STATEMENT OF THE FACTS 1.

Yes, this complaint concerns more than one particular lawsuit: In both cases, James B Stegeman was a witness to the incidents in complaint. Court: U. S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Docket No.’s: 1:06-cv-2954-WSD in which I was not a party; and 1:08-cv-1971-WSD in which I was a Co-Plaintiff. Both cases the Plaintiffs were Pro Se. 3. Evidence of Misconduct or disability: Case 1:06-cv-2954-WSD, I was a non-party. Judge Duffey, Jr.’s Order and Opinion (attached as Exhibit A, pg. 9) stated the following untrue statement(s): “Plaintiff claims that Joyner’s attorney called witnesses who falsely testified that Caffrey was abused by Plaintiff and McDonald.”(Exhibit A, Doc. 87, pg. 9, 7/16/2007) The statement made had been: “The attorney spoke of Caffrey, Mavis and Lillig and Caffrey’s nephews trying to starve her to death.” (Complaint ¶93, pg. 24 attached hereto as Exhibit B). There was no reference made in any other documents filed with the Court about the hearing in which the attorney who made the new Will had a discussion with Caffrey, and McDonald was not mentioned at all. Case 1:08-cv-1971-WSD, I was a Pro Se Co-Plaintiff. Judge Duffey, Jr. in several documents made untruthful statements meant to discredit both the Plaintiff and myself. The statements were uncalled for and had no truthfulness or relevance

1

to the case at bar: (Order and Opinion attached as Exhibit C) page 2, Fn1, 2nd ¶: “Wachovia Bank filed an action in DeKalb County Superior Court against Plaintiffs Stegeman and McDonald for accounting and damages…” * The statement is incorrect see Motion for Reconsideration attached as Exhibit D, page 3, 2nd ¶: Wachovia Bank has never filed suit against either Plaintiff Stegeman or Plaintiff McDonald. The case being referenced is Superior Court case: Joyner v. Stegeman, and vice versa No.: 02-cv-9732-8. Joyner, the County Probate Court appointed Guardian of Property of Jean Caffrey, filed suit against Stegeman only for accounting damages. Plaintiff McDonald was not named in the suit. Fn1 2nd continues on page : “Plaintiffs refused to conclude the settlement,…Plaintiffs Stegeman and McDonald brought a separate pro se action… against Wachovia…” * The statement is incorrect (Motion for Reconsideration Exhibit D pages 3-4), 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 obtaining new counsel to file the agreement; the new attorney conducted a legal investigation. After completion of the investigation, Plaintiffs Stegeman and McDonald filed a pro se action against Wachovia, No.: 06-cv1056-8; which Wachovia improperly removed to this District Court; this Court remanded to Superior Court.

2

In the case, Judge Duffey, Jr. allowed perjury and use of a fraudulent/forged land document to be used, and other state an federal law violations to continue; the case was dismissed under Younger abstention, but in violation of rules, Judge Duffey, Jr. continued to make decisions on evidence which only a jury should have been allowed to make, and showed obvious bias/prejudice by siding with the defendants: Plaintiffs’ Reply to Defendants Georgia Power, Scott A. Farrow, and Brian P. Watt’s Objection to Motion for Reconsideration (attached as Exhibit E), page 5: “This Court has disregarded the reason Plaintiffs filed the District Court action, spent several pages discrediting Plaintiffs and their reputations (pgs. 2, 3, 7-12) for no good reason. This Court then claimed to lack jurisdiction under Younger (pgs. 16-20), disregarded Rules for when a Court lacks jurisdiction (pg. 20:“… decision to abstain from exercising jurisdiction…”); and addressed some of the merits of the case, intentionally distorting the reason the case was brought before this Court.” Judge Duffey, Jr. Order and Opinion Exhibit C on page 13: “…hearing was set by Judge Becker…” “…were given notice of the deposition…” Undisputed evidence (Motion Calendar) was provided to Judge Duffey, Jr. that our names were not on the Calendar, provided the Docket Report showing no “Scheduled Events”, and “Petition for Docket Correction” requesting that should

3

there be hearing actually set, that it show on the Motion Calendar and in Scheduled Events. None of this was disputed. Nevertheless, since the Court refused jurisdiction, Judge Duffey, Jr. had no place making Judgment on the issues. Furthermore, evidence had been provided that the Constitutional issues brought before District Court, gave the District Court jurisdiction and we showed why Younger abstention failed. The State Court did not give the arguments that Judge Duffey, Jr. provided, in essence Judge Duffey, Jr. was acting as attorney for the Defendants and was highly improper. The State defendants, as well as Georgia Power defendants were represented by legal counsel with much more experience than Pro Se Plaintiffs and it was not Judge Duffey, Jr.’s job description to make argument for them. Judge Duffey, Jr. repeatedly misquotes caselaw, when it is pointed out to him, he ignores it. It is improper for attorneys, to misquotes caselaw and give it improper meanings, but is unforgivable that a District Court Judge does so. How can a Pro Se litigant have a fair and unbiased tribunal in front of Judge Duffey, Jr. if he is defending the defendants? Also, according to caselaw, Pro Se pleadings are to be read liberally, which in front of Judge Duffey, Jr. doesn’t happen. He shows obvious bias and prejudice against Pro Se litigants, ignoring that a prima facie case has been filed, evidence is

4

undisputed, and opposing party has committed perjury and fraud upon the Court. Why? Because Judge Duffey, Jr. has past relationships with the Defendants in one form or another.

5

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful