THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY

STATE OF GEORGIA

JANET D. MCDONALD,
JAMES B. STEGEMAN,
PLAINTIFFS CIVIL ACTION
FILE NO: 07CV11398-6
V

GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et, al.

DEFENDANTS

PLAINTIFFS’ STATEMENTS FOR THE RECORD AND PLAINTIFFS

REQUEST FOR THE COURT TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE

COMES NOW, Janet D. McDonald and James B. Stegeman, Plaintiffs and files
Plaintiffs’ Statements For the Record and Requests The Court to Take Judicial Notice. 1
Plaintiffs’ bring to the Honorable Court’s attention facts relevant to the Record.
I. FACTS PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST THE COURT TO TAKE NOTICE
Plaintiffs first point out that March 28, 2008 Mr. Watt had hand delivered to the
Court a letter addressed: “The Honorable Cynthia J. Becker, DeKalb County Superior
Court, 556 North McDonough Street – Suite 5240, Decatur, GA 30030” With the
salutation: “Dear Judge Becker”. “Exhibit A” Not only is it highly inappropriate it is
in violation of Uniform Superior Court Rule 4.1.;

Rule 4.1. Prohibition on ex parte communications.

Except as authorized by law or by rule, judges shall neither initiate
nor consider ex parte communications by interested parties or their
attorneys concerning a pending proceeding.

1
Plaintiffs bring to this Honorable Court’s Attention through “Notice to the Court” instances
which cause concern and may be viewed as questionable, and/or inappropriate, and/or unethical,
and/or violative of Uniform Superior Court Rules, and/or Georgia Code and/or State of Georgia
Bar Rules and/or other Rules and/or other Regulations.
and Georgia Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3, prohibits ex parte communications
"concerning a pending or impending proceeding."
“judges must scrupulously avoid ex parte communications whether
or not they consider them. Judges should avoid the appearance of
impropriety when they carry out their duties. Taylor v. Public
Convalescent Svc., 245 Ga. 805, 806 (267 SE2d 242) (1980).
See also:
Ivey v. IveyS94A0264. (264 Ga. 435) (445 SE2d 258)
LAWSKI.LLS (1994)
“The Code of Judicial Conduct and the Uniform Superior Court
Rules could not be more plain in the condemnation of ex parte
communications by judges. "Judges shall not initiate or consider ex
parte communications, or consider other communications made to
them outside the presence of the parties concerning a pending or
impending proceeding," Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3 (B)
(7), … defined in the canon. Id. at (a-e). See, to the same effect,
Uniform Superior Court Rule 4.1 ("[e]xcept as authorized by law
or by rule, judges shall neither initiate nor consider ex parte
communications by interested parties or their attorneys concerning
a pending or impending proceeding").”

At this point, Plaintiffs must question this action and the impartiality of the Judge.
Further, Plaintiffs have been treated with disparity and subjected to injustices by
opposing legal counsel and the Clerks of this Court, which again leads to the question of
whether or not the impartiality of the Judge, the Court, and Plaintiffs Rights to equality
and due process of law should be questioned.

Plaintiffs show this Honorable Court the following facts:

A. Plaintiff Stegeman’s Disabilities 2
Plaintiffs’ Verified Complaint stated the following concerning Plaintiff Stegeman’s
disabilities:
• 1st page ¶2: “Plaintiff Stegeman is 100% Federally disabled and
receives Supplemental Security Income of 623.00 monthly.3

2
Plaintiff Stegeman’s disabilities and illnesses are attached hereto as “Exhibit 1”

3
Plaintiff Stegeman’s SSI has had the yearly increase to $634.00 monthly at present.

-2-
 • page 17, ¶127: “Further, Plaintiff Stegeman is a Federally disabled
individual, a member of a protected class.”
• page 17, ¶128: “Plaintiffs informed “Georgia Power” as well as the
State Troopers that he is a disabled individual.”

