MCDONALD, Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION FILE NO: 1 :08-CV-1971 vs. SUPERIOR COURT, et., al., Defendants PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION UNDER RULE 59(e) AND/OR MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION UNDER RULE 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 Rule 60(b) within ten (10) days of this Court's Order and Judgment dated August 26, 2008 . BRIEF BACKGROUND Plaintiffs filed their complaint' in this Court June 9, 2008 . Service perfected upon all Defendants June 10, 2008. Judge Becker dismissed Plaintiffs Superior Court action dune 11 , 2008 in retaliation for being named Defendant in this action. This Court Dismissed the case August 26, 2008 . 1 This case was brought to US district Court due to illegal acts, fraud upon the Court, and conspiracy in a Superior Court action between Plaintiffs and Georgia Power Company that resulted in Dismissal of Plaintiffs' Superior Court complaint and leaving only Georgia Power Company' counterclaim . AUGUST 26, 2008 OPINION AND ORDER Superior Court and Judge Becker (Superior Court Defendants) Moved to Dismiss June 17, 2008 ; Georgia Power, Brain Watt and Scott Farrow (GA Power Defendants) moved to dismiss June 27, 2008 ; all defendants claimed RookerFeldman, 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 as addressed 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 his Power 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 Violence 2 Order and Opinion dated August 26, 2008 referred to hereinafter as "Or."

aL. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiffs' complaint clearly stated that this case is brought due to illegal acts._2_ and financial fraud by the Probate Clerk Jeryl Rosh. claims not to be bias or prejudice against Pro Se. . Concerning Stegeman. No. Jr.. A. : 07-CV-11398-6 A Judge Duffey. : 02-cv9732-8 .. ." -4 injunctive relief. al. Latin American Agribusiness Dep. .A. aL. 1983) which held : "In ruling on a motion to dismiss. Georgia Power Company No. for declaratory judgment and 3 Stegeman. neither attorney would file the agreement with Superior Court .. No . : 1 :05-cv-13 1STWT page 2 citing Quality Foods de Centro America. who lacked jurisdiction over criminal matters. . the County Probate Court appointed Guardian of Property of Jean Caffrey.D. al.Georgia Power possess a valid easement . v. but what GA Power defendants said in their Motion to Dismiss . : 06-cv-1065-8 Fnl. That case finally ended. 994-95 ( 1 1 th Cir. The Order quotes not what the complaint said. Plaintiffs Stegeman and McDonald filed a pro se action against Wachovia. and/or Plaintiffs in particular . see the following : When 02-cv9732-8 concluded. 2°d ¶: "Wachovia Bank filed an action in DeKalb County Superi or Court against Plaintiffs Stegeman and McDonald for accounting and damages . . : 06-cv-1056-8. Attached is a copy of the Docket Report for the case Exhibit A Fn1 2"d ¶ continues : "Plaintiffs refused to conclude the settlement. against Wachovia. see the following: Wachovia Bank has never filed suit against either Plaintiff Stegeman or Plaintiff McDonald. The opposing party refused to honor their part of the agreement. 2-3) Plaintiffs have . ." * The statement is incorrect. No. S. Stegeman upheld his part of the agreement and Withdrew the Caveat to the Will . 3 and resulted in Plaintiffs' Superior Court action being dismissed with prejudice. the court must accept the facts pleaded in the complaint as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. shows the contrary . eL. . N. Corp. when deciding a Motion to Dismiss." * The statement is incorrect. Jr . Stegeman. revoked a special Durable Power of Attorney with an interest . Reeves. . S. "(Or. . which Wachovia improperly removed to this District Court. 4 The Defendant's counterclaim is still pending and Plaintiffs' property has never been brought under jurisdiction of Superior Court. v.. the new attorney conducted a legal investigation. Plaintiffs Stegeman and McDonald brought a separate pro Se action.2d 989. After completion of the investigation. and vice versa No . v. et. see Bush v. Joyner. Wachovia Bank et. Plaintiff McDonald wa s not named in the suit. . pgs . . and conspiracy that plagued the Superior Court action. . due to a fictional discovery dispute . and lacked power to do so. .Ga. by Stegeman -3obtaining new counsel to file the agreement . Clearly. disabled. all allegations in the complaint are accepted as true . that's why the case continued . Docket report is E xhibit B I. fraud upon the court. Reading the Order and Opinion. . The case being referenced is Superior Court case : Joyner v. . this Court remanded to Superior Court.A. filed suit against Stegeman onl y for accounting damages . 711 F.. "`Georgia Power filed counterclaims . .

