plaintiffs' response to georgia power's motion to dismiss or compel

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTYSTATE OF GEORGIA

JANET D. MCDONALD,JAMES B. STEGEMAN,

PLAINTIFFS

v

GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et., al., DEFENDANTS

CIVIL ACTION

FILE NO: 07CV11398-6

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSIVE OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE MOTION TO COMPEL AND

DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL’S CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH U.S.C.R. 6.4(B)

COMES NOW, Plaintiffs and file their Plaintiffs’ Responsive Objections

To Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or Alternative Motion to Compel, and Defendant’s

Counsel’s 1 Certification of Compliance with U.S.C.R. 6.4(B); Plaintiffs’ Moves this

Honorable Court to Quash the Defendant’s Motion and their Counsel’s Certification;

and Plaintiffs Move this Court For Sanctions Against Defendants and Their Counsel.

I. FACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS CASE

For months, Plaintiffs have been overwhelmed by the obstruction of justice2 and

obstruction of due process of law by Mr. Watt, an officer of the Court.3 Defendants have

filed two fictional Motion to Compel, one being the current Motion to Dismiss or in the

Alternative Motion to Compel Discovery. April 30, 2008, Plaintiffs responded to

1 Hereafter referred to “Mr. Watt”, “Attorney Watt” or “Watt”2 “Obstruction of justice is an attempt to interfere with the administration of the courts, the judicial system or law enforcement officers. … It is something a person does to impede the administration of a court process or proper discharge of a legal duty.” http://definitions.uslegal.com/o/obstruction-of-justice/3 “officer of the court. A person who is charged with upholding the law and administering the judicial system. ● Typically, officer of the court refers to …, but the term also applies to a lawyer, who is obliged to obey court rules and who owes a duty of candor to the court. Black’s Law Dictionary, Seventh Ed., pg. 1114

http://definitions.uslegal.com/o/obstruction-of-justice/

http://definitions.uslegal.com/o/obstruction-of-justice/

Defendant’s first fictional Motion to Compel, Plaintiffs repeat and incorporates by

reference the responses with the same force and effect as is set forth herein. Plaintiffs

have attached a copy of Plaintiffs Consolidated Responses and Objections to Defendant

Georgia Power Company’s Motion to Compel Discovery AND Defendant’s Counsel’s

Certification of Compliance With U.S.C.R. 6.4(B) hereto as “Exhibit A”.4

NOTE: Plaintiffs are forced to bring to this Court’s attention that Plaintiffs have

discovered, much to their disappointment, data contained within the On-Line

Docket Report conflicts with what has actually been filed. This causes great

concern to the Plaintiffs who have been forced to hand deliver their material for

filing due to problems they have experienced in having their filings filed on time

and filed properly. Plaintiffs have filed “Plaintiffs’ Petition For Docket

Correction” contemporaneously with filing this “Plaintiffs’ Responsive

Objections to Defendant’s Motion… and Counsel’s Certification…”

Plaintiffs have been victimized by and through Defendant’s and their counsel’s

fraud, preposterous claims, false pretenses, deceit, malfeasance, moral turpitude; and

meritless, vexatious, and frivolous motions. Plaintiffs have provided evidence to the

Court of Defendants’ and their counsel’s numerous perjuries and fraud upon the Court.

See “Exhibit A”, pages: 1-18. This Court must not tolerate these actions by Defendants

and their counsel.

Plaintiffs move this Honorable Court to Quash Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or

Alternative Motion to Compel Discovery, Strike Defendant’s Answers and Counterclaim

(including the Amended of same) for fraud and perjury or false swearing, or the very

least by sanctioning Defendants and their counsel by striking the offensive filings, and by

finding defendants and their counsel in contempt.

4 Plaintiffs should not have to include the April 30th Responses and Objections to Defendant’s Motion to Compel, but practicing extreme caution due to conflicts already within the record, one of which is the appearance of “Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay Discovery and All Other Processes Pending Order On Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike…” filed March 20, 2008; along with Attorney Watt’s claim that Plaintiffs’ Motion had no exhibits or whatever his comment meant, Plaintiffs are now burdened with attempting to have the Docket corrected to read properly and Plaintiffs further are burdened with attempting to guarantee that everything they file is actually still located within the files of this Court.

- 2 -

Plaintiffs further move this Honorable Court to levy the charges of perjury and

fraud against defendants and their counsel. Plaintiffs see no other remedy to bring a

cease to the Defendant’s and their counsel’s actions, it is within the power of this Court,

it would be just and fair.

Plaintiffs incorporate their Responses to Motion To Compel filed March 31, 2008.

II, VERIFIED ANSWERS AND COUNTERCLAIM 1. Defendant’s Answers and Counterclaim, are one of confession and avoidance clearly

state this case is about an on-going easement dispute, they claimed to have a valid

easement.

2. Plaintiffs disproved5 the “valid easement” claim by providing evidence that the

document Defendant’s attached did not pertain to Plaintiffs’ property.

3. Although Defendant’s Verification of Answers and Counterclaim clearly states

Georgia Power conducted a comprehensive investigation before pleading, they still

claimed to have easement rights, see Georgia Power’s Counterclaim: ¶¶s: 6: …A

true and correct copy of the 1941 Easement…”; 24: “A substantial, justiciable,

and actual controversy exists…”; 28: “…1941 Easement…properly executed and

recorded…DeKalb County, Office of Recording Deeds on March 17, 1941, Deed

Book 536, page 102.”; 41: “Plaintiffs ….a blatant disregard for Georgia Power’s

easement rights….”;

4. Failing to respond to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike and address the fraudulent claims

and document, Defendants filed Motion for Continuance, a bad-faith attempt to

delay,6 claiming they need to depose Plaintiffs before they could respond.

5. Defendant’s refusal to respond to Motion to Strike is a Judicial Admission.

5 Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Defendant’s Answers w/Exhibits filed March 12, 2008, received in the Court March 8, 2008.6 Plaintiffs’ Response and Objection to Continuance showed Defendant’s Motion for Continuance was only for delay; the May 5th Amendment asking for “Reformation” of the easement agreement to cover Plaintiffs’ property is even more evidence that Plaintiffs were correct. Two months passed from when Mr. Watt found out Plaintiffs were planning to file Motion to Strike, and the filing of the Amendment admitting that the 1941 Easement attached to the Verified Answers and Counterclaim were fraudulent, suddenly the file to Amend and “Reformation”.

- 3 -

6. Georgia Power on May 5, 2008,7 filed Amendment to their Verified Answers and

Counterclaim, confitens reus8 proving Plaintiffs claims.

* Plaintiffs have proven their case and Plaintiffs Demand Judgment in their favor on

all Counts, Judgment against Defendant’s Dismissing Defendant’s Verified Answers and

Counterclaim and Amended Answers and Counterclaim against Plaintiffs.

III. AMENDMENT TO DEFENDANT’S ANSWERS AND COUNTERCLAIM

Amendment to Defendant’s Verified Answers and Counterclaim clearly show that

the Defendants have admitted to the allegations in Plaintiffs’ Verified Complaint, further

show that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike for False Swearing and Fraud had merit.