1. The Defendants not once inquired into Plaintiff Stegeman’s disabilities, what
he suffers from, the extent of, his limitations, etc. even though the first page, ¶2
of Plaintiffs’ Verified Complaint clearly states that Plaintiff Stegeman is
disabled.
2. Plaintiffs informed Defendant’s legal counsel of Plaintiff Stegeman’s health
related issues in the first conversation about scheduling depositions.
3. Plaintiff Stegeman is 100% Federally disabled, a Level III patient,4 sees a
doctor every thirty (30) days; receives Supplemental Security Income; a
Medicaid recipient; he neither owns, nor drives a car;5 experiences high levels
of discomfort from sitting in a small car, and/or sitting for long periods of time
without being able to get up and move around or lie down; has a hard time
riding in any car for long periods of time; when extended walking is involved
uses a wheelchair - which he owns; has been permanently excused from Jury
Duty; is also computer illiterate 6.

B. Plaintiffs’ Pro Se Status

1. Plaintiffs are acting on their own behalf, not out of desire, but out of necessity, to
protect their Rights to Property and Privacy as guaranteed by The State of Georgia and
United States Constitutions. Unable to afford legal counsel, having been turned down by

4
Level III patient = sees a Doctor every thirty (30) days
5
Due to medications, Plaintiff Stegeman gave up driving a car several years ago for the safety of
himself as well as the safety of others.
6
Plaintiff Stegeman has the ability to repair computers, he keeps Plaintiff McDonald’s computer
running, but he personally has no use for or desire to use a computer, he cannot and does not use
McDonald’s computer.

-3-
legal aid and Pro Bono attorneys, coupled with the fact that attorneys refuse to perform
on a full contingency basis, Plaintiffs had no alternative. The violations to Plaintiffs,
their Rights, property and privacy must stop. In order to continue the violations, Georgia
Power resorted to libelous claims to Police Officers and Troopers that Plaintiffs are going
“to kill” Georgia Power personnel.

2. Contrary to remarks made by Defendant’s legal counsel that Plaintiffs expect

“preferential treatment”, Plaintiffs have only asked to be treated fairly and equally by
opposing counsel, this Court, and the Clerks of this Court. Plaintiffs show the following
in support of Pro Se litigants:
"Picking v. Pennsylvania Railway, (151 F2d. 240 Third Circuit
Court of Appeals . In Picking, the plaintiffs civil rights was 150
pages and described by a federal judge as "inept." Nevertheless, it
was held : "where a Plaintiff pleads pro-se in a suit for protection of
civil rights, the court should endeavor to construe plaintiffs
pleading without regard to technicalities."
In Walter Process Equipment v . Food Machine 382 U.S . 172
(1965) it was held that in a "motion to dismiss, the material
allegations of the complaint are taken as admitted." "From this
vantage point, courts are reluctant to dismiss complaints unless it
appears the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his
claim which would entitle him to relief' (See Conley vs. Gibson,
355 U .S. (1957);
In Puckett v. Cox, it was held that a pro-se complaint requires less
stringent reading than one drafted by a lawyer (456 F2d. 233)
(1972 Sixth Circuit U.S .C .A.) said Justice Black in Conley v .
Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 at 48 1957 "The Federal Rules rejects the
approach that pleading is a game of skill in which one misstep by
counsel may be decisive to the outcome and accept the principle
that the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision the
merits ."
According to rule 8(f) FRCP "all pleadings shall be construed to do
substantial justice." The Court also cited Rule 8(f) FRCP, which
holds that "all pleadings shall be construed to do substantial
justice."

