
: "Plaintiff claimed he improperly was charged
with elder abuse and financial fraud
..
.wrongfully revoked hisPower of Attorney
..
."
*The statement is incorrect, see the following
:
Plaintiff showed through undisputed documentation that without having
been charged, tried or convicted, Stegeman was found guilty of Family Violence2 Order and Opinion dated August 26, 2008 referred to hereinafter as "Or
."
and financial fraud by the Probate Clerk Jeryl Rosh, who lacked jurisdiction overcriminal matters, and lacked power to do so, revoked a special Durable Power ofAttorney with an interest
.
Concern
i
ngStegeman,
A
, a
L
, v
. Wachovia Ban
k
e
t
.
, a
L
,
No
.
: 06-cv-1065-8Fnl, 2°
d
¶
:
"Wachovia
Bank filed an action in DeKalb CountySuper
i
or Court aga
i
nst Plaint
i
ffs Stegeman and McDonald foraccounting and damages
..
."
*
The statement
i
s incor
r
ect, see the follow
i
ng
:
Wachovia Bank has
never
filed suit against either Plaintiff Stegeman or
Plaintiff McDonald
. The case being referenced is Superior Court case
:
Joyner v
.
Ste
g
e
man
,
an
d
vice versa No
.
: 02-cv-9732-8
. Joyner, the County Probate Courtappointed Guardian of
P
roperty of Jean Caffrey, filed suit against Stegeman
o
nl
y
for accounting damages
.
Plaintiff McDonald wa
s not
named
i
n the
suit
.
Attached is a copy of the Docket Report for the case Exhibit
A
F
n1
2"d
¶
continu
es
: "Plaintiffs refused to conclude the
settlement,
..
. Plaintiffs Stegeman and McDonald brought a
separateproSe action
.
.
. against Wachovia
..
."
* The statement is incorrect, see the following
:
When 02-cv-9732-8 concluded, neither attorney would file the agreement
with Superior Court; Stegeman upheld his part of the agreement and Withdrew the
Caveat to the Will. The opposing party refused to honor their part of the
agreement, that's why the case continued. That case finally ended, by Stegeman
-3-
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Plaintiffs' Motion For Reconsideration
Plaintiffs' case in United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, dismissed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr. under Younger Abstention.
Plaintiffs filed for Rule 59 or 60 Reconsideration.
Doc. 23-2 and 23-3 are the Exhibits which were attached to this Motion for Reconsideration
Plaintiffs filed for Rule 59 or 60 Reconsideration.
Doc. 23-2 and 23-3 are the Exhibits which were attached to this Motion for Reconsideration
14.1K
Reads
25
Readcasts
11
Embed Views
Recommended
More From This User
Notes
Load more