* Plaintiffs Demand Judgment in their favor on all Counts, Judgment against

Defendant’s Dismissing Defendant’s Verified Answers and Counterclaim and Amended

Answers and Counterclaim against Plaintiffs.

7. Plaintiffs Moves this Honorable Court to Dismiss Defendant’s Counterclaim, and

First Amendment to Defendant’s Verified Answers and Counterclaim, makes

request for relief which cannot be granted and thus must thereby be Dismissed.

8. Hidden within Defendant’s Amended Answers and Counterclaim, is “Motion for

Reformation” of the 1941 Easement agreement, the same 1941 Easement that

Georgia Power swore before was properly executed and recorded.9

9. Georgia Power’s “reformation” request results in cognovit actionem,10 implied

color, direct confession, and judicial confession.

10. Georgia Power then claimed “scrivener’s error”, “mutual mistakes”, claims fails as a

matter of law and Motion for Reformation must be denied due to the seven year

7 Although the Amendment was signed April 5, 2008 and Plaintiffs received it April 7 th, it has yet to show filed according to the Docket Report online, usually Defendant’s filings show the same day they are signed and mailed.8 confitens reus (kon-fә-tenz ree-әs), [Latin “confessing accused”]. Black’s Law Dictionary, Seventh Ed., pg.. 2959 Georgia Power originally provided two easements to Plaintiffs to prove Georgia Power had easement rights, one from 1937, one from 1941, it has never been explained to Plaintiffs why Georgia Power abandoned the 1937 easement and now only uses the 1941; facts clearly show that neither easement ever pertained to Plaintiffs’ property.10 cognovit actionem “[Law Latin, he has confessed the claim]”; “Defendant’s written acknowledgement of Plaintiffs’ claim…” Black’s Law Dictionary, Seventh Ed., pg.. 254

- 4 -

statute of limitation, and reformation is estopped by the doctrine of laches.

11. Further, for a claim of mutual mistake, Georgia Power would have filed an action for

Reformation before suit was filed against them.

12. For a “Reformation”, the action must consist of original parties to the original

agreement, or privies to the original estate.

13. Neither Plaintiff Ms. McDonald, nor Plaintiff Mr. Stegeman were part of the original

agreement, and the agreement no longer involves the original estate of the original

owner.

14. Plaintiffs further believe that Dr. R. F. Well is no longer alive and Georgia Power

cannot speak for Dr. Wells in his absence.

a. Statute of Limitations:

See Evans v. Lipscomb, 266 Ga. 767 (470 SE2d 641) <http://www.versuslaw.com>, (1996):“We granted …to determine whether the superior court erred in holding …reformation was not barred, as a matter of law, by the applicable statute of limitation. We reverse.”“[21] 1. "An action to reform a written instrument can be brought at any time within seven years …, if not barred by laches." Whittle v. Nottingham, 164 Ga. 155, 161 (3) (138 S.E. 62) (1927).” “[24] …asserts … should not begin to run … discovered the mistake …, or,… should have discovered the mistake …the statute of limitation should be tolled... fail.” “[26]…, as a matter of law, … exceeding that named in the statute of limitations, … by the mere allegation that he made the discovery" only recently. Rigdon, (supra) at 82.”“[27] … is not a good response to the statute of limitation. Slade v. Barber, 200 Ga. 405, 410 (2) (37 S.E.2d 143) (1946). *fn4””[28] The present action is time-barred and the superior court erred in finding otherwise.”“[29] Judgment reversed. All the Justices concur.”

See also Bradshaw v. City of Atlanta, 275 Ga.App. 609, (621 SE2d 563) http://www.versuslaw.com> (2005):“[8] The trial court dismissed … pursuant to … statutes of limitation for actions based on a mutual mistake or fraud...We discern no error and affirm.”

- 5 -

“[14] … from filing suit in a timely manner. See Leathers v. Timex Corp., 174 Ga. App. 430, 431-432 (2) (330 SE2d 102) (1985) … within the applicable statutes of limitation, the trial court properly dismissed his suit. See id. at 432 (2).

See also:Minor et., al., v Fincher, et., al., 206 Ga. 721, (58 S.E.2d 389) GA. 228, www.versuslaw.com (1950):“[34] This court has uniformly …”“[35] In the present case, the verified petition could not have any effect as evidence. Mrs. Crandall was dead, and to permit the verified petition to be given the effect of evidence would violate the rule that, where one party is dead, the other is incompetent to testify in his own behalf. Code, § 38-1603 (1); Kilpatrick v. Strozier, 67 Ga. 247; Sivell v. Hogan, 115 Ga. 667 (42 S.E. 151); Arnold v. Freeman, 181 Ga. 654 (183 S.E. 811).”“[37] … It was error for the court to direct a verdict for the plaintiff for reformation.”“[38] …To avail himself of the defense of laches, the party relying thereon must plead it. Hunnicutt v. Archer, 163 Ga. 868 (137 S.E. 253).”

b. Original Parties

Because Plaintiffs Janet D McDonald and James B Stegeman, are not “original parties”,

reformation must be denied:

Mutual Mistake - Original Parties See:

Moore v McBrayer, et., al., Ga.App. 0000464, No. A07A2288 < http://www.versuslaw.com> (2008):“[20] "When two parties have made a mutual mistake in the creation …, permit reformation ... However, … is limited to those who are either parties to the original deed … such original parties." (Footnotes omitted.) Gregorakos v. Wells Fargo Nat. Ass'n, 285 Ga. App. 744, 746 (1) (647 SE2d 289) (2007). ..””“[21] "Equity will correct mutual mistakes between the original parties or their privies in law, in fact, or in estate.'" (Citation omitted.) Rawson v. Brosnan, 187 Ga. at 626 (on motion for reconsideration). See OCGA § 23-2-34.”“Moore was neither a party nor a … a privy in estate, because a privy in estate is a successor to the same estate in the same property,"…, even if the agreement … was based upon mutual mistake, …is not entitled to a reformation… Rawson v. Brosnan, 187 Ga. at 626-628 (on motion for reconsideration). See also Gregorakos v. Wells Fargo

- 6 -

Nat. Ass'n, 285 Ga. App. at 746 (1); Empire Land Co. v. Stokes, 212 Ga. 707, 709 (2) (95 SE2d 283) (1956).”

c. Scrivener’s Error

Georgia Power tries to claim “Scrivener’s Error, Georgia Power had the contract drawn

up, turning the mistake in a “unilateral mistake”, so mutual mistakes fails, and renders

Defendant’s Counterclaim Count IV for Injunction moot. See:

Cox v Smith, 244 Ga. 280, (260 S.E.2d 310) (1979)“[29] A "mutual mistake" in an action for reformation …, but by mistake of the scrivener the true terms of the agreement were not set forth. See generally Delong v. Cobb, 215 Ga. 500 (1) (111 S.E.2d 89) (1959) and cits. As is argued … could have with reasonable diligence discovered … failure to exercise such diligence is negligence, and precludes reformation, … Code § 37-212; Long v. Walls, 226 Ga. 737, 741 (177 S.E.2d 373) (1970).”“[30] Although … the evidence shows, … was drafted at the direction of only one of the contracting parties, …therefore if it was a … a unilateral mistake, which will not warrant reformation. Delong v. Cobb, supra, (1a) and cit.”“[31] 2. The issue of the denial of the temporary injunction is rendered moot by our affirmance of the judgment denying reformation.”