"It could also be argued that to dismiss a Civil Rights action or

other lawsuit in which a serious factual pattern or allegation of a

-4-
 cause of action has been made would itself be violative of
procedural due process as it would deprive a pro se litigant of equal
protection of the law visa vis a party who is represented by counsel
. In a fair system, victory should go to a party who has the better
case, not better representation."7

C. Plaintiffs’ Marital Status

1. Plaintiffs request that the Court take notice of the fact of and expressly told to
Defendant’s legal counsel in telephone conversation that Plaintiffs are neither legally, nor
common law married to each other or anyone else; co-own property together where they
both live. Plaintiff McDonald is caregiver of Plaintiff Stegeman, does all the driving,
computer use, etc.
2. Neither Plaintiff can represent or speak for the other; Plaintiffs are willing to
accept Service of only one of each document filed, and will file and serve upon
Defendants only one copy of each filing with both Plaintiffs signing each filing; for the
sole purpose of ecological and economical conservation, but there is no excuse for Mr.
Watt to ignore that there are two separate Plaintiffs to an action. Plaintiffs legally cannot
and would not represent for the other, see:

Dyer v. Dyer v. Spectrum Engineering, Inc., 245 Ga. App. 30, 245
Ga. App. 30, 537 S.E.2d 175, 537 S.E.2d 175 VERSUSLAW (Ga.
App. 07/11/2000):
[15]: “Her husband Steven filed a pro se response…, but as a non-
attorney he could not represent Mary in this action.” *fn10
[31] “*fn10 See Gamble v. Diamond "D" Auto Sales, 221 Ga.
App. 688, 689 (3) (472 SE2d 446) (1996); see generally OCGA §
15-19-51 (a) (1).”

3. Mr. Watt has never requested that both Plaintiffs be present when negotiations are
discussed, or any other matter.8 Plaintiffs had discovered that opposing counsel had a
habit of confirming only portions of agreed upon matters, misleading the Plaintiffs and
7
U.S. Law Books : Pro Se Federal Decisions
8
Plaintiff Stegeman was listening to every call when McDonald was conversing and McDonald
was listening when Stegeman was conversing, Mr. Watt, had never been advised of the fact, and
never acknowledged the other party.

-5-
making statements of flattery for which Plaintiffs had become suspicious of the motive.
4. Opposing counsel, has stated in several documents that he talked with McDonald,
rarely mentions anything about Mr. Stegeman. One of the only documents opposing
counsel indicates anything about Stegeman was when he stated that “… was in the
background hollering”. The facts clearly show that Mr. Watt had been advised of Mr.
Stegeman’s health conditions, that Stegeman talks loudly normally.
5. By late February, Mr. Watt had been advised about Plaintiffs’ transportation
difficulties. Plaintiff McDonald’s car was barely running; using a gallon of water to
travel one to two miles, the passenger window does not roll up, etc. In paragraph 4
referenced phone conversation with Mr. Watt. McDonald was driving the car which was
overheating, attempting to get the car safely home while talking on a cell phone with Mr.
Watt. 9 who continually attempted to bait Plaintiff McDonald into an argument. Plaintiff
Stegeman was passenger in the car, attempting to get McDonald not to continue the
debate due to safety issues and the problems with the car and needing to get the car home.
There was no conversation about rescheduling depositions.

D. Experiences With The Court / Clerks

Plaintiffs have experienced several problems that should be brought to this Court’s
attention. Should Plaintiffs ignore situations, they get worse; further upon Appeal, if
Plaintiffs have failed to address the issues, the right to do so has been waived. Plaintiffs
waive no rights concerning their civil actions and or their Appeals.
1. Plaintiffs phoned Judge Becker’s calendar clerk December 5, 2007, when they had
been served with no responsive pleadings by Defendants, the On-Line Judicial system
showed nothing filed by Defendants. Inquiry was made about Defendant’s responsive
pleadings, Plaintiffs were told nothing had yet been filed. Plaintiffs received the Verified
9
Plaintiffs had spoken with this Honorable Court’s law Clerk Mr. Hash shortly before McDonald
called Mr. Watt to confirm there was no deposition for April 3 rd, the second notice that there
would be no deposition; the first being March 19th. Plaintiffs had filed Motion To Stay All
Processes.

