You are on page 1of 23
FICE rungs SEP -9 2008 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT . ATTEN, CLERM cote FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGE Wi Atlanta Division Bes JAMES B. STEGEMAN, JANET D. MCDONALD, CIVIL ACTION Plaintiffs 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 59e) 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 Plaintiff's Superior Court action June 11, 2008 in retaliation for being named Defendant in this action. This Court Dismissed the case August 26, 2008. ' 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 Rooker- Feldman, and Younger Abstention. This Court Dismissed the case August 26, 2008 on the grounds of Younger. 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, et. al, No.: 1:06-cv-02954-WSD (fl pg. 2 Order and Opinion?) see the following: Page 2, fnl, 1" 4: “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 ? Order and Opinion dated August 26, 2008 referred to hereinafter as “Or.” oe and financial fraud by the Probate Clerk Jeryl Rosh, who lacked jurisdiction over criminal matters, and lacked power to do so, revoked a special Durable Power of Attomey with an interest. Concerning Stegeman, et, al., v. Wachovia Bank, et. al., No.: 06-cv-1065-8 Fnl, 2™ 4: “Wachovia Bank filed an action in DeKalb County Superior Court against Plaintiffs Stegeman and McDonald for accounting and damages...” * The statement is incorrect, see the following: 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 Caffiey, filed suit against Stegeman only for accounting damages. Plaintiff McDonald was not named in the suit. Attached is a copy of the Docket Report for the case Exhibit A Ful 2™ { continues: “Plaintiffs refused to conclude the settlement,...Plaintiffs Stegeman and McDonald brought a separate pro se 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

You might also like