15. Defendant’s Motion for Reformation asks the Court for illegal, and immoral

consideration, and fraudulent concealment by falsifying the document for them.

16. Georgia Power expects the “reformed” document to be exchanged with the

originally filed easement document within their Answers and Counterclaim, by

Amendment of their Answers and Counterclaim.

17. Georgia Power’s Amendment also expands and enhances the Counts of their

Counterclaim.

18. The results of the “reformation” and Amended Answers and Counterclaim is this

Court will: 1) find Plaintiffs complaint without merit, 2) Grant Georgia Power’s

Counterclaim, 3) Grant Declaratory Judgment, 4) Grant Injunctive relief restraining

Plaintiffs from any further attempts to protect their property, 5) Dismiss Plaintiffs’

complaint, 6) levy fees and costs against Plaintiffs prayed for in the Counterclaim

- 7 -

and Amended Counterclaim.

19. The Motion for Reformation is not properly before this Court.

20. After years of dispute insisting Georgia Power had no easement rights, two months

after filing Motion to Strike in which Plaintiffs disproved Georgia Power’s fictional

easement rights, the Defendants finally address the issue with “scrivener’s error” and

“Mutual Mistake”, they are estopped from the claims by statute of limitations and

laches. The claims fail as a matter of law and must be Denied.

21. Furthermore, Defendants falsely represent to and mislead this Court that the only

issue of “Reformation” on the 1941 easement is to change the “37” to “73”, they fail

to inform the Court of the other obvious issues:

i. According to Defendants, 1941 easement reads Shepard Rd.11

ii. According to Defendants, Plaintiffs address is on Shepard Rd 12

19. Not only would Defendants have this Court falsify the spelling of the road, but the

land description given by Defendants is wrong as well.

20. If Plaintiffs property were to be where the land description as given by Georgia

Power, Plaintiffs’ property would be on the other side of Ridge Avenue, making

Plaintiffs’ property inside of Stone Mountain City Limits, rather than in

Unincorporated DeKalb County.

21. Plaintiffs property, according to the 1937 Power Company/Railway map, was clearly

owned by Mr. Fields, who apparently refused to give easement to Georgia Power.

22. Stone Mountain City Limits is next door to Plaintiffs property13, Stone Mountain

City Limits is across the street, and down the street on Sheppard as well, but a

pocket wherein Plaintiffs’ property is located is not in Stone Mountain City Limits.

23. Georgia Power knows these facts, and is the single reason that in the past Georgia

Power used DeKalb County Police Department rather than Stone Mountain City

11 Looking at the 1941 easement, the spelling appears as: Shiphud Rd12 Plaintiffs’ address is Sheppard Rd13 the 831 Sheppard Rd. is inside of city limits, on the other side of Plaintiffs at 811 Sheppard is outside of city limits and 811 and 821 addresses share a common driveway.

- 8 -

Police to accompany the tree crews and intimidate Plaintiffs’14 when Plaintiffs’

property was trespassed onto and Plaintiffs’ property was damaged, trees destroyed.

24. Plaintiffs believe the 1941 easement is a forged document, the 1941 easement never

refers to “Dr. R. F. Wells”, he is referred to as “R. F. Wells”15.

25. Georgia Power would have this Court believe that a Doctor in 1941 would fail to

notice the many discrepancies contained within the document.

26. In 1941 a Doctor, well educated, usually from a good family background, would

carefully read a document before signing it, and surely would notice the wrong

District Number, wrong Land Lot, the misspelling of the road on which he owned

property, would notice that the land description was not correct, and would notice

the names listed on the adjoining properties were not true.

27. Plaintiffs see other problems with the document, i.e.: Form number and date the

document was printed:

28. The State of Georgia Constitution as well as The United States Constitution

guarantee the Right to Property and Liberty, which cannot be violated without Due

Process of Law, and forbids property to be taken illegally; exactly what Georgia

Power and their attorney have instructed this Court to do.




Plaintiffs hardly believe that the Appellate Courts would be amused, this

Plaintiffs’ Responses… also is to serve as “Plaintiffs’ NOTICE OF INTENT to Appeal”.

* NOTE: PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST APPELLATE REVIEW: Should this Honorable

Court go along with Georgia Power’s requests, Plaintiffs ask this Honorable Court to

14 June 2007, when the tree crews first came to Plaintiffs’ property, DeKalb County was with the tree crews, the Police Officer did look at the map, easement agreement, called higher officials and Code Enforcement. The Police Officer was told by higher authorities that there was no easement rights over Plaintiffs property and or that easement was violated at 831 property causing extreme easement violation onto Plaintiffs property and the tree crews were made to leave with the choice of cutting and being arrested.15 1937 Easement and 1937 Power/Railway map shows “Dr. R. F. Wells”

- 9 -

grant their request to have the Appellate Courts review this Court’s decision and Stay the

case while pending Appellate Court’s judgment.

IV PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE, MOTION TO STAY

22. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike was based on fraud and fraudulent document.

23. Defendants failed to timely respond to Plaintiffs Motion to Strike, filed a bad-faith

Motion For Continuance for delay, claiming the need for depositions.

24. Depositions cannot and will not legitimize a fraudulent easement claim.

25. This Court has yet to make Judgment on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike.

26. Plaintiffs filed Motion to Stay, seeking an immediate Hearing for Order to Show

Cause, attempted to present their request and Rule Nisi to calendar clerk who

refused to see them, Plaintiffs were told to leave the Rule Nisi.

27. Plaintiffs Motion to Stay was seeking a Protective Order: no agreement to

reschedule and Notice of Deposition violated U.S.C.R. 5.3 .16

28. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay had Exhibits showing Watt’s abuse and manipulation of

Court process and procedure, “The Due Process Clause”.

29. Defendants claim Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay was lacking exhibits to support their

claims, if so, the Exhibits were removed within the Court system.

30. April 2nd, a phone conversation with Mr. Hash, Plaintiffs mentioned that they still

had not received the Rule Nisi with a hearing date scheduled, Mr. Hash found the

Rule Nisi stapled to the back of Plaintiffs Motion to Strike.

31. Mr. Hash, after checking, advised a hearing scheduled for May 27th.17

D. Defendant’s Counsel’s Responsibilities

32. This action consists of separate Co-Plaintiffs, two unmarried people.

16 Rule 5.3: “…deposition is limited to one day of seven hours.” Watt’s Notice of Depositions state: “starting April 3, 2008… continuing day to day…”17 Plaintiffs were mailed back the Rule Nisi after the conversation with Mr. Hash indicating May 27 th, 2008 at 9:30 a.m. for a hearing, but neither the on-line judicial docket indicates such a “hearing” nor does the Judge’s calendar show a hearing for that date and time.

- 10 -

33. Mr. Watt has shown that he has never contacted Plaintiff Stegeman at all, Watt

thereby has neglected his responsibilities of communicating with a Plaintiff.

34. Plaintiff McDonald neither speaks for, nor represents Plaintiff Mr. Stegeman, which

would result in “unauthorized practice of law”.