-6-
Answer December 6, 2007. Letter to Plaintiffs “that was filed with the Court today”,
when Answers showed up on-line, the date showed December 3, 2007.
2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Verified Answers,10 addressed to:
“Calendar Clerk for the Honorable Judge Becker”, delivered to the Court March 8, 2008,
delivery confirmed by USPS, held by the Clerk unfiled. March 12, 2008, hand-stamped
“Filed” by Linda Carter.
3. Plaintiffs sent with Motion to Strike, their copy and postage prepaid envelope to
mail back to them after being stamped “Filed”, Plaintiffs received empty envelope.
11
4. Motion to Stay and Rule Nisi March 20, 2008 hand delivered by Plaintiffs who
attempted to have Rule Nisi hearing date set by Honorable Judge Becker’s calendar clerk.
Floor receptionist called Clerk, clerk refused to appear, Plaintiffs who were told to leave
Rule Nisi, it would be mailed back to them in a couple of days.
12
5. March 31, 2008 opposing counsel Mr. Watt, left a voice mail for Plaintiffs who
didn’t discover the message until the following day. Something about Judge Becker’s
Clerk asked him to call about a telephone conference/hearing to be held April 1, 2008 at
9:00 a.m. for a discovery dispute. Plaintiffs were not noticed that there was a discovery
dispute, there had been no attempt to conduct a discovery conference 13 with Plaintiffs
who knew nothing about it.
6. Plaintiffs have called the calendar clerk more than once, left message to call them
back, the Clerk has never returned a call to Plaintiffs on any matter.
7. April 1, 2008 no call came to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs tried contacting the calendar
Clerk for information about the hearing, clerk apparently unavailable, left voice mail
10
March 4th and 5th Plaintiffs sent FAX to Mr. Watt suggesting to call them about Motion To
Strike which Plaintiffs held before mailing late in the day on March 7, 2008, the invitation to
confer was ignored. “Exhibit 2”
11
Requested their copy of Motion to Strike, noticed it was hand-stamped

Mr. Watt knew full well that Plaintiff Stegeman’s deadline for filing Appeal Brief to U.S. 11 th
12

Circuit Court of Appeals was due the 31st and Plaintiffs would be unavailable all that day.

Mr. Watt’s Certification of Compliance is without merit which Plaintiffs will address in their
13

Response to Defendant’s Motion to Compel to be filed the same date as the current filing.

-7-
8. April 2, 2008 Plaintiffs received a call from Mr. Hash, Judge Becker’s law clerk.
He claimed he had no information about a phone “hearing” and apparently did not
understand why he called Plaintiffs, who told Mr. Hash they had left a message for
calendar clerk. Plaintiffs also discussed the Rule Nisi that was never mailed to them, Mr.
Hash found it in the file, stapled to the back of Motion to Strike.14
9. Plaintiffs have found that everything filed for Defendants is filed the same day it is
signed and mailed by them. All filings by Plaintiffs are held, unfiled until a later date
unless hand-delivered.

E. Mr. Watt’s Prejudice/Bias Toward Pro Se and or Disabled Persons

1. Plaintiffs’ first telephone conversation with opposing legal counsel Mr. Watt, he
told them that he “plan to treat you with the same respect that I would another attorney”.
Plaintiffs truly do not believe that Mr. Watt treats other attorneys the way he has treated
Plaintiffs, i.e.: refusing to honor agreements – especially verbal agreements; making
false statements; giving flattery in order to gain trust – so that he can do as he pleases and
Plaintiffs will not be prepared for counsel’s antics; twisting telephone conversations so
that the confirmation letters omit most of the agreements to be agreed upon confirmation,
etc.
2. The Supreme Court of Georgia has held that legal counsel should perform with
integrity, fairness, and professionalism even with Pro Se litigants in order to have the
Public as a whole continue to believe in our Judicial System and that the Public’s Rights
are protected from unscrupulous attorneys.

See Green v. Green, (S.E.2d 457), (263 Ga. 437) 5511993.

