Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Petitioner Moves this Honorable Court, when ruling on his Petition for Writ
Court,1 or file a Brief to the Appeal filed in the Georgia Court of Appeals,
Petitioner could only guess at what Respondent’s Response would be. For this
reason, the pro se Petitioner Moves this Honorable Court, that when Ruling, it
RESPONDENT’S BRIEF
Appellant’s Brief. Petitioner, although disabled and proceeding pro se, does not
1
Petitioner watched the docket report and calendar because of his’ unsuccessful
attempts to get a final Ruling which he could appeal, he watched the docket report
and court calendar, and had waited 3.5 years for one.
1
Respondent’s Brief 2, is very confusing; he points out James Stegeman is the
within the same paragraph, refers to Petitioner as Appellee (RB-6 1 st ¶); he does
Respondent addresses the Order dated March 8, 2006, then states that
“Appellee did not take part in the Motion for Ruling in Favor of Appellant, Motion
for Order on Void Judgment, or the Motion for Order on Appeal.” (RB-4)
Opposing counsel perjures himself saying “…only became aware of these actions
to the Supreme Court when the Appellant received notice of such action of Appeal
Respondent attached both Judge Scott’s Order and Judge Shoenthal’s Order
as Exhibit A and Exhibit B respectively. Not only did Petitioner inquire with the
clearly show that Lillig was mailed copies of all of the filings. Order Granting
2
Respondent’s Brief referred to hereinafter as RB; when referring to a particular
page, such as page 4: RB-4
3
Petitioner contacted the Superior Court prior to filing the January 2009 Motion,
contacted this Honorable Court prior to beginning the Appellant’s Brief, and
contacted the Court of Appeals of Georgia prior to preparing the Appellate Brief to
that Court, every court informed Petitioner that there was not an attorney on file for
Respondent at that time. Petitioner finds it questionable why Judge Shoenthal’s
Order was even mailed to opposing counsel rather than to Lillig since there was no
attorney showing on file.
2
Motion to Proceed on Appeal in Forma Pauperis, as well as Judge Shoenthal’s
June 26th Order (Petition for Writ Appendix D; Respondent’s Exhibit B) showing
“cc: James Stegeman, Pro Se” “Robert Turner, Esq.” the Court mailed it to
Robert Turner. How Respondent’s counsel can claim surprise when both he and
Ruling, as well as why the early Probate Court Rulings are void. 7 None of the
Because the first rulings were Void, and the perpetrators knew they were
4
Should’ve stated Appellant’s
5
Should’ve stated Appellant’s
6
Petitioner stated that Probate Court refused to allow an Appeal, mailed the check
back after time to file Notice of Appeal had expired.
7
Neither attorney Robert Turner, TGP, nor Lillig were present at the first Probate
hearing, the Court gave the only recording to TGP and Turner who claimed they
destroyed the tape because it was inaudible, thereby no transcript of that hearing
that doesn’t appear on the Docket Report either. There is no one that could even
argue against the fact that the Ruling was and is Void. This also shows that
Petitioner was denied the Right to Appeal that hearing/ruling as well.
3
void, all of their actions after the Void Rulings, were knowingly, willingly,
Petitioner cited ample caselaw on failing to provide a party final rulings, and
denying a party it’s Rights of Appeal. The only thing that Petitioner failed to
address was the claim that the Motions were Moot. In contrast, in order for the
doctrine of mootness to come into play, there can no longer be any actual
controversy.
The United States Supreme Court has held that a matter is not moot if the
Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 482 (1982). The injurious conduct complained of
The Court of Appeals claimed that “…he filed three motions essentially seeking
a ruling on appeal – a ruling that had already been rendered…. these motions can
sense dictates that, had the Court of Appeals read the Brief, and Docket Report
(Exhibit 1), they would have seen that Petitioner was denied the Ruling, thereby
preventing an Appeal. The Brief clearly states numerous times Petitioner was
8
Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th Ed. page 1024.
