This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
B. STEGEMAN, Defendant
CIVIL CASE NO. 06A44151
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO RECUSE AND DISQUALIFY JUDGE BARBARA J MOBLEY
COMES NOW, James B. Stegeman Defendant in the above listed action and files his Brief in Support of Motion to Recuse and Disqualify Judge Barbara J Mobley. In the following paragraphs, Defendant shows the grounds for which he Moves to Recuse and Disqualify Judge Mobley. BREIF BACKGROUND OF PROCEEDINGS January 20, 2006 Sandra Hicks, doing business as the Hicks Law Firm, filed this civil action against Defendant. Summons and Complaint was served upon Defendant January 25, 2006. Counterclaim February 24, 2006. Defendant timely filed Verified Answer and
August 23, 2006 Defendant filed Demand for Jury Trial, and Motion for Change of Venue with Proposed Orders. September 15, 2006 the Judge signed the Order for Jury Trial. October 3, 2006 Defendant put in for Leave of Absence for Medical reasons, with a Doctor’s Affidavit attached thereto; for the dates: October 16th through November 13th. Defendant’s Leave of Absence. The Court set a Pre-Trial Conference hearing for January 10, 2007; January 11, 2007 the Court set a Motions hearing for March 07, 2007. February 9, 2007, the Notice of hearing sent to Attorney David Whitman was returned to the Court from the Post office as undeliverable. Plaintiff’s Pre-Trial Order. David Whitman filed a conflict for the hearing March 07, 2007. The February 12, 2007 the Judge signed November 2, 2006 the Judge Granted
evening before the hearing, Defendant called the Court and was told the conflict had not been resolved, and the hearing would be rescheduled. The hearing was apparently held without the defendant; all of his pending motions, although no responsive objections had been filed, were dismissed because defendant did not appear at the hearing, they were filed in the record on March 26, 2007. March 20, 2007 Defendant filed Motion to Enforce the Court Order on Pre-Trial conference, and Motion to Dismiss. April 04, 2007 Defendant filed Motion to Set aside the Order dismissing his
Motions. Although the Plaintiff did not Object to the Motions to Set Aside Rulings there has been Ruling through today’s date of November 13, 2009, one (1) year and seven (7) months without a Ruling on the Motions. February 28, 2008 the Court gave the file to the law clerk to review, the file was given back to the Judge without explanation. June 2008 Defendant filed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law. ; and Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, although not Objected to by Plaintiff, has never been ruled on, one (1) year and five (5) months later, as of today’s date of November 13, 2009. Defendant received on November 7, 2009 Notice of Pre-Trial Conference Hearing. Again, just as last time, there was no Order concerning the Pre-Trial Order that the Court expects to be filed at the Hearing included with defendant’s notice. ARGUMENT AND CITATIONS TO AUTHORITIES There are very few Uniform State Court Rules that are different from Uniform Superior Court Rules, the Rules concerning filing and responding to Motions are very close, but not exact. The Uniform Rules for the Superior Courts shall be applicable in State Courts except as follows: A. Wherever the words "superior court" or "superior courts" appear in the Uniform Superior Court Rules, the word "state" shall apply in lieu of the word "superior." B. Wherever the words "district attorney" appear in the
Uniform Superior Court Rules, the words "prosecuting attorney" shall apply in lieu of "district attorney." C. Wherever the word "felony" appears, the words "or misdemeanor" shall be added. D. Wherever the words "indictment" or "grand jury indictment" appear, the word "accusation" shall apply in lieu thereof. E. The following Uniform State court Rules shall read as follows: RULE 6. MOTIONS IN CIVIL ACTIONS 6.2Reply Unless otherwise ordered by the judge, each party opposing a motion shall serve and file a response, reply memorandum, affidavits, or other responsive material not later than 30 days after service of the motion, or on the date of the hearing (if one is held) whichever occurs sooner. Nowhere does it state that a Judge can forego Ruling on Motions for either as long as they want, or indefinitely, in fact statute holds otherwise: O.C.G.A. §15-6-21 (b) “In all counties … it shall be the duty of the judge of the state court, …within 90 days…motions of any nature.” (c) “When …so decided, …the duty of the judge… to notify…” (d) “If any judge fails or refuses, …or if any judge repeatedly or persistently fails or refuses to decide the various motions, demurrers, and injunctions coming before him …such conduct shall be grounds for impeachment and the penalty therefor shall be his removal from office.” Furthermore, as Defendant’s Motions were un-opposed, they should have been granted. There is no logical explanation as to why Defendant was not Granted the Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law. Defendant filed a prima facie Verified Answer and Counterclaim, to which
Plaintiff did not respond. The proper procedure at the time defendant filed a prima facie Verified Answer and Counter, would have been to rebut with evidence. Plaintiff failed to rebut or dispute Defendant’s Verified Answer and Counterclaim, and evidence in support thereof. "To prevail … must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the undisputed facts, … warrant judgment as a matter of law." Lau's Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491 (405 SE2d 474) (1991)." “Once the movant has made a prima facie showing that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the burden shifts to the respondent to come forward with rebuttal evidence." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Kelly v. Pierce Roofing Co., 220 Ga. App. 391, 392-393 (2) (469 SE2d 469) (1996). "In rebutting this prima facie case, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials … must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." (Punctuation omitted.) Entertainment Sales Co. v. SNK, Inc., 232 Ga. App. 669-670 (502 SE2d 263) (1998). Defendant, at the hands of Plaintiff, and without protection and immunities he had a Constitutional Right to, was the victim of conspiracy, fraud, and theft by conversion. Plaintiff apparently, joined the conspirators, which resulted in being a victim of the other crimes. “A conspiracy is a combination of two or more persons to accomplish an unlawful end or to accomplish a lawful end by unlawful means…. two or more persons, acting in concert, engaged in conduct that constitutes a tort…” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Mustageem-Graydon v. Suntrust Bank, 258 Ga. App. 200, 207 (573 S.E.2d 455) (2002); Miller v. Lomax, 266 Ga. App.