GA.2404 <http://www.versuslaw.com>, (1993):

14
The Rule Nisi was brought with Plaintiffs Motion to Stay, they were seeking either an
expedited hearing or Protective Order so that the action would be stayed until an Order had been
given concerning Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike and Plaintiffs would be protected from Defendants
legal counsels misplaced attempts to have this case dismissed for the fictitious claims of refusing
to comply with discovery requests that opposing legal counsel continually alleges.

-8-
“[10]: Benham, Justice. All the Justices concur, except
Sears-Collins, J., who concurs specially, and Fletcher, J., who
concurs in the judgment only.”
“[16]: 2. In addition to the purely legal question …, the role
appellee's counsel played in procuring the judgment must be
examined.”
“[17]: In recent years, on the federal and state level, courts
throughout this country have sought to encourage professionalism
among lawyers … years ago this court established the Chief
Justice's Commission on Professionalism … to maintain …and
establish…, a sense of civility and courtesy among lawyers. …
between professionalism and ethics, Chief Justice Clarke has often
said that "ethics is that which is required and professionalism is
that which is expected."”
“[18] On one hand, the practice of law is dependent … 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 justicable issue arises, … 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 and not
wholly out of a sense of blind and unbridled advocacy.”
“[20] … That spirit of cooperation and civility, with the notions of
fundamental fairness that lie at the heart of the principle of due
process of law, requires that attorneys, as officers of the court,
make a good faith effort to ensure that all parties *fn3 to a
controversy have a full and fair opportunity to be heard. *fn4 …”
“[21] Given all the circumstances of this case, and
especially the lengths to which appellee's counsel went to ensure
that this case was tried in the absence of appellant, we hold that the
proper exercise of the trial court's discretion established in
Spyropoulos, supra, required that the judgment be set aside. The
trial court's denial of appellant's motion to set aside was, therefore,
an abuse of that discretion.”
“[40] … "due process" is "'flexible and calls for such
procedural protections as the particular situation demands,'"
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334 (96 S. Ct. 893, 47 L. Ed.
2d 18) (1976), and due regard must be given to the particularities
and practicalities of each case and to the effect the different types

-9-
 of notice may have on state interests, see Mullane, 339 U.S. at
314-315; Tulsa Professional Collection Svcs. v. Pope, 485 U.S.
478, 489 (108 S. Ct. 1340, 99 L. Ed. 2d 565) (1988).

3. On several occasions, the first time being in February, Plaintiffs approached

Defendant’s legal counsel, Mr. Watt on having a Discovery Conference; a conference on
the scope of discovery to be obtained at depositions; Discovery Planning Conference.
Mr. Watt has outright refused. Mr. Watt claimed that it would be unethical considering
Plaintiffs’ Pro Se status.
4. Defendant’s legal counsel filed Affidavit of Brian P. Watt, Second Affidavit of
Brian P. Watt, Motion For Continuance, and Motions to Compel de dolo malo.15

CONCLUSION
Defendant’s legal counsel, with knowledge of Uniform Superior Court Rules,
State of Georgia Bar Rules, and Judicial Canons had hand delivered a letter directly to the
Judge of this Honorable Court. Not to the Clerk as would be permissible, but directly to
the Judge.
Defendant’s legal counsel, understanding, and not caring that it may be viewed as
inappropriate, has communicated with the Calendar Clerk and Law Clerk on issues that
have been withheld from Plaintiffs. Further, without holding the mandatory 6.4
Conference with Plaintiffs, Mr. Watt calls Plaintiffs March 31, 2008 (on a day in which
he factually knew that Plaintiffs would be unavailable by telephone) to arrange a
telephone hearing or conference with the Court on a Motion To Compel filed without
Plaintiffs knowledge of a discovery dispute. The message left by Mr. Watt for Plaintiffs
was that “the clerk wanted me to call”; the hearing was to be at 9:00 a.m. the following
morning.
Defendant’s legal counsel has continually lied to Plaintiffs; made requests without
giving a date and or time in which they were to reply; set schedules with full knowledge

“de dolo malo (dee doh-loh mal-oh). [Latin] Of or based on fraud.” Black’s Law Dictionary,
15

Seventh Edition, page 422.

