c

 c

c

c


 




 
c c


 c






  

 


 

c&c

c


c
'

!'()*
&*!+,!






c
 
  

 c

 
 

 c
c
c

c
c

 c

 
 


 c


 !

 c
"

 

 c

"
#




 "
#


$$%

c c-


 c

 
  -

 

c c-
c

c
 

  
.
c



 
"cc


 

COMES NOW, Plaintiffs who, pursuant to N.D. Ga. L.R. 7.1C., file their

m
  

      m 
   

 
   m 


  
m   

  

1
Superior Court Stone Mountain Judicial Circuit and Superior Court Judge
Cynthia J. Becker are referred to hereinafter as ³Superior Court Defendants´;
Georgia Power Company, Brain Watt, Scott Farrow hereinafter as ³Georgia Power
Defendants´
  



 

cc 

 c

Rather than address the grounds for which Plaintiffs Moved this Court to

Reconsider it¶s Ruling, they only complain that Plaintiffs ³now seek to reincarnate

this case by filing a second motion under Rule 60«´ (pgs. 1h2). These defendants

then recite Rule 60(b) in it¶s entirety, when Plaintiffs¶ request was under 60(b)(2)

³newly discovered evidence´, (3) ³fraud´, (4) ³the judgment is void´, and (6) ³any

other reason..´

Apparently Plaintiffs were correct in their reasoning and statements of

undisputable facts, and have now become confessed to. Plaintiffs have shown that

there
 evidence that they could not have obtained in the Superior Court action.

(Doc 41h2 page 36 & Exhibits B & C). None of the defendants in this case have

rebutted or disputed this evidence.

Furthermore, and contrary to Judge Duffey¶s contentions that Plaintiffs

would have the ability to address the Civil and Constitutional Rights violations in

the Superior Court, the facts clearly show that Judge Becker refused to allow

Plaintiffs to participate in any manner in the proceedings that carried on without a

Plaintiff in that court.

Superior Court went on to fulfill exactly what Plaintiffs said that Judge

Becker and Georgia Power had conspired to do as indicated in the property records

h2h
from The Superior Court Clerk Authority site,2 and the DeKalb County Property

Tax site.3 The Supreme Court of Georgia has held that a utility company

CANNOT have a prescriptive easement, which Judge Becker gave them.

This Court¶s ruling denying Reconsideration stated among other things:

³alleged trespass on Plaintiffs¶ property to trim trees around power lines in an

easement´ (Doc. 28 pg. 1). Without an easement, there is definite trespass, until

Judge Becker granted Georgia Power¶s request for prescriptive easement,4 there

was no easement.

/$
0(123143 newly discovered evidence that was not available when the

case was before this Court«Plaintiffs have shown that there in fact
 newly

discovered evidence although these defendants want the Court to ignore that fact.

(Doc 41h2 page 36 & Exhibits B & C). None of the defendants in this case have

rebutted or disputed this evidence.

/$
0(123153
6/%. There is no question that the acts of the defendants

were acts to commit a fraud and fraud upon the Court to obtain rulings in their

favor. (Doc 41h2 generally).

2
The Court Order attached to Motion for Relief from Judgment is in the Deed
Book: http://www.gsccca.org
3
The Property Tax Records indicate ³Sale´ for $0
4
Judge Becker¶s infinite wisdom, granted something to Georgia Power that The
Supreme Court of Georgia has repeatedly stated, unequivocally, that neither
Georgia Power nor any other utility company in Georgia, can be granted easement
by prescription; further, because of the elements of

h3h
 /$
0(123173 A judgment obtained through fraud upon the Court is Void,

as is a judgment rendered without due process of law, or when a Judge should have

recused but refused to do so. (Doc. 41h2 pgs. 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,

21, 25,26,34,36,38,39,40 and generally).