R. § 44-2-44 Any clerk. knowing the same to contain anv false. Under both Georgia and Federal law. for the purpose of either limiting or extending their operation. or fraudulent statement or entry . or (3) when a person "makes or uses any false writing or document. . (2) fraudulently registers anv title.or other instrument . or other certificate of title provided for under this article . O. Georgia Power is guilty of fraudulent claims to both Courts . creditor's certificate. . . "using" a false document under OCGA 16-10-20 applies only to a person who uses a false document that was prepared by another .falsifies a material fact . . and/or R. the Court of Appeals erred when it held . (3) makes or utters any forged instrument of -5transfer . w ithout resorting to subtle and forced construct ions. Dr. registration. . . GA statutes : O. the document was forged/manufactured . legal easement. . fictitious. . In Superior Court. . [cit ." " . (5) fraudulent) alters. that GA Power made fraudulent claims of a valid. That statute sets forth three ways to commit the crime of false statement : (1) when a person : . (2) when a person makes a false. failed to find anywhere that the laws do not apply to GA Power. .G. or register provided for under this article . 8 & 9). id .(Comp . or (5) .the person who makes a false document conta ining the false statement has already violated the statute. (3) fraudulently makes any notation or entry upon the title register .shown through undisputed. or anv other paper. 64) and filed Motion To Stay Discovery and All Other Processes March 20. F. record . land documents is a crime . . Wells. . (4) steals or y fraudulently conceals an owner's certificate. . 32. or mutilates any writing.36-41). instrument. does any act of omission or commission under color of his office in relation to the matters provided for by this article shall be guilty of a fe lony and s hall be removed from office and be permanently disqualified from holding any public office and s hall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than ten years. or fraudulent statement or representation . 2008 . State v. . Plaintiffs have provided this Court with the same and additional evidence . (2) d . or the GA Power defendants .offers in evidence any forged or fraudulent document in the course of an proceedings with regard to registered lands or interest therein. .A. or document used in connection with any of the proceedings required . 2008 staying the action (Comp ¶¶'s 64965). .19. writing. fictitious." "[Statutes should be read according to the natural and most obvious import of the language. R. document. or other person . R F .. the Superior Court defendants. or Mr . filed Motion to Strike on that basis March 5-8.G. Plaintiffs provided undisputed evidence that the document was a fraud (Comp . . §44-2-43 Any person who : ( 1) fraudulently obtains or attempts to obtain a decree of registration of title to an land or interest therein .C.C. Johnson S97G1681 .A. ." Id. . and this principle is particularly . . . . .or the notation of entries upon the register of titles . Mr. ¶¶'s 31. 370) (499 SE2d 56) (1998): "OCGA 16-10-20. . (6) makes any false oath or affidavit with respect to anj matter or thing provided for in this article . Wells" . . F. . granted by "Dr . ¶¶'s 11-14. (269 Ga . . -6Johnson.]. F. This appeal involves the third way of violating OCGA 16-1020. or (7) makes or knowingly uses anv counterfeit of iny certificate provided for by this article shall be guilty of a felony and s hall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than ten years . Wells never existed (dots . . Plaintiffs have researched the matter thoroughly. (4) fraudulently issues an r certificate of title.. supra at 837. the use of a fraudulent/manufactured/forged. . 25-29. See also: The State v.. . chi. Wells. who: ( 1) fraudulently enters a decree of registration . documented evidence in this Court as well as in Superior Court.