- 10 -
that Plaintiffs would not be able to comply; reset schedules without agreement to do so
with the intent of extorting an extension in which to reply to Plaintiffs’ Motions; made
false representation to the Court that he had no idea of Plaintiffs’ transportation
difficulties; has failed to acknowledge that Plaintiff Stegeman is disabled with mobility
issues, all because Defendants don’t want to address the fact they filed a fraudulent
document to prove they had an easement agreement concerning Plaintiffs’ property.
Plaintiffs’ Civil and Constitutional Rights of Due Process of Law, Equality, and to
be treated with Impartiality have been compromised at the hand of Defendant’s legal
counsel due to a desperate attempt to have this case dismissed.
Plaintiffs, through no fault of their own, are forced into hand delivering everything
they plan to file from now on. They cannot trust that what is mailed to the Clerk will
filed and or their “Plaintiffs” copy, which is their only proof that they in fact filed
something, will be mailed back to them. Plaintiffs also cannot have courier delivered
anything to be filed without having the courier stay while Plaintiffs copy is stamped
“Filed” then bring Plaintiffs their copy, which also costs quite a bit more to have done
making the action unaffordable.
This Court should not and must not condone such behavior. Plaintiffs question
whether or not they will continue to be treated with injustice, discrimination and partiality
by the Defendant’s legal counsel, the Clerks of this Court and what stance the Judge will
take on the matter. By filing this Notice and stating the problems to the Court, Plaintiffs
have preserved the issues in case and until such time Plaintiffs must Appeal Judgments of
this Honorable Court.

PRAYER

- 11 -
 Plaintiffs Pray that this Honorable Court will take Notice of what has been
presented to the Court and if the Honorable Judge cannot decide issues set before her
with impartiality and fairness that the Honorable Judge will disqualify herself.

Plaintiffs Pray that the Court puts and end to Plaintiffs being discriminated against
and or treated “differently” than Defendant’s legal counsel.

Plaintiffs pray that this Honorable Court find that Defendant’s legal counsel has
behaved inappropriately and find him in contempt and or sanction him by striking
Defendants’ Verified Answers and Dismissing the Counterclaim against Plaintiffs and
whatever other sanctions that this Honorable Judge finds just and suitable for his actions.

Respectfully Submitted, this 28th day of April, 2008

By: _______________________________
JANET D. MCDONALD, Pro Se
821 Sheppard Rd
Stone Mountain, GA 30083
(770) 879-8737

By: ______________________________
JAMES B. STEGEMAN, Pro Se
821 Sheppard Rd
Stone Mountain, GA 30083
(770) 879-8737

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY

- 12 -
 STATE OF GEORGIA

JANET D. MCDONALD,
JAMES B. STEGEMAN,
PLAINTIFFS CIVIL ACTION
FILE NO: 07CV11398-6
V

GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et, al.

DEFENDANTS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that I have this 28th day of April, 2008 served a true and correct
copy of the within and foregoing Plaintiffs’ Statements For The Record And Plaintiffs
Request For The Court To Take Judicial Notice upon defendants through their attorney on
file by deposition in the United States Mail, adequate postage affixed thereto, as follows:
Troutman Sanders, LLP
C/o Brian P. Watt
5200 Bank of America Plaza
600 Peachtree Street
Atlanta, GA 30308-2216
By: ____________________________
JANET D. MCDONALD, Pro Se
821 Sheppard Rd
Stone Mountain, GA 30083
(770) 879-8737

By: _____________________________
JAMES B. STEGEMAN, Pro Se
821 Sheppard Rd
Stone Mountain, GA 30083
(770) 879-8737

- 13 -