35. Mr. Watt continually refers to email, Plaintiffs have never emailed or advised email

is acceptable or replaces FAX and US mail.

36. The last negotiation attempts with Mr. Watt never concluded and were literally the

last, Watt was already violating the issues while still negotiating, making a “meeting

of the minds” impossible.

37. Watt ignored that negotiations had failed, filed rescheduled Notice of Depositions;

neither an agreement to agree, nor a failed negotiation is enforceable by the Courts.

38. Mr. Watt admits he has made decisions for, advised, and has put into documents

filed in the Court only what he wants, Plaintiffs Object!




----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS OR COMPEL & DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL’S CERTIFICATION

Defendants filed Motion to Dismiss or in Alternative an Order Compelling

Discovery; Mr. Watt filed Counsel’s Certification of Compliance with U.S.C.R. 6.4(B),

sworn on Oath. Defendant’s Motion Attorney Watt’s Certification of Compliance are not

in compliance with O.C.G.A. §9-11-37 and U.S.C.R. 6.4(B). Plaintiffs especially

reference with emphasis “Exhibit A”, pages 3-6.

With malicious motive and intent, Defendants conspired with Mr. Watt to

orchestrate a scheme to falsely represent that Plaintiffs have refused to participate in

- 11 -

discovery, hoping To have this case dismissed.18

39. Watt orchestrated incidents to show failure to comply with discovery, manipulated

the process the Court, a/k/a “Malicious Abuse of Legal Process”.19

40. To cover his backside for failing to comply with U.S.C.R. 6.4., according to Watt, he

approached and was aided by the calendar clerk, and the law clerk, of this Court with

a solution that violated the due process clause.

41. All demands in Watt’s letter were complied with prior to Defendant’s Motion to

Compel, and Counsel’s Certification of Compliance.

42. Mr. Watt has again used the same February 19th “6.4” letter in which he falsely

swore of good-faith effort to confer prior to filing Motion to Compel.

43. Watt’s Feb. 19th “6.4” letter was first mention of depositions, scheduling had yet to

be discussed.

44. Watt had from March 20th,20 through March 31st to attempt to resolve any issues with

Plaintiffs, he refused, and knew with Motion to Stay and unauthorized rescheduling

of depositions, that Plaintiffs would not be at the depositions.

Plaintiffs have exhausted themselves attempting to accommodate Watt’s demands only

to have every negotiation violated by Watt.

52. Mr. Watt perjured himself by stating “…good faith attempted to confer …”21

53. “Prior to filing” the April 15th Motion and Certification, there was no letter,22

conference or attempt “to confer”.

E. Defendant’s April 15, 2008 Motion

18 Feb 19th letter from Watt to Georgia Power (Exhibit B Affidavit of Brain P Watt), see “Exhibit A”, pages 1-11.19 “Malicious abuse of process is where one in a civil proceeding willfully misapplies the process of the court in order to obtain an object which such process is not intended by law to effect. Davison Paxon Co. v. Walker, 174 Ga. 532, 535, supra; Cooper v. Pacific Finance Corp., 146 Ga. App. 250, 254 (246 SE2d 684); Whitehead v. Southern Discount Co., 109 Ga. App. 126(1) 127-128 (135 SE2d 496).”20 Plaintiffs’ filed Motion to Stay March 20, 200821 1st ¶ Mr. Watt’s April 15th Certification 22 It appears that Mr. Watt is trying to use the same Feb. 19 th letter as a fictional claim that Plaintiffs were refusing to be deposed, Plaintiffs see no other reason Watt refers to the letter

- 12 -

March 31st, Watt knowing Plaintiffs would be unavailable all day, filed frivolous Motion

to Dismiss or Compel for a non-existing dispute. Plaintiffs have not refused or failed to

comply with Discovery requests. Quite the contrary, they have worked diligently to

prevent the chance of Defendant’s being able to make such claims only to have the

claims made anyway.

It would be improper to Dismiss this case under fraudulent conveyances by

Defendants. Further, this Court has made no Order regarding Discovery and Dismissal

will be reviewed by the Appellate Courts with disfavor. See the following:

ASAP Healthcare Network, Inc. v. Southwest Hospital and Medical Center, Inc., 270 Ga. App. 76 (606 S.E.2d 98), (2004), “the trial court granted of Southwest Hospital and Medical Center's (the "Hospital") motion to dismiss for failure to respond to discovery, the judgment was reversed and remanded.”“[15]: … [I]n determining the particular sanctions to be imposed, this discretion is not without limits. . . .”“[26] *fn7 … Furthermore, the court found that ASAP's failure to participate in discovery was wilful based on the 17 months that elapsed before ASAP responded to the discovery.”

See also:Motani et al. v. Wallace Enterprises, Inc. (251 Ga. App. 384) (554 SE2d 539) (2001):

“… appeal the trial court's order … for failing to comply with the court's order on a motion to compel. We find that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing such a severe sanction in the absence of any evidence of willfulness, bad faith or conscious disregard of an order and remand …”

“Motani "was unable to provide a legal basis for his failure to comply" with the order on the motion to compel”

“Before imposing the ultimate sanction of dismissal or default judgment, the court must first make a determination, after notice and an opportunity for hearing, that the failure to comply with the order was wilful.”

54. Plaintiff Stegeman received Saturday March 29th from 11th Circuit, the proper

reference to the record info, leaving two days to correct the Brief and record

excerpts, put together 10 copies equaling close to 7,000 sheets of paper, have

- 13 -

everything finished and at UPS before 7:00 p.m. March 31st.

55. Watt states he tried to contact Plaintiffs, see if they were “available” for a phone

“hearing”, then in another ¶ his words make it appear that Plaintiffs missed a

“mandatory” hearing.

56. Plaintiffs bring to this Court’s attention that any kind of civil hearing giving less

than 24 hours notice directly violates The Due Process Clause.

57. Watt knew the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Brief was due last day of March.

58. Watt stated in the first phone conversation with Plaintiffs when they explained

that they had just finished filing Petition For Cert. to Supreme Court of

Georgia, that he had never filed one.

59. Mr. Watt makes fraudulent claims meant to prejudice and deceive the Court that

Plaintiffs “withholding evidence”, “unsupported motion to stay” “properly noticed

depositions”.

60. One instance Watt is complaining Plaintiffs expect preferential treatment, the next is

claiming to be helping them, advising, making decisions for them.

61. Defendants continue to harass, intimidate and threaten Plaintiffs.

62. Mistreatment of Plaintiffs by Defendants and Mr. Watt will continue until this Court

forces it to cease, the longer the Court puts off making Judgment on Plaintiffs’

Motions, the more time for Defendant’s frivolous attempts to prejudice this Court

and have this case dismissed.




PLAINTIFFS DIRECT RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiffs respond23 directly to both at once rather than responding to each separately.

23 Defendant’s Motion is referenced by the date and Mr. Watt’s Certification is referenced by ¶

- 14 -

Feb 19, Defendants and Watt ¶2: both claim that February 19th “6.4” letter shows that

Defendants had repeatedly requested dates for depositions in March.

response: The 19th letter was the first mention about depositions.