4
denied a ruling. June 26, 2009 Judge Shoenthal saw to it that Petitioner obtained a
copy of the claimed March 2006 ruling; at the same time, according to Judge
Shoenthal, his June 2009 ruling supplied Petitioner with an Appealable Ruling.
A few of the grounds Rulings are Void: denial of due process, access to court,
Grounds for which Probate and Superior Court’s Orders are Void:
1. Rulings for which Probate Court lacks subject matter and/or personal
Durable Power of Attorney with an Interest has never been set aside in
9
Respondent and attorney Robert Turner have continuously made falsum claim
that the Irrevocable Durable Power of Attorney with an Interest was a General
Power of Attorney, resulting in fraud upon the Court to obtain rulings.
5
writing or otherwise, Probate Court lacks jurisdiction to set it aside.
Oath, the attorney who drew up the new Will, admitted that he knew there
5. The Original Will, had been on file at DeKalb County since 1992, eleven
6. With two Wills, and without having a hearing, the day after Respondent
he had satisfied all debts of the Estate 13; Exhibit 3 shows unpaid debts of
the estate and/or cases filed against Petitioner for the debts.
8. Rather than respond to the Objection, almost six months later, Respondent
10
The unconcluded January 14, 2004 hearing does not show on the docket report;
Respondent’s attorney’s sister transcribed it, she swore that she was not related to
any of the parties or their attorneys, perjury
It must be judicially noted that the new Will shows decedent signed her last name
11
the filing fees were paid, Exhibit 1;14 then refused to allow Petitioner to
Appeal the ruling; Petitioner Appealed directly to Superior Court only after
Probate Court mailed back the check used for appellate fees Exhibit 415
10. Probate Court ruled, claiming Petitioner was a beneficiary 16; Petitioner was
not named in the new Will; the Order is void on it’s face.
11. February 22, 2006 Petitioner filed in Superior Court a separate Notice of
Intent to Appeal each of the issues before the Court, see “Exhibit 5”.
13. March 24, 2006 Petitioner filed Motion for Order on Appeal and Motion
14
Exhibit 1 contains the Docket Report, and communication between Ms.
McDonald and DeKalb Courts Operations Manager, Ms. Gretchen Landau about
the documents having not been filed.
15
Please note that Notice of Appeal filed in Probate Court (the Notice is stamped
“Filed”) was properly, timely filed; then after time had expired for which Notice of
Appeal could timely be filed, they X’d out the “Filed” and mailed the check and
Notice back to Petitioner. This is outright Denying The Right to Appeal.
Furthermore, the Docket Report shows that no hearing had ever happened, there is
no record of a hearing, no transcripts, nothing to show a hearing.
16
Beneficiary (ben-Ə-fish-ee-er-ee or ben-Ə-fish-Ə-ree), n. A person who is
designated to benefit from an appointment, disposition, or assignment (as in a will,
insurance policy etc.); one designated to receive something as a result of a legal
arrangement or instrument. Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th Ed. pg. 149
7
for Order on Void Judgment, attempting to get the Court to Rule Exhibit 6;
for 3.5 years, Superior Court held the matter without ruling, evidenced by
defect.
14. Petitioner, without being Noticed for any of the four scheduled peremptory
calendar hearings, attended three of the hearings, the first and third attended
15. Before the January 2009 scheduled peremptory Jury Trial hearing,
Petitioner filed Motion for Judgment in his favor, the Court at the previous
treatment).
16. The Docket Report shows the grounds for Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss
17. Petitioner had to wait until June 26, 2009 to get an Order that he could
dismissed the Appeal two days after Petitioner filed Appellant’s Brief, a
One would logically conclude something amiss in the Court of Appeals. Two
8
days after Petitioner filed Appellant’s Brief, without allowing Respondent twenty
days to file Appellee’s Brief, they Dismissed the Appeal claiming that it was a
The Court of Appeals has joined the lower court’s pattern and practice, under
color of law, of denying a disabled pro se litigant his statutory and Constitutional
Right to Appeal.