93, (596 S.E.2d 232) (2004) Defendant repeatedly requested his attorney to present evidence of the crimes against him to the authorities, and she refused. She told him to do it himself, knowing that when a party is represented by legal counsel, neither the District Attorney, nor the Solicitor General will pay attention to what the individual is showing and telling them. The DA or Solicitor asks why the attorney is not presenting the evidence; discounting anything told them. Just as the GBI will not get involved unless law enforcement advises them of a problem. April 22, 2003 when Probate Court appointed a Temp. Administrator of the Estate by a person making fraudulent claims against the Defendant, defendant’s legal counsel did nothing, although she had previously shaken Defendant’s hand and told him the whole matter was over. The Temp. Administrator and his
attorney, committed perjury, subornation perjury, and fraud upon the court when they caused to be filed Petition to Probate a new Will Probate Court. They knowingly, willingly, wantonly, and maliciously lied when claiming: “no other Wills”, and “the nephew and his brother are estranged from the deceased” and
“the DeKalb County DA’s office are currently investigating Felony theft by taking charges and Elder abuse charges against James Stegeman”. All three statements are perjury, subornation of perjury. There is no record of any investigation ever having taken place, and there was a Motion in Limine
(previously filed in the action at bar) in the Superior Court action in which attorney Pattie Williams said she had spoken to the DA and there were no plans to ever investigate Mr. Stegeman. Mr. Lillig knowingly, willingly, wantonly made the statements, he is guilty of perjury and fraud upon the Court to obtain a Ruling in his favor. Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d held the following: “court may investigate a question as to whether there was fraud in the procurement of a judgment. Universal Oil Products Co. v. Root Refining Co., 328 U.S. 575, 66 S.Ct. 1176, 90 L.Ed. 1447. This is to be done in adversary proceedings as in the case before us. See Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238, 64 S.Ct. 997, 88 L.Ed. 1250; Sprague v. Ticonic National Bank, 307 U.S. 161, 59 S.Ct. 777, 83 L.Ed. 1184; and United States v. Throckmorton, 98 U.S. (8 Otto) 61, 25 L.Ed. 93.” “Fraud on the court (other than fraud as to jurisdiction) is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself … H.K. Porter Co., Inc. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 536 F.2d 1115 (6th Cir.). It is thus fraud where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function--thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted.” “"Since attorneys are officers of the court, their conduct, if dishonest, would constitute fraud on the court." Porter, 536 F.2d at 1119.”” Because there were two Wills, the legitimate one yet to be decided, Lillig had no right to be named Temp. Administrator, yet he had obtained the Bond before Petitioning the Court for the appointment, and committed perjury and fraud in the Petition; and Plaintiff did nothing about it, failed to act, failed to protect Defendant and his property interests.
“A judgment of a probate court (formerly court of ordinary) granting permanent letters of administration to one who is not entitled to administration may be set aside in a direct proceeding in equity, instituted by an heir at law, on the ground that the application shows on its face that the court has no jurisdiction and yet proceeds to judgment, or on the ground that the applicant falsely and fraudulently represented in his application that the facts were such as to entitle him to appointment.” See Wallace v. Wallace, 142 Ga. 408 (2) (83 SE 113); Stanley v. Metts, 169 Ga. 101 (1) (149 SE 786); Brown v. Parks, 169 Ga. 712 (1) (151 SE 340); Jackson v. Jackson, 179 Ga. 696 (177 SE 591); Bowers v. Dolen, 187 Ga. 653 (2) (1 SE2d 784); Watson v. Watson, 208 Ga. 512, 515 (1) (67 SE2d 704); Toombs v. Hilliard, 209 Ga. 755 (1) (75 SE2d 801); Smith v. Smith, 230 Ga. 616 (3) (198 SE2d 307).” “His petition showed on its face that he was not entitled to the appointment, and it was a fraud in law to obtain the appointment.” Philips v. Gladney, 234 Ga. 399 (216 SE2d 297)(1975). There was no hearing prior to the appointment, of Temp. Administrator, and Petitioner’s attorney assured him that she had no idea of how the appointment was obtained with two wills and a caveat filed. One would have to be quite
unintelligent not to see that Plaintiff was conspiring with the opposition and did not intend to do anything to prevent opposition’s actions, and/or to protect the Client. Defendant’s attorney failed to uphold and enforce Defendant’s Rights to due process of law, a fundamental Right of all citizens. In RE: Law Suits of Anthony J. Carter (two cases) 235 Ga. App. 551, 510 S.E.2d 91, (1998). at : "Both the Georgia and United States Constitutions prohibit the state from depriving `any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.' United States Const., amend. XIV, sec. 1; see also Ga. Const., [Art. I, Sec. I, Par. I].