Feb. 26: “…again requested …” ¶3: “…Plaintiffs contacted me … depositions … cited

inconvenience … inability to commit… get back with me a date in March … indicated

that they would …”

response: Feb. 26th (Ps) t/p24 Mr. Watt. Watt made demands that (Ps) have map and

video copied at Kinko’s; (Ps) copy photos to Cd; copy 1937 Easement agreement (given

to (Ps) by Georgia Power); only conversation about depositions was Plaintiff Stegeman’s

Brief to 11th Cir. Court of Appeals due the last day of March, agreement reached, no

depositions in March.

Feb. 27: “reminded Plaintiffs of their promise .. in March” ¶4: “… February 27 …

letter … memorializing our conversation …and reminded … their assurances … in

March.”

response: Plaintiffs never promised anything to anyone!, apparently Mr. Watt lies to

Georgia Power as he does to Plaintiffs. A letter and a t/p conversation, cannot be

counted as two separate requests; there was no memorializing, Watt put exactly what he

wants to in confirmation letters this was the first major falsified letter to Plaintiffs; (Ps)

were not reminded, and (Ps) did not give assurances, agreement had already been made

no depositions in March!

NOTE: The Following Shows Plaintiffs Contacting Defendants Who Did Not

Respond:

Feb. 27, 2008 , (Ps) to (D)25 they would be sending 1937 Easement agreement and CD, would

advise on Priority Mail No.

Feb. 28, 2008. (Ps) to (D) Priority Mail No. advised Kinko’s copy map; Watt had misled that

Kinko’s could copy video Kinko’s couldn’t.

24 t/p = telephone call, (Ps) = Plaintiffs, (Ds) = Defendants

25 (P) to (D) = Plaintiffs to Defendants

- 15 -

March 3, 2008 (Ps) to (D) map had been copied, would advise tracking no.

March 4, 2008 (Ps) to (D) Priority Mail No. for map; advised of enlarged copy of both

1937, 1941 Easement Agreements, Plaintiff’s property tax, copy of DeKalb County map

= proof that Georgia Power never had an easement agreement, advised contact Plaintiffs.

March 5, 2008 (Ps) FAX (D) Plaintiff’s Motion To Strike – 22 pages, attached hereto a

copy of the FAX notification as

March 7, 2008 * NOTE: It should be noted that Plaintiffs did not mail the Motion to

Strike to (D) and the Court until late in the day March 7, 2008, Plaintiffs waited to see if

(D) counsel was going to contact them before they filed the Motion. The Motion was

delivered March 8, 2008

Motion and Certification cont’d:

March 8: “received … Motion to Strike”; ¶5: “Motion to Strike … March 12, 2008.”

response: (Ps) fail to see how Georgia Power received Motion to Strike March 8, Watt

on March 12, it was mailed to Watt.

March 13, 2008: ¶6: Notice of Depositions was served upon (P) the 13th. response:

Plaintiffs were served the Notice on the March 15th

March 18, 2008: “ (P) t/p (D) … requested depositions be rescheduled” “Plaintiffs’

schedules, Plaintiffs agreed April 3, 2008” “Georgia Power filed revised Notices March

18 Parties agreement.” ¶7: “Upon receiving Plaintiffs contacted counsel … stating busy

for the entire month of March… requesting … first week of April…”

response: (Ps) t/p Watt to find out why he set depositions for March 27th , after

agreeing to no depositions in March. Apparently Watt was angry because of (Ps) Motion

to Strike. Negotiations perused and failed, Mr. Watt insisted Georgia Power be granted

two week extension to respond to Motion to Strike, and wanted to give Plaintiffs a few

days. Plaintiff Mr. Stegeman insisted: “quid pro quo”26 “two weeks for two weeks”,

Watt said no. Plaintiffs told Watt only if: 1) change of location could be agreed upon,27;

26 quid pro quo (kwid proh kwho), n. Latin “something for something”] Black’s Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition, pg. 126127 Plaintiffs explained: due to Plaintiff McDonald’s car barely running, and Plaintiff Stegeman’s physical conditions cannot ride in a small car except for very short periods of time, he has a hard time sitting

- 16 -

2) deposition Notice changed to read in accordance with U.S.C.R. 5.3,28 3) depositions

“back to back”, 4) discovery conference or scope of discovery conference before

depositions. 5) new “Notice” would not be filed with the Court until all parties

confirmed the changes in writing. Other issues were still being negotiated.

March 19, 2008: “Plaintiffs memorialized…”; ¶8: “… March 19… Plaintiffs

acknowledged …” (Ps) response: 3/19: (Ps) letter to Watt was not a

memorialization, it was a complaint that Mr. Watt had violated his word and there was

no confirmation, an agreement to continuing negotiations; this time the violations were

done before negotiations had ended; the only spoken conversation on the 19th: Watt asked

(Ps) if they had read the email, (Ps) said no.

NOTE: The email thanked Plaintiffs for attempting to help straighten out scheduling

issues “Exhibit 1”

Immediately after reading the letter29, (Ps) FAX & Letter to Mr. Watt advising

that the confirmation letter did not contain the necessary issues discussed: Stegeman’s

disability issues with transportation and sitting long periods of time; Plaintiffs’

transportation issues, location, depositions back to back, removing “ day to day until

completed”; advised Mr. Watt call to confer, he did not respond.

Upon (Ps) mail delivery, they found that Mr. Watt on the 18th had already filed the

new Notice of Depositions showing the to be rescheduled date before agreement had

been reached, thereby violating all agreements and negotiation, the change was already

showing on the on-line judicial web page as well even though (Ps) t/p with Mr. Watt had

not ended until after 3:30 p.m. or later on March 18th. (Ps) immediately FAX and letter to

Watt telling him no agreement period!

anywhere for very long without being able to walk or lie down and becomes ill from pain if sitting cramped28 “…deposition is limited to one day of seven hours…” not “day to day” as shown in the Notice29 It had been agreed that until the letter was confirmed by all parties, nothing would be rescheduled within the Court

- 17 -

March 20, 2008: “Motion to Stay… avoid their depositions and all other discovery

obligations altogether”; ¶9: “… March 20, …Motion to Stay … nor did … specifically

address … depositions… Response on March 28, 2008.”

Response: To put an end to Watt’s deceptions, (Ps) hand delivered Motion to Stay, (Ps)

had a Rule Nisi anticipating to ask for an immediate hearing or Order. The Calendar

clerk refused to see (Ps), they were instructed to leave the Rule Nisi, it would be mailed

back; Plaintiffs filed Motion to Stay to serve as a “Protective Order” pending this

Court’s Judgment on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike. (Ps) received a letter on March 22nd 30

informing them Watt was attempting to force the failed negotiations so that he could later

file this current Motion to Compel. “Exhibit 2”

Further, Watt’s letter did mention the two FAX and letters (Ps) sent to him March

19th following is what Plaintiffs discovered from Watt’s letter 31:

All along Mr. Watt had been deciding what he deems necessary and proper for

both the Plaintiffs and Defendants; when, where, how, why, and what to include when

confirming negotiations and verbal agreements to agree; only what he wants to include in

letters, and Notices; picks out what he wants to use from conversations. In one instant,

he cannot have a discovery conference or discuss documents to be used at depositions

because it would be unethical; the next instant he is making decisions on what is

necessary and proper on Plaintiff’s behalf (advising Plaintiffs), and he is making

decisions for Plaintiffs (representing Plaintiffs).32 The facts clearly show that the March

18, 2008 letter stated: “All other aspects of Defendants notices will remain the same”

which means no other changes. Mr. Watt, attempting to have Plaintiffs trust him when he

said “.. I had already indicated my willingness to entertain further discussion on the

topic” was a lie. Mr. Watt should be found in contempt, Defendant’s Answers stricken,

30 NOTE: Neither the Defendants nor Mr. Watt address a letter to Plaintiffs dated March 20, 2008. 31 Copied from Plaintiffs Responsive Objections To And Motion To Strike Affidavits of Brian P. Watt, Filed April 28, 2008.32 Because Mr. Watt has decided to represent and speak for the Plaintiffs as well as the Defendants, Plaintiffs Object and suggest that there are grounds to strike Defendants answers, counterclaim, Affidavits of Brian P. Watt, Deny Motion For Continuance. Mr. Watt cannot make decisions and file what he pleases regarding Plaintiffs who have not given Mr. Watt permission to speak for them.