. . (2) A copy .. . . "Where statutory language is plain and unequivocal . 602) (448 SE2d 737) (1994) citing See Robinson v. allege 16-2-20 and 162-21 in the indictment . Luster. 257 Ga. . who initially made or subsequently used the false document. A94A 1408. State. et. 204 Ga. . State. . App. shall be given. its valuation. . . State v.shall contain a full description of the land. .. Full names and addresses. 225 Ga. all individuals who use a false writing or document . . Even construing OCGA 16-10-20 strictly against the State. . . . . shall be delivered by the c lerk to the sheriff . It thus follows that under OCGA 16-10-20. and from whom it was acquired. ." ""A fraud may be committed by acts as well as words . . once noticed that the case about real estate. : -7"Theft by deception is committed when a person "obtains property by any deceitful means or artful practice with the intention of depriving the owner of the property . 597 (2) (370 SE2d 847) (1988). . .[or] (2) Fails to correct a false impression of an existing fact or past event which he has previously created or confirmed . .G. .C . Military Circle Pet Center.. . . one or more . . State v. . . See generally Holders v. . fully . : ( I) Creates or confirms another's impression of an existing fact or past event which is false . ." OCGA 16-8-3 (a) . 198 Ga. . . . shall. and punished for commission of the crime .. . including adjoining owners and occupants. . . show when. how. Superior Court. and an easement document was being challenged as not pertaining to the property in question. shall state the number of the land district and the lot number . . "A person deceives if . aL. . and an abstract of title .shall also cause to be published .]" State v. .C. ." (a) Superior Court violated Georgia law concerning land procedures .A .. 715 (4) (324 SE2d 491) (1984). shall be served . . . . . . O. App. . . It is not necessary . App. . . 158 (1) (a) (ii) (419 SE2d 32) (1992) . the Court was obligated to perform the following tasks : a) have the Sheriffs Office bring the property under jurisdiction of the Court b) have an examiner of title appointed a): To Brim under Jurisdiction of the Court : O. . State. Chrysler Motors Copr. App.C. 809 (2) (484 SE2d 803) (1997). supra at 837 .A." d "'Anv pp rty to a crime who did not directly commit the crime may be indicted. in terms which will identify . [Cit.Upon the recommendation of the examiner.compelling when interpreting criminal statutes . Johnson." See also : Avery v. 388 (360 SE2d 248) (1987). post the same upon the land . in which land is divided into land districts and lot numbers . 187 Ga. App .(.. ." O. . see generally Dowers v. App . see also Jenkins v. . . 433 (401 SE2d 621) (1991) .upon each party who is named (3) The clerk . §44-2-64 . ." Id. tried. . . the clerk shall issue a process directed to the sheriffs . the sheriff shall conspicuously post upon . . . . . 156. 172 Ga. without regard to the identity . the court has no author ity to place a different construct ion upon it. there is no limitation placed on the prohibited conduct of "making or using" false documents in OCGA 1 6-10-20. . who may have any interest . within 30 days . §44-2-72 -8(a) A notice . the language therein unambiguously prohibits an s individual from making or _using Any-false writing or document. State. . ." OCGA 51-6-4 . . . . the statutory language does not support the Court of Appeals' holding that prosecution for use of a false document i s limited to those situations in which an accused uses false documents prepared by another . 431. may be charged with violating the statute . . §44-2-67 (a)(1) . convicted. shall state whether or not it is occupied. a description of .A. The description of the land . . (b) If . (214 Ga . . .G. .G... .

E. 551)(1993) the Supreme Court discusses whether the first five or first ten listed on the calendar must appear for hearing : " . .2d 726) (1987)." Rule 8. . The hearing never showed in either place . . . you do not have a hearing scheduled . "The assigned judge . . . purposes of land registration d proceedings .." See also : Green v. . ". for . and made his return to the court . .A. he shall state this in his return to the court. "The parties and counsel in the first 10 actions on the published . in Fulton v. . S70 (359 S. . prior to the d session of court . (e) After the sheriff . Green. failure to appear at depositions as ordered by the Court ." b): Exam iner of titles O. . ..2d 457. .E. Plaintiffs were only provided a tentative date for a hearing. ." Plaintiffs respond that the complaint they filed in this Court shows dismissal of their complaint was for a fictional discovery dispute. Scheduling trials. . . . . . in this case. . 437 S . . . . . sole responsibility for setting hearings . may require the land to be surveyed . . ." This Court continues with the dismissal saying: "On June I 1. . .3. . failure to appear at a duly noticed motions hearing . . Uniform Superior Court Rules clearly show that if your name does not appear on the Calendar. . before final decree. which we believe to state the better interpretation of USCR 8 .4. . . App . for the scheduling of all trials . .. The calendar shall state the place of trial and the date and time .seized and brought into the cu stody of the court . . . . . "calendar clerk" . . the judgment should have been set aside" "In addition to the purely legal question regarding presence at calendar call.. Trial date. see the following : Rule 2. it needed to show on the Motion Calendar and/or in the "Scheduled Events" on the Docket Report . . . as in Fulton. and the court's jurisdiction in rem and. calendar shall appear ready for trial on the date specified . . . that only the first five *fn2 cases on the published calendar were required to be present . ." Rule 8. (263 Ga. . .G. .each . .dismissed Plaintiffs' Verified Complaint.has entered upon the land. 1. .C. the role appellee's counsel played in procuring the judgment must be examined .trial calendar shall be delivered to the clerk of the court . judgment was entered against a party who was not required by the rule to be present.and for the publication of all necessary calendars in advance . but not less than „20days. . . . " -10- . posted the notices provided for in subsections (a) and (b) of this Code section. . Plaintiffs have stated that they tried numerous times to contact Judge Becker's calendar clerk..before the examiner of titles . Calendar clerk. . Motions Hearings are scheduled on the Motion Calendar . . §44-2-77 "While . they requested more than once that if the hearing is in fact scheduled. responsibility of setting and scheduling all hearings and trials .4. . she never returned -9any calls . . . . 183 Ga. State of Ga. quasi in rem. as in Fulton. left messages for her.published a sufficient period of time.. . ." Rule 8. pending . . and failure to appear at an unscheduled hearing . in subsection (a) . "The calendar clerk shall prepare a trial calendar . . In this case.the notice . . . the land shall b e deemed .4. . Trial calenda r.