Further, when a Judge shows favoritism to the degree that Judge Duffey, Jr.

has repeatedly shown when the Plaintiff(s) have appeared before him gives cause

for recusal, as he has shown a ³deephseated favoritism or antagonism that would

make fair judgment impossible´.5 The fact that Judge Duffey, Jr. went out of his

way to verbally abuse these Plaintiffs gives rise to recusal. There can be no

question about the ³deep seated favoritism or antagonism´ shown against these

Plaintiffs after the Ruling by this Court. Every lay person that has read the Ruling

and called on the phone, or talked with these Plaintiffs have questioned why the

Judge did not recuse himself.

The facts are plain and clear. Judge Duffey had no business ruling on

anything involving these Plaintiffs. There is only one explanation, he would not

recuse because a different Judge would have ruled differently.

5
!
  
  , 510 US 540 h Supreme Court 1994510 U.S. 540 (1994)
@555 (³and they will do so if they reveal such a high degree of favoritism or
antagonism as to make fair judgment impossible´); see also !
   ,
223F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2000) @1334 (³and they "
do so if they reveal such a
high degree of favoritism or antagonism as to make fair judgment impossible
!
  
  , 510 U.S. 540, 555, 114 S.Cr. 1147, 1157, 127 L.Ed.2d 474
(1994).´

h4h
 Just as is the fact that Judge Duffey, Jr. has repeatedly refused to state that

Plaintiff Mr. Stegeman is 100% disabled and receiving Supplemental Security

Income, and a member of a protected class. Denying a litigant¶s class status does

not remove the responsibility to protect such a member. Due process of law has

been denied these Plaintiffs. The Judgment must be found as void.

Plaintiff Mr. Stegeman was granted the Motion to Appeal in Forma Pauperis

and was blocked his Right to Appeal by the Appellate Clerk. This clerk

continually made false claims that there was something missing from the Appeal

every time it was submitted to that Court. It went to the point that the Courier

delivering the Appellate Brief agreed to sign a document showing exactly what

was being delivered and even that didn¶t help. The clerk dismissed the appeal for

failure to prosecute. Having been through the process of an Appeal to the 11th

Circuit in the past, the Plaintiffs were well aware of the proper procedure, but

when a Clerk in that Court makes claim that there were necessary items omitted, it

becomes clear that there is a prior agreement to block the Appeal.

Respectfully submitted, this 15th day of April, 2010

By: _____________________________
JAMES B. STEGEMAN, Pro Se
821 Sheppard Rd.
Stone Mountain, GA 30083
(404) 300h9782
h5h
 By: _____________________________
JANET D. MCDONALD, Pro Se
821 Sheppard Rd.
Stone Mountain, GA 30083
(404) 300h9782

 cc



c


In compliance with LR 7.1D, N.D. Ga., I certify that the foregoing Motion

has been prepared in conformity with LR 5.1, N.D. GA. This Motion was prepared

with Times New Roman (14 point) type, with a top margin of one and onehhalf

(1.5´) inches and a left margin of one (1´) inch, is proportionately spaced.

This 15th day of April, 2010

___________________________
JAMES B. STEGEMAN, Pro Se

___________________________
JANET D. MCDONALD, Pro Se
821 Sheppard Rd
Stone Mountain, GA 30083
(770) 879h8737












h6h
 c

 c

c c


 




 
c c


 c






  

 


 

c&c

c


c
'

!'()*
&*!+,!






c
 
  

 c

 
 

 c
c
c

c
c

$



$$%

 cc


 &c




th
I Certify that I have this 15 day of April, 2010, served a true and correct

copy of the foregoing m
  

      m 
  




  m 
  
m   



     upon Defendants, through their attorney on file by causing to be

deposited with U.S.P.S., First Class Mail, proper postage affixed thereto, addressed

as follows:

$

$86%














$
6%

Troutman Sanders, LLP State of Georgia Dept. of Law
Bank of America Plaza ± Suite 5200 40 Capitol Square, S.W.
600 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, GA 30334h1300
Atlanta, GA 30308h2216

_____________________________
JAMES B. STEGEMAN, Pro Se

h7h