- 18 -

and Dismissal of Counterclaim as sanctions for Defendants’ legal counsel’s

representation of both parties.

Motion and Certification cont’d :

March 28, 2008: “…demonstrated that the ultimate issues put before the Court … not

ripe … refusal to comply…” Watt’s Certification does not address the 28th. (Ps)

response: (Ps) addressed the issues of Georgia Power’s Consolidated Response … filed

March 28th in their documents filed to this Court April 28th.

March 31, 2008: “contacted law clerk to clear up … allow Plaintiffs to articulate …

apparent refusal to comply … to provide a forum … calendar clerk held by telephone

the following day …9:00 a.m.” ¶10: “…March 31, … Mr. Bryson Hash, law clerk … a

hearing … decide the pending discovery related disputes….”

(Ps) response: Plaintiffs talked with Mr. Hash April 2nd Mr. Hash told Plaintiffs he knew

nothing about the alleged hearing and did not indicate he had spoken with Mr. Watt.

¶11: “… a hearing could be held … following day, .. 9:00 a.m. provided Plaintiffs were

available….” (Ps) response: Plaintiffs discovered a voice mail April 1st late in the

afternoon on Plaintiff McDonald’s cell phone. NOTE: Mr. Watt’s March 31st email

time-stamped 6:07 p.m. Watt’s email said he had talked with “law clerk”, not calendar

clerk. “Exhibit 3”

¶12: “… I called… left a voicemail … relaying Ms. Reynolds’s information regarding

the possibility … hearing as late as the following morning…”

(Ps) response: 1. How convenient! March 31st Mr. Watt, who had been told numerous

times that Plaintiffs would be unavailable the whole last day of March, performed all

these tasks behind Plaintiffs back, Plaintiffs had resolved all issues shown in 6.4 letter.

2. Plaintiffs are curious: How can Mr. Watt arrange for a 9:00 a.m. as late as the

following morning? Unless of course he is personal friends with the Clerk or Judge and

call their home phone numbers. 3. Clearly the situation had been orchestrated against

Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs had been “set-up”, or Watt has some kind of influence with this

Court.

- 19 -

NOTE: Defendants and their counsel use email in an unacceptable manner. (Ps) have

never emailed Defendants or their counsel. Known facts: 1) Plaintiff Stegeman does

not use a computer, can never be contacted via email 2) Plaintiffs are not available to

Mr. Watt or Georgia Power 24 hours a day 3) Plaintiff McDonald does not read email

everyday 4) Email is not an acceptable contact method for suit related issues 5) Mr.

Watt has been advised that FAX is acceptable, has never sent a FAX to Plaintiffs 6)

after normal business hours, Mr. Watt should not be contacting Plaintiffs until the next

day.

April 1, 2008: “Counsel … calendar clerk, … unsuccessful…” April 2, 2008: “Counsel

… letter via email to Plaintiffs…” “Plaintiffs responded that afternoon by t/p …brief t/p

conversation,… Plaintiff McDonald … neither … appearing … following day citing

transportation … Plaintiffs did not … alternative dates … Plaintiff McDonald

acknowledged …. Voicemail … attendance on the conference call … did not offer an

explanation … or attempt to contact … the following day, … Georgia Power’s counsel

informed Plaintiffs …motion to with the Court, prompting Plaintiff McDonald to

respond that she preferred to “let the Court sort it out.” (Ps)

response: See response to ¶12, page 14 concerning email letters. Mr. Watt became very

angry and confrontational. Mr. Watt told Plaintiff McDonald that: “Fine, I will file

another Motion to Compel” *Plaintiff McDonald did not and would have never said

something like “let the court sort it out” Plaintiff Stegeman heard every word Plaintiff

McDonald stated.

NOTE: Plaintiffs bring to this Court’s attention that in several previous paragraphs,

concerning t/p communications, reference jumps back and forth from “Plaintiff” to

“Plaintiffs” to “Plaintiff McDonald” appearing to assert that both Plaintiffs were talking

with Mr. Watt.

¶14: “… April 2, …drafted a letter … would assume that Plaintiffs would appear …

April 3, …” Plaintiffs’ response: (Ps) previously told Watt that they don’t read

- 20 -

email everyday33, furthermore, a letter would not have arrive to Plaintiffs in time to

matter. Plaintiff McDonald called Mr. Watt before he “drafted a letter. Mr. Watt does

not state how he expected Plaintiffs to receive a letter drafted April 2nd before April 3rd he

also fails to state that he drafted two letters April 2nd.

¶15: “Plaintiffs contacted me …April 2, Plaintiff McDonald…that neither she nor Mr.

Stegeman would be attending their depositions… Plaintiff McDonald did not provide an

explanation …transportation difficulties … Georgia Power to file a motion to dismiss or

to compel, Plaintiff McDonald responded that she preferred to “let the court sort it

out.””

Plaintiffs’ response: Mr. Watt’s claims are falsum. The factual sequence is as follows:

1. Plaintiff McDonald, after talking with Mr. Hash April 2nd, while attempting to get both

Plaintiffs and her overheating car safely home, decided to remind Mr. Watt that there had

been no confirmed agreement to reschedule depositions and Plaintiffs had filed Motion

to Stay. 2. Mr. Watt became very angry and confrontational. Mr. Watt told Plaintiff

McDonald that: “Fine, I will file another Motion to Compel” *Plaintiff McDonald did

not and would have never said something like “let the court sort it out” Plaintiff

Stegeman heard every word Plaintiff McDonald stated. Defendants and Mr. Watt jump

back and forth making claims “Plaintiff”, “Plaintiffs” “Plaintiff McDonald” only one

person can talk on one cell phone while driving, Watt only refers to Plaintiff McDonald.

By jumping back and forth, Watt attempts to give the impression that both Plaintiffs were

talking with him, a falsity.

NOTE: Mr. Watt’s ¶¶s 14, 15 appear to be reversed in order, Plaintiff McDonald

telephoned Mr. Watt sometime around 2:00 p.m., Mr. Watt fails to state that he sent two

emails (which went undiscovered until April 4th by Plaintiff McDonald, (who doesn’t

check email every day), each email contained a .pdf attachment. Mr. Watt fails to

mention two, nor does he mention he sent an email April 3rd then “recalled” the message,

he also failed to attach all the emails accompanying the letters, see “Exhibit 4”

33 Plaintiffs never advised email replaces FAX or letter, previously advised Mr. Watt that Plaintiffs don’t read email everyday.