. . In furtherance . 7-8). confusingly. as Stegeman requested . they would be unable to attend on June 4.S. ." . . Notice of Deposition did not have the Order attached . A. . was returned by Law Clerk Hash. .3). see "Exhibit 11" . . and remanded it to the state court. II. . It would be impossible for Plaintiffs to have known "the Court warned that their failure to appear would result in the action being dismissed" ." Before this case was dismissed.."" This Court states : "When the Superior Court ordered Plaintiffs to appear at their depositions. 2008 . The Plaintiffs were unable to hand deliver the Objections . pg. and could not be attached to the Notice. . Plaintiffs received the Order past noon on the day t he depositio ns were scheduled for 9 :00 or 9:30 a. . ¶131 & Exhibit 10) . Defendants Notice To Take Video Depositions5 were in violation of Georgia Codes . Plaintiffs had no way of knowing what the Order said .. & 130 . Plaintiffs filed Objection to Depositions June 2. the Court warned that their failure to appear would result in the action being dismissed. this court established the Chief Justice's Commission on Professionalism . 2008 . 86. . . the Order was not signed until the following day. Plaintiffs' Motion for Recusal Although Judge Duffey may believe that Plaintiffs' Motion to Recuse or Disqualify was based only on past issues decided by the Court (Or . page 5 and Exhibit 1 show that .of these goals. and that "plaintiffs argue. .have sought to encourage professionalism among lawyers . 5 Although Plaintiffs believe the Notice to Take Deposition MUST have the Order attached. . since the Court mailed the Order in the afternoon the day before the Depositions were to be held. Plaintiffs filed Response to Motion to Stay Discovery . . Judge Becker signed the Order May 28. 2008 and mailed it to Plaintiffs June 3. 84 . . Plaintiffs' Response to the Motion. Chief Justice Clarke has often said that "ethics is that which is required and professionalism is that which is expected . 2008. 2008. . that the Court did not fully address certain unspecified issues .P. . . . . Apparently Judge Becker presided over a hearing May 27.1 i85 .S. .. pgs. to maintain . 2008. . . . . postmarked June 6th as shown by "Exhibit 12" 131 . . on the federal and state level. and made no mention of an Order (Comp . . .m. 2008 . . see complaint "Exhibit 1 3". U. even though the Court found it did not have jurisdiction . Superior Court Rules . . ExpressMail . Plaintiffs have attached Judge Becker's May 27th Motion Calendar as "Exhibit 10" 83. courts . before the Order was signed. 2U08 which was not on the Motion Calendar "Exhibit 9" 80." (Or. Plaintiffs left a message that the Motion Calendar did not s how a hearing set for Ma y 27. Watt sent Notice of Video Depositions see "Exhibit 10" Plaintiffs also showed Notice of deposition mailed by GA Power was dated and mailed May 27. a sense of civility and courtesy among lawyers . .tracking shows .delivered and signed for by the Court June 3. . . Plaintiffs' Objection . . Plaintiffs provided this Court undisputed evidence see the fo llowing: 77.