CITATIONS OF AUTHORITY
The single, unconcluded hearing to determine the validity of the new will,
The case of Gillis v. Gillis, 96 Ga. 1, 17, supra, held: "The main reason of
the rule for calling all witnesses in a proceeding for probate in solemn form is, to
9
denied this Right. Probate Court’s appointment of Respondent as Temp.
Further, fact remains that Respondent and his attorney (an officer of the
Court) committed fraud and fraud upon the Court to obtain the ruling in their favor.
This Court has held that “Courts of equity shall17 assist creditors in reaching
equitable assets in every case where to refuse interference would jeopardize the
collection of their debts.” See Dukes, et., al., v. Cairo Banking Company, et., al.,
140 S.E.2d 182, 220 Ga. 507 (1965) Probate Court has no jurisdiction over
matters involving equity. The Superior Court abused discretion by not setting
During almost three years of involvement with Probate Court, only one
hearing shows on the record, that one was nine months after decedent’s death; well
Even a pro se litigant understands that the words shall and must remove the
17
year, and Superior Court allowed a case to proceed without a proper party Plaintiff.
between Petitioner and Respondent. The agreement was obtained through fraud
and fraudulent representations. Petitioner honored his duty; Respondent and his
refused to honor Respondent’s obligation and went out of the way to hinder what
Petitioner found within his attorney’s files, documentation where she had
he drew up. A specific agreement had been approved by Petitioner, both attorneys
had signed it. Respondent’s attorney changed the agreement, then neither attorney
would file it. The two attorneys committed fraud and fraud upon the court , to get
the Superior Court to remove the case from the Jury Trial calendar, set to start in
two days.
After six months of trying to get the agreement filed in Superior Court,
Petitioner was extorted into a new agreement when Superior Court set the case on
the Jury Trial Calendar while Petitioner was unrepresented by counsel. New
18
Petitioner was approached on settling, he did not approach Respondent.
11
counsel had to be obtained to file Motion to Enforce the agreement; Superior
Court refused to Grant the Motion forcing a new agreement to be drawn up, one
Nevertheless, both agreements show Respondent was obligated for all debts
of the estate. Respondent refused to pay the debts, then perjured himself while
under Oath. Petitioner had been paying one the debts the whole time, and demands
The Federal Rules of procedure and the Georgia Civil Practice Act are
almost identical. For that reason, we can look at the United States Supreme Court
cases brought from Federal Courts to determine if Rulings by State Courts are
proper. The U.S. Supreme Court has held time and again:
12
CONCLUSION AND PRAYER
Petitioner has shown that Probate Court’s Rulings are not merely Voidable,
evidence, no competent denials to rebut Petitioner’s stated facts, which have now
become judicially admitted. Still, justice has been denied. One can come to
only one conclusion, there is no justice, and the Courts, the Clerks, and the
Because what Petitioner is complaining of, that which has caused him
injury, is the Courts’ Denials of his statutory and Constitutional Rights to Appeal,
and because the denials to Appeal have continued, they are matters “capable of
“great concern, gravity and importance to the public” and Petitioner has not asked
for a “review of the sufficiency of evidence”; therefore Petitioner Prays his Writ be
Granted.
By: _________________________
JAMES B. STEGEMAN, Pro Se
821 Sheppard Road
Stone Mountain, GA 30083
(404) 300-9782
13
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA
No. S10C0509
__________________________________________
Versus
________________________________________________________________
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
_______________________________________________________________
I hereby Certify that I have this 31ST day of December, 2009 served a true
and correct copy of the foregoing Petitioner’s Supplemental to Petition for Writ
matter through his attorney on file by causing same to be deposited with the United
States Postal Service, First Class Mail with proper postage affixed thereto as
follows:
Robert E. Turner
111 North McDonough St.
Decatur, GA 30030
_____________________________
JAMES B. STEGEMAN, Pro Se
821 Sheppard Rd.
Stone Mountain, GA 30083
404-300-9782
14