- 21 -

¶16: “Plaintiff McDonald … voicemail … two days earlier … did not offer … she did

not return the call” Plaintiffs’ response: See ¶ 11 Response.

¶17: “… explaining to Plaintiffs… Plaintiffs abruptly hung up the phone.”

Plaintiffs’ response: See ¶¶s 14,15, 16 response. Mr. Watt: “explaining to

Plaintiffs” in the plural is not possible. Plaintiff McDonald only has one cell phone, she

was attempting to drive and talk 3. Mr. Watt: “Plaintiffs abruptly hung up the phone”

again in the plurality, another falsum. There can only be one Plaintiff at a time on a single

cell phone, if one Plaintiff is driving the car and talking on the cell phone not Plaintiffs.

Mr. Watt never said that he talked with Plaintiff Stegeman, without both Plaintiffs on the

phone, both cannot hang up.

¶18: “Upon … were traveling in an automobile …” Plaintiffs’ response: Mr. Watt

knew Plaintiffs were in the car, knew Plaintiff McDonald’s car is barely running, knew

Plaintiff McDonald called from the cell phone.

¶19: “On Thursday, … at our offices, … designated location … failed to appear…

record was made…” Plaintiffs’ response: 1. Mr. Watt had known since March

19th he was not to reschedule depositions, 2. had known since March 20th Plaintiffs had

filed Motion to Stay seeking a Protective Order until this Court’s Judgment on Plaintiffs’

Motion to Strike 3. Plaintiffs reminded him of these facts the previous day.34

54. Mr. Watt conspired with Defendants to orchestrate the appearance that Plaintiffs

have refused to participate in Discovery and depositions

55. Plaintiffs have shown that March 18th was the second time that through false

representation by Watt to Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs had been mislead to believe that Mr.

Watt would abide by his word and promises when negotiating with Plaintiffs.

56. Watt has used as Exhibits letters claiming the letters to be memorialization or

agreements when the letters omitted everything except Defendant’s part of the issues

34 * NOTE: A good example of why Plaintiffs sent FAX to Mr. Watt April 3rd telling him that there would be no more phone conversations with him unless they can “tape” the conversation, “Exhibit 5”

- 22 -

being negotiated.

57. Because of perjury and subornation of perjury this Honorable Court must Strike

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or Motion to Compel and Strike their counsel’s

under oath Certification.




_______________________________________________________________________

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO QUASH DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, AND DEFENDANT’S ANSWERS AND COUNTERCLAIM

__________________________________________________________________

Defendants filed Motion to Dismiss or in Alternative Motion to Compel, Plaintiffs

have clearly shown that there was no failure or refusal to comply with Discovery

requests.

Plaintiffs worked diligently to perform the tasks requested of them. Defendants

have falsely claimed that Plaintiffs were refusing to provide a copy of a videotape. Mr.

Watt purposely gave misinformation when he advised “Kinko’s” to copy the tape. The

next conversation Mr. Watt said “…at your earliest convenience …”, there was no date

by which Plaintiffs had to respond.

See the following:Russell v. Wickes Lumber, 190 Ga. App. 16 (378 SE2d 148) http://www.versuslaw.com (1989):“[12] 1. … request did not specify a date or time…The trial court was within… motion to compel did not conform to the requirements set out in Uniform Superior Court Rules 6.3 and 6.4, …continuance did not comply with Rule 8.5…”

Mr. Watt has continually insisted that his February 19th “6.4” letter to Plaintiffs

requested production of a “videotape” or “videotapes”35, and that the February 19th 6.4

35 Plaintiffs’ Responses to Interrogatories and Production of Documents never stated that Plaintiffs had more than one videotape, Mr. Watt added the plurality and came up with “videotapes” for his own benefit of prejudicing the Court against the Plaintiffs.

- 23 -

letter is evidence of Plaintiffs’ refusals to be deposed. The Feb. 19 th “6.4” together with

the Feb. 19th letter from Watt to Georgia Power shows that making the claims about the

videotape and deposition dates was the first step of carrying out the scheme with Georgia

Power The claims are preposterous36, he has provided no believable evidence of the

claims to the Court.

Motion to Compel shows that the March 31, 2008 Mr. Watt attempted to contact

Plaintiffs about a “Conference” hearing to be held on April 1st. The hearing was not

about failing to comply with documents or the depositions, he claims that “to provide a

forum in which Plaintiffs…” The Rule shows that “prior to” filing Motion to Compel

and Certification, there has to be a good faith effort to confer, he knew there had been no

attempt to “confer”.

O.C.G.A. §9-11-56(g) (Code Ann. 81A-156) authorizes sanctions:

“should it appear to the satisfaction of the court at any time that … are presented in bad faith or solely for delay…” Hawkins v. Travelers Ins. Co., 162 Ga. App. 231, 237(3) (290 SE2d 348) (1982).

Although Hawkins referred to an affidavit containing false statements, the

sanction of striking did not exceed authority. In fact, §9-11-56(g) further states:

“…and any offending party may be adjudged guilty of contempt.”

Furthermore, the Certification due to perjury, is not admissible into evidence:

“…cannot be admissible into evidence and it is subject to a Motion to Strike under O.C.G.A. §9-11-56(e) (Code Ann. 81A-156)” Vaughn & Co. v. Saul, 143 Ga. App. 74, 78 (237 SE2d 622) (1977).

Facts clearly show that Mr. Watt attempted a fraud upon Plaintiffs to get an

extension of time for which Defendants had to file a response to Plaintiffs’ Motion to

Strike: 1) by scheduling the depositions in March when agreement was that no

depositions would be set for the month of March, then 2) March 18, 2008 when

negotiating rescheduling of depositions in exchange for extensions for Defendant’s

response to Motion to Strike, Mr. Watt assured Plaintiffs the negotiations would be

confirmed before anything was rescheduled within the Court. Mr. Watt violated not only 36 Preposterous Outside the reach of reason. Incapable of being called reasonable. “Jurisdictionary”

- 24 -

https://www.jurisdictionary.com/dictionary/R.asp

the negotiations, but “his word” that nothing would be rescheduled until confirmed by all

parties.

Further, when Mr. Watt was confronted on March 19th, by Plaintiffs about leaving

important issues out of the supposed “confirmation letter” , he responded by letter

dated March 20, 2008, 2nd

2nd pg., 1st¶: “… for now the most important thing was to set the new dates for the deposition and the due date for Georgia Power’s response to your motion…”; “I did not deem it proper or necessary to put …”; 2nd¶: “… nor would I ever, agree … consult with you … would be improper given our adverse positions and Plaintiffs’ pro se status.”

“Plaintiffs have evidenced to the Court their two letters to Mr. Watt dated March

19th showing that Mr. Watt had omitted many items that should have been included in the

letter he presented to Plaintiffs for confirmation. In the letter, he told Plaintiffs that “he

deemed…” an act of fraud, showing moral turpitude. There was no agreement, no

memorialization!