Facts clearly showed that Removal was filed to the wrong Superior Court Judge . etc. Assn 319 F . (2) "proceedings implicate important states interest s" This Court cited RPD Long Beach v. . . just an attorney would do . but did not say how ." Stegeman is not aware of a Summary Judgment in the Georgia case. 2008) "(Younger abstention applies to dispute implicating state law on the validity of easements) . lease i nterpretation . This Court. the Court decided it did not have jurisdiction . the same Discovery that none of the current defendants filed . to make sure he met all the deadlines.granting Defendant's .. the Court stated that the case had been improperly Removed. Wachovia was in default. Jan 30. Summary Judgment the Court denied Stegeman's disabilities . (3r. 1 :07cv-00475. Pacer fees. B. " . Younger is not applicable . this Court would have a person with a physical mobility impairment. RPD Long Beach had to do with validity of easement granted by a lessee: "Younger abstention applies here because Plaintiff's claims involve important state interests in a property dispute implicating . Was the Order not an exercise of jurisdiction? Why would the Plaintiffs in Wachovia be different than any of the defendants this Court just granted dismissal? Further. 14 GA Power creates implications of Georgia's law and their private property . they are estopped from ever being able to properly defend against Georgia Power.D. in constant pain go from Stone Mountain to -13downtown by bus to view Pacer for free? 6 Obviously this court deemed Stegeman undeserving . Oh. . . Stegeman stated he does not own a car. . said that should Plaintiffs not file the discovery within fifteen days. Denial warms bias/prejudicial. Nothing more . Tranter Hare 8. . . at *4 (S . their complaint would be dismissed . nor the public anything . Corp. . Perhaps this Court Clerk's Office has free Pacer access . This Court also cites Crown Point I LLC v. This Court allowed numerous filings. (1) "the state proceeding is `an ongoing state judicial proceed ing"' The only remaining "state proceeding" is Georgia Power's counterclaim .Stegeman claims ." The case shows nothing to indicate that the dispute between Plaintiffs and 6 Stegeman wantedd only to view his own case. Bldg. this Court dismissed on statute of limitations and immunity and ignored that Stegeman is one a of a protected class . Wachovia had been in default since February 5'~ . a Ruling was made concerning -12Discovery. Plaintiffs filed the material on time. Motions to Dismiss The Younger Abstention Doctrine The following paragraphs shows why Younger fails . Intermountain Rural Elec. Free access to Pacer would cost neither this Court. Since Plaintiffs' case has been Dismissed with prejudice. No.when the Wachovia case was in this Cou rt. etc . 2005 WL 269444. . . ." Plaintiffs address the relation of RPD Long Beach and "state interests" . Remanded the case in mid April. .

" Joseph A .3d 1160. matters which traditionally look to state law for their resolution or implicate separately articulated state policies . this Court then states that it has faith that Plaintiffs will be able to address their constitutional challenges in State Court . a court considers whether : "(1) there is an ongoing state criminal. Georgia Power asks the state Court to just give them Plaintiffs' land . or administrative proceeding. This did not happen in Plaintiffs situation. Crown Point also states : Younger abstention "is the except ion. we find that plaintiff does not have an adequate . Richards. 504 U . 1267 (10th Cir . having failedd to abide by Georgia law. (2) the state court provides an adequate forum to hear the claims raised in the federal complaint. and the examiner of title confirm or deny the validity of the document. and manipulate the judicial system. Once illegally taken. Plaintiffs disputed the validity of the easement document. Ingram. Judge Becker then dismissed with prejudice Plaintiffs case. fraud and forgery . 187 F. not the rule . Crown Point goes on to state : "However. Georgia Power filed an Amendment to their Verified Answer and Counterclaim. (3) then dismissed their complaint with prejudice without a hearing. Colorado Bra of Med. Both The United States and Georgia Constitutions prohibit the taking of private land for public use without just compensation being paid . Until such time the Court would appoint the necessary examiner of title. Under Georgia law. 1163 (10th dir . they committed fraud upon the court. thereby making a mockery of the Court. Superior Court. In Superior Court. 705 (1992)) . hidden within the Amendment was Motion for Reformation attempting to make the document legal . Again. forever preventing them to properly defend themselves and their property from GA Power . "adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise constitutional challenges" Plaintiffs have shown that the State Court refused to follow Georgia statute. 1215 (10"' Cir.1 5interests. Crown fails to show that the case before this Court has a showing of state interest . Six months after filing of the suit. their acts are illegal : theft by deception. allowed GA Power to -16commit fraud upon the Court. In counter to that.3d 1253.. 