The fundamental idea of due process is notice and an opportunity to be heard." *fn14 As stated in Citizens &c. Bank v. Maddox, *fn14 "[t]he benefit of notice and a hearing before judgment is not a matter of grace, but is one of right." "A party's cause of action is a property interest that cannot be denied without due process. (Cit.)" *fn14 at : “Howard v. Sharpe, supra at 772 (1), citing three decisions of the United States Supreme Court. Although Howard applied federal constitutional law, so fundamental a concept would likewise be inherent in the state constitution's guarantee of due process.”
Defendant, a disabled adult/member of a protected class, depends heavily upon the Courts and it’s Judges to honor their Oath of Office; abide by, uphold, and honor The State of Georgia Constitution and The Constitution of the United States; to protect his Civil and Constitutional Rights; to ensure that he is treated fairly; and to guarantee that his case will go before a fair and impartial tribunal. “Every person in Georgia has a constitutional right of unfettered access to the courts” Ga. Constitution 1983, Art. I, Sec. I, Par. I, (“No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property except by due process of law.); Par. XII (“No person shall be deprived of the right to prosecute or defend, either in person or by an attorney, that person’s own cause in any of the courts of this state.”)” Rice v. Lightmas, 259 Ga. App. 380, 577 S.E.2d (Ga.App. 2003)
Because of Plaintiff’s lack of concern and lack of ordinary care, Defendant has been subjected numerous times to being named a defendant in cases where creditors are seeking to recover from Defendants Aunt’s Estate. Plaintiff failed to file the Memorandum of Understanding that was supposed to have ended the
Superior Court action, after Defendant upheld his part of the agreement. Plaintiff then walked away from the case before it’s conclusion, and without filing the agreement. There can be no excuse for that behavior. Plaintiff persuaded
Defendant to make an agreement, then walked away with actual knowledge the Memorandum would never be honored by the opposing party, that the agreement was merely a fraudulent act meant to mislead and harm Defendant, which is what happened. CONCLUSION Defendant in this matter has shown beyond doubt that he owes nothing to Plaintiff. A verified answer, counterclaim, and the other filings by Defendant conclusively shows that he is entitled to Judgment as a Matter of Law, in his favor and should be Granted that which he has requested in his Counterclaim. Plaintiff has failed to rebut or dispute anything Defendant has stated, or his evidence. There is no doubt that Defendant is entitled to Judgment as a Matter of Law in his favor, Granting the Relief requested in the Verified Answers and Counterclaim. The Judge’s failure and refusal to act and Rule on Defendant’s Motions is unacceptable and an impeachable offense. Should the Judge not immediately Grant Defendant’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and the Relief he has requested in the Verified Answers and Counterclaim; she should Recuse herself.
The Judge has shown that she is bias/prejudice against Defendant by refusing to Rule on his Motions, knowing that she has only 90 days to Rule. Defendant cannot have a fair and impartial tribunal in front of this Judge. Defendant demands either Judgment in his favor with the relief he requested, or Recusal. Respectfully submitted this 13th day of November, 2009
By: ___________________________ JAMES B. STEGEMAN, Pro Se 821 Sheppard Rd Stone Mountain, GA 30083 (404) 300-9782 AFFIDAVIT OF JAMES B. STEGEMAN I, James B. Stegeman, under penalty of perjury, state that I am over the age of 21, and competent to testify in a Court of law to the matters of which the Motion and Brief to Recuse Judge Mobley refer. All information contained therein, are from first-hand knowledge, and are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. So sworn this 13th day of November, 2009 _________________________ JAMES B. STEGEMAN
Sworn to and Subscribed Before me this 13th day of November, 2009 _______________________ NOTARY PUBLIC
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I Certify that I have this 13th day of November, 2009 served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Brief in Support of Motion to Recuse and Disqualify Judge Barbara J. Mobley upon the Plaintiff in this action, through the attorney on file, by causing to be deposited with USPS, First Class Mail, proper postage affixed and addressed as follows: David L Whitman, Attorney Post Office Box 1183 Lawrenceville, GA 30046 ____________________________ JAMES B. STEGMEMAN, Pro Se 821 Sheppard Road Stone Mountain, GA 30083 (404) 300-9782
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.