Under Georgia law, “absent mutual agreement, there is no enforceable contract as between parties.” Mangum v. Mills, 108 Ga. App. 535 (133 SE2d 429) (1963);

“It is the duty of courts to construe and enforce contracts as made, not to make them for the parties. (Emphasis supplied)” Carr v. L. & N. R. Co., 141 Ga. 219, 222 (80 SE 716) (1914)” King Cotton v. Powers, 200 Ga. App. 549 (2), 550 (409 SE2d 67).

“To constitute a contract, the offer must be accepted unequivocally and without variance of any sort …” Anderson, Clayton & Co. v. Mangham, 32 Ga. App. 152, 156 (123 SE 159).”.

“An agreement to reach an agreement is a contradiction in terms and imposes no obligation on the parties thereto.” Kreimer v. Kreimer, 274 Ga. 359, 363(2) (552 SE2d 826) (2001), see also Poulos v. Home Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn., 192 Ga. App. 501, 502 (2) (385 SE2d 135) (1989).

Mr. Watt’s actions clearly shows maliciously evil motive, intent, and extortion.

Mr. Watt has acted with moral turpitude.

- 25 -

“Moral turpitude. 1. Conduct that is contrary to justice, honesty, or morality. ● In the area of legal ethics, offenses involving moral turpitude – such as fraud … make a person unfit to practice law. – Also termed moral depravity…”

“Moral turpitude means, in general, shameful wickedness – so extreme a departure from ordinary standards of honest, good morals, justice, or ethics as to be shocking to the moral sense of the community. It has also been defined as an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties which one person owes to another, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between people.” 50 Am. Jur. 2d Libel and Slander §165 at 454 (1995).”Black’s Law Dictionary, Seventh Ed. Page 1026.

Mr. Watt would have this Court believe that he looked into a crystal ball and

deemed that Plaintiffs in the future would refuse to be deposed.

The factual scenario: the depositions were listed in the February 19 th letter

because Mr. Watt had conspired with Georgia Power (Exhibit B shown in Watt’s first

Affidavit, the February 19th letter from Watt to GA Power) to have Plaintiffs’ case

dismissed for Plaintiffs failing to comply with Discovery. This is further supported due

to Mr. Watt’s having scheduled the depositions in March after agreeing not to; then Watt

rescheduled the depositions when told there was no agreement to reschedule; by doing so,

Mr. Watt was able to assure Georgia Power that he could make it appear Plaintiffs were

refusing to be deposed.

“Unless an agreement is reached as to all terms and conditions and nothing is left to future negotiations, a contract to enter into a contract in the future is of no effect.” Hartrampf v. Citizens & Southern Realty Investors, 157 Ga. App. 879, 881 (1) (278 SE2d 750) (1981)

The Supreme Court has held that the community will not give the Bar respect, that

society will loose faith in the judicial system unless attorneys behave responsibly, with

professionalism, integrity and with fairness, the community . See the following:

Green v. Green, 263 Ga. 551 (473 SE2d 457) VERSUSLAW (1993) “In drawing the distinction between professionalism and ethics, Chief Justice Clarke has often said that "ethics is that which is required and professionalism is that which is expected."

- 26 -

“On one hand, the practice of law is dependent to a great extent on lawyers having respect for each other, honoring their promises, cooperating with others, and according each other a high degree of civility.”

“On the other hand, lay persons sincerely believe that when a justiciable issue arises, if they so desire they will be accorded their "day in court." These expectations on the part of lawyers and lay persons are reasonable and are fully contemplated by our system of jurisprudence. Therefore, when these expectations are not fulfilled, there is understandable discontent with our system of Justice.”

“If the bar is to maintain the respect of the community, lawyers must be willing to act out of a spirit of cooperation and civility…”

Plaintiffs have been continually subjected to fraud, perjury, subornation or perjury,

obstruction of justice, obstruction of due process, and numerous other illegal activities by

Defendants and their counsel. Plaintiffs Demand this Court take action against these

Defendants and their counsel.

Defendants have continually attempted to prejudice this Honorable Court against

the Plaintiffs through frivolous motions, allegations and false representations to the Court

by the Defendants and their counsel.

The only way to put a cease to the behavior of Defendants and their counsel, to

provide relief to Plaintiffs, and serve Justice is to levy charges against Defendants and

their counsel.

Plaintiffs have clearly shown that desperation in the form of fraud, perjury, and

moral turpitude is the driving force behind Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or Alternative

Compel, and their Counsel’s Sworn on Oath Certification, and thereby must be stricken.




__________________________________________________________________

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

__________________________________________________________________

- 27 -

Plaintiffs have shown this Court that the allegations within their Verified

Complaint had merit, were truthful and the Plaintiffs have suffered, their property

illegally trespassed onto, their privacy invaded, their property criminally damaged,

and libeled by Georgia Power. Plaintiffs moves for Charges of Perjury, Fraud be

levied against Defendants, it is within this Court’s power and would be just and

fair.

Plaintiffs have further shown this Court that through moral turpitude,

perjury, fraud, malicious, motive and intent, along with malicious abuse of process

and manipulation of the Court system that Defendants and their counsel, continued

to damage Plaintiffs throughout the time this case has been in this Court system.

Plaintiffs DEMAND JUSTICE. Plaintiffs have proven their case,

Defendants have admitted guilt. There are no options left, Judgment must be made

in favor of the Plaintiffs on all Counts, Judgment be found Against Defendants,

Defendants Answers and Counterclaim, Amended Answers and Amended

Counterclaim must be DENIED AND DISMISSED in favor of Plaintiffs. They

relief sought by Plaintiffs must be GRANTED, while the relief sought by

Defendants must be DENIED.

[Signatures on the following page]

Respectfully submitted this 15th day of May, 2008

By: _____________________________JANET D. MCDONALD, Pro Se

- 28 -

821 Sheppard RdStone Mountain, GA 30083

(770) 879-8737

By: _____________________________JAMES B. STEGEMAN, Pro Se

821 Sheppard Rd.Stone Mountain, GA 30083

(770) 879-8737

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTYSTATE OF GEORGIA

JANET D. MCDONALD,JAMES B. STEGEMAN,

PLAINTIFFS

v

GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et., al., DEFENDANTS

CIVIL ACTION

FILE NO: 07CV11398-6

__________________________________________________________________

- 29 -

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby Certify that I have this 15th day of May, 2008 served upon Defendants

through their attorney on file Plaintiffs’ Responsive Objections to Defendant’s Motion to

Dismiss or Compel and their Counsel’s Certification of Compliance by causing a true and

correct copy to be deposited with U.S.P.S. First Class mail a true and correct copy with

proper postage affixed as follows:

Troutman Sanders, LLPC/o Brian P. Watt5200 Bank of America Plaza600 Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30308-2216

_____________________________JANET D. MCDONALD, Pro Se


(770) 879-8737

______________________________JAMES B. STEGEMAN, Pro Se


(770) 879-8737

- 30 -

plaintiffs' response to georgia power's motion to dismiss or compel

Documents

blacks law dictionary

georgia power company

superior court erred

dekalb county state

due process clause

plaintiffs responsive objections

plaintiff stegeman heard

plaintiffs demand judgment