2002) (quoting Ankenbrandt v. claiming the need to depose Plaintiffs . and (3) the state proceedings involve important state . Georgia Power used a forged easement documents to prove they have an easement . and bring the property under jurisdiction of the Court. 275 F . the Court cannot just give them the property they stole . Plaintiffs showed a reformation could not be performed . Having shown all of these facts to this Court. it is illegal to take land then forge documents to show that you were granted easement by a person that never existed. false statements. nothing else could happen . Crown Point was a condemnation action to gain an easement in which a Land Development Code special use code was amended giving a state interest . 2003) "(condemnation action against easement implicates important state intere st)". one uses condemnation to gain an eminent domain unless easement is granted by the property owner . civil. GA Power refused to address the document. Plaintiffs will not have an adequate forum to raise their federal claims in the state proceedings ." Amanatullah v. Georgia Power has no rights over Plaintiffs' property. 1999) (internal quotations omitted) . In determining whether Younger abstention is appropriate. v. Superior Court allowed the creation of a fictional discovery dispute . Crown Point proves that Younger is not applicable .S . Exam 'rs.3d 1211. 689.

" Ambrosia Coal & Constr.Ct. furthermore..1984) . 882 (3rd Cir . filed a claim under state law. 109 S." "Other circuits have reached the same conclusion on the same issue before us that we do today . La. . alleging a constitutional violation in federal court. . State Bd. usurp the state courts' ability to "perform their judicial Functions ." "But there is no doctrine that the availability or even the pendency of state judicial proceedings excludes the federal courts .Ed. Nor would a federal injunction of the kind sought in this case. ." Wexler goes against this Court's decision: "First. .1994). NOPSI." Plaintiffs in this case were also Plaintiffs in Superior Court . . Crawley v. Morales.5 We recently wrote that "generally. Stinson.Ct. 19 F. therefore.opportunity to raise its federal claims in state court . The Younger doctrine does not require abstention merely because a federal plaintiff. . . 109 S . 58 F. Most important. . between state courts and federal courts .does not offend the respectful relationship between state and federal courts. . did not have an opportunity to raise its federal claims in the state court proceedings. on the same underlying facts . at 2518 . of Mere Examiners.Ct. . an exercise of jurisdiction by the district court merely preserves the federal forum for federal claims raised by plaintiffs in a federal proceeding. 411. . . Co. 107 S . We. 301 (7th Cir . ." England v. As recognized.Ct.2d 440 (1964) . we find no federal authority supporting the proposition that federal claims that might be supported by the same alleged facts must be raised by state plaintiffs in cases arising under state law in state courts. . not defendants.S. the Wexler Ruling by District Court was vacated and remanded : -17. .abstention may be appropriate .the state court found that plaintiff was collaterally estopped from raising its due process claims due to ..2004) (quoting Colorado River). Desiderio. .1995} ." " . vacate the district court's dismissal and remand the action for a determination of Appellant-Plaintiffs' claim . to accept instead a state court's determination of those claims . at 1526. we recall the Supreme Court's reasoning from 1964 : "[t]here are fundamental objections to any conclusion that a litigant who has properly invoked the jurisdiction of a Federal District Court to consider federal constitutional claims can be compelled . 1328 (llth Cir ." This Court also cites Wexler stating " . in state court. . 84 S . at 2513 ." Id . although a similar state action was also filed .3d 299. . See also Pennzoil Co." NOPSI. Marks v. . 461. the result will not be the kind of federal takeovers at issue in 3l Foster Children or Miller.2d 28. the parallel proceedings brought by Appellant Wexler do not present the "undue interference" in state court proceedings necessary to apply Younger. at 2521" "Thus. 375 U. as between state and federal courts. 368 F . 30 (6th Cir . See Rogers v. 46413 11 L. Hamilton County Comm'rs. . . if the injunctive relief Plaintiff-Appellants request is granted.. where the plaintiff in the federal case chose not to assert a constitutional defense as a defendant in state court .The comity Justice Black wrote . 744 F.. dismissal .3d 1320. the rule is that the pendency of an action in the state court is no bar to proceedings concerning -18the same matter in the Federal court having jurisdiction . Instead. the exercise of federal jurisdiction in such a circumstance would not prevent the state court from exercising its jurisdiction just as a state court's ruling against the . nor would it place the district court in the role of supervisor of state litigation or the state court .3d 873. v. .

This Court indicates that the "central question is regarding the application of Georgia real property law." (Or . there has been conspiracy. have an adequate opportunity to raise their constitutional challenges in the state court . fraud upon the correct. 19) And "the DeKalb Easement Case concerns . Plaintiffs fully understand and accept Georgia Easement Law. are not defendants in state court. a fictional discovery dispute and unscheduled hearings that lead to Plaintiffs' case being dismissed with prejudice . Respectfully submitted this 5 h day of September. Plaintiffs can hardly believe that this Court or any Court would be willing to allow violations of Federally protected Rights when a party has been barred by the State Court from being able to protect themselves due to fraud upon the Court . concluding that a sufficient state forum existed for the plaintiff to raise his constitutional defense . . This Court has stated that Plaintiffs may refile the case if Plaintiffs claims are not precluded by state court decisions . are not challenging state statute. CONCLUSION Plaintiffs Move this Court to reconsider it's dismissal of their case . especially the existence and scope of rights within an -19easement . having Plaintiffs' state case dismissed with prejudice.parties who are federal plaintiffs would not offend the federal courts . . prohibiting Georgia Power's use of forged documents when claiming easement rights would be much better for the welfare and well-being of a community. The Plaintiffs before this Court are not being prosecuted.Ct. at 755 . In other words. and are not raising a constitutional defense . This Court then states that "Plaintiffs . prohibiting theft of private property. . . This Court has now barred Plaintiffs from ever raising their constitutional challenges using Younger Abstention which does not apply by this Court's own caselaw ." Plaintiffs have shown that this is also incorrect . They are suing for Civil and Constitutional Rights violations for illegal acts committed under color of law or color of authority to obtain a judgment against the Plaintiffs. . but that will be dismissed too . Neither statement is correct ." Further : In Younger. 2008 . They have had their Rights violated in the state court. Moving a power pole to it's proper location. Georgia Power is not above the law. Younger. pg. and has nothing to do with Georgia Power's use of a fraudulent document signed by a man that never existed . literally effect the welfa re and well-be ing of the commun ity". The Court abstained from hearing plaintiffs claim. 91 S. including res judicataa and collateral estoppel . . The Plaintiffs must not be prohibited from using the Federal Court system in the -20a manifest injustice to dismiss this case thereby denying the ability to be able to ever again protect their private property . a federal plaintiff challenged the constitutionality of a state statute under which he was being prosecuted as a defendant. Plaintiffs can file later.

STEGEMAN. 2008. with a top margin of one and one-half of one (1") inch. GA 30083 (770) 879-8737 -22IN THE UNITED STATES DISTR ICT C OURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA. Atlanta Division JAMES B. Pro Se 821 Shepp d Rd Stone Mountain.By J S B. al.D. Atlanta. P.1. through their attorney on file by causing to be depo sited with U. Pro Se 821 She axd Rd. S .D. MC NALD. JANET D. GA. GA 30083 (770) 879-8737 -23- . NE State of Georgia Dept. Reinhardt Troutman Sanders. addressed as follows : Daniel S. MCDC3 ALD. Ga. I certify that the foregoing Motion has been prepared in with Times New (1 .5"') inches and a left ity with LR 5 . o 821 Sheppard to e Mountain. GA 30083 (770) 879-8737 DIET D. served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs' Motion For Reconsideration upon Defendants . N. S . This Motion was prepared (14 point) type. N. GA 30083 (7q U ) 879-8737 By: ANET D.Suite 5200 600 Peachtree Street. of Law 40 Capitol Square. CIVIL ACTION FILE NO: 11 971-WSD :08-CV SUPERIOR COURT.. proper postage affixed thereto. This 5 6 day of 2008 Stone Mountain. LLP Devon Orland Bank of America Plaza .W.. Plaintiffs vs. S . GA 30083 (770) 879-8737 -21 TE OF In compliance with LR 7-11). GA 30334-1300 Atlanta.. Stone Mountain. Defenda nts CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I Certify that I have this 5th day of September. MCDONALD.. First Class Mail. et. GA 30308-2216 821 Sheppard Rd Stone Mountain. is proportionately spaced .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful