COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA JAMES B. STEGEMAN, * JANET D. MCDONALD * Appellants * * * APPEAL CASE NO. A07A1846 vs. * * WACHOVIA BANK, N.A., et., al * WACHOVIA SECURITIES, et., al. * Appellees. * MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION Comes Now, Appellants in the above Appeal, and pursuant to Rule 37 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia, timely file their Motion For Reconsideration within ten days of the December 7, 2007 affirmation of Superior Court’s Judgment.
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA APPEAL CASE NO. A07A1846 JAMES B. STEGEMAN, JANET D. MCDONALD Appellants * vs. WACHOVIA BANK, N.A., et., al WACHOVIA SECURITIES, et., al. Appellees. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
COURT OF APPEALS OF GEORGIA
JAMES B. STEGEMAN, *JANET D. MCDONALD *
Appellants * *
* APPEAL CASE NO. A07A1846vs. *
*WACHOVIA BANK, N.A., et., al *WACHOVIA SECURITIES, et., al. *
Appellees. *
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Comes Now, Appellants in the above Appeal, and pursuant to Rule 37 of the
Rules of the Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia, timely file their Motion For
Reconsideration within ten days of the December 7, 2007 affirmation of Superior
Court’s Judgment.
Appellants would like the Court to take Notice that the paperwork they
received was not signed by any of the three judges listed as having reviewed their
Appeal and Appellants find it unusual that an Order is not signed.
Appellants show in the following the basis for Granting their Motion For
Reconsideration.
Rule 37.(e) Basis for Granting.
A reconsideration will be granted on motion of the
requesting party, only when it appears that the Court
overlooked a material fact in the record, a statute or a
decision which is controlling as authority and which
would require a different judgment from that rendered, or
has erroneously construed or misapplied a provision of
law or a controlling authority.
Plaintiff-Appellant’s case was dismissed as retaliation against Plaintiff
Stegeman for naming Superior Court Stone Mountain Judicial Circuit as a
Defendant in United States District Court.
One would believe this Honorable Court suggests that Judge Hunter and
Superior Court did not violate Rules of the State and Federal Courts as well as
State and Federal statutes involving the dismissed litigation, this Honorable Court
in essence is suggesting that the Civil action in fact was never pending Removal to
Federal Court; Wachovia was in fact in default and had failed to file a responsive
pleading in seventy plus days.
- 2 -
Further, Plaintiff-Appellants listed several causes of action for which relief
could and should have been granted. Judge Hunter failed to address several causes
of action in her Order and the ones addressed were improperly addressed.
Causes of Action In Plaintiff-Appellant’s Pleading that were not addressed by
either Wachovia or Superior Court:
Violation of Privacy; Conspiracy to Defraud; Securities Fraud; Theft By
Deception; Malfeasance; Co-conspiracy in Malicious Persecution; Co-conspiracy
in Vexatious Litigation; Malicious Slander; Malicious Defamation of Character;
Damages and Other Relief.
Causes of Action Improperly Addressed By Superior Court’s Order:
Judge Hunter’s Order signed April 12, 2007, pg. 2, ¶B states “Because the criminal
statutes referenced in Paragraphs … do not provide for private causes of action,
Plaintiffs have no cause of action for any alleged violation.”
Plaintiff-Appellants will address these as Judge Hunter has listed them, under
Criminal statutes and Plaintiff’s paragraphs:
¶6, ¶8: Doesn’t in itself provide for a cause of action, but Wachovia’s part resulted
in a tort which is recoverable and Wachovia had a fiduciary duty.
¶9-10, and ¶13-14: Shows fraud with particularity and shows that Plaintiff-
- 3 -
Appellants have the bank records reflecting these activities. Further, Wachovia
never denied the activities.
¶15: Shows breach of contract
¶17: Shows that because of Wachovia’s part, they were part of a conspiracy to
defraud Plaintiff-Appellants, they breached their fiduciary duty, and neglected their
duty to have law enforcement officials look into the situation. Their acts resulted
in damage to Plaintiff-Appellants and their property, a recoverable cause of action.
PLEASE NOTE: Judge Hunter’s Order doesn’t properly address causes of action
which would show that Plaintiff-Appellants had in fact plead fraud with
particularity as required to successfully plead for the cause of action in the
following:
¶11: which shows fraud and how the fraud was committed (particularity);
¶12: shows that Plaintiff-Appellants were “Business Victims” which again shows
the particularity needed to plead fraud
¶25: shows fraud and how the fraud was committed (particularity)
PLEASE NOTE: Judge Hunter’s Order does not address the following
paragraphs which would show not only fraud particularity, but intentional
infliction of emotional distress and which could have been proven with Plaintiff-
- 4 -
Appellant’s documents:
¶19: malicious slander and malicious defamation of character. In fact Plaintiff-
Appellants should have listed the cause as libel per se, which they have the
paperwork to prove.
¶21: shows intentional infliction of emotional distress
¶25: shows intentional infliction of emotional distress
¶27: shows intentional infliction of emotional distress
Judge Hunter’s Order signed April 12, 2007, pg. 2, ¶B states “Because the criminal
statutes referenced in Paragraphs … do not provide for private causes of action,
Plaintiffs have no cause of action for any alleged violation.”
Plaintiff-Appellants will address these as Judge Hunter has listed them, under
regulatory statutes and Plaintiff’s paragraphs:
¶7: shows fraud plead with particularity
¶15: shows fraud plead with particularity; shows intentional infliction of
emotional distress; shows a relationship with John Joyner
¶16: invasion of Plaintiff-Appellant’s privacy
¶17: conspiracy to commit fraud; intentional infliction of emotional distress
¶18: violation of oath of office shows fraud with particularity
- 5 -
¶20: conspiracy to defraud, plead with particularity
¶21: intentional infliction of emotional distress
Mr. William J. Holley, II, known as one of Georgia’s “Super-Lawyers”1 has
full knowledge of the Georgia Court System. One cannot believe that with Mr.
Holley’s obvious credentials he erred when filing to the wrong judge, and would
have violated Rules, statutes, procedure, etc. and go into default unless he knew
that Judge Hunter would allow him to get away with it. An attorney in his position
and reputation would not take such a risk. Plaintiff’s Motion To Dismiss and
Strike From Record Wachovia’s Untimely Answer, Filed April 20, 2006, page 4,
first ¶.
Plaintiff-Appellants have shown and the record reflects that no doubt exists
that many Uniform Superior Court Rules, Rules of Civil Procedure in both State
and Federal Courts as well as statutes of State and Federal have been violated not
only by Wachovia,2 but Superior Court and Judge Hunter as well. Plaintiff-
1 “Selected as one of Georgia’s “Super-Lawyers” by Law & Politics Media and
Atlanta Magazine, March 2004, March 2005, and March 2006”. Taken from:
http://www.phrd.com/attorneys/attybio.asp?id=27 .
2 Wachovia’s legal counsel is known to be one of “Georgia’s Super-Lawyers”
- 6 -
Appellants have shown that their State and Federal Constitutional Rights of due
process have been violated. Appellant’s Brief filed June 11, 2007, pgs. 12-29.
Further, Plaintiff-Appellant Stegeman’s State and Federal Civil Rights have
been violated by Superior Court and Wachovia under Color of Law, which is a
Federal crime without immunity. See the following:
TITLE 18, U.S .C. §242: Deprivation of Rights Under
Color of Law. "This statute makes it a crime for any
person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance,
regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be
deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or
immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and
laws of the U.S.”
“Acts under "color of any law" include acts not only
done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds
or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done
without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority;
…” “This definition includes, in addition to law
enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors,
- 7 -
Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors,
Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws,
statutes ordinances, or customs.”
“U.S. law enforcement officers and other officials like
judges, prosecutors, and security guards have been given
tremendous power by local, state, and federal
government agencies—authority they must have to
enforce the law and ensure justice in our country. These
powers include the authority to … seize property, to
bring criminal charges, to make rulings in court, and to
use deadly force in certain situations. Preventing abuse of
this authority, however, is equally necessary to the health
of our nation’s democracy. That’s why it’s a federal
crime for anyone acting under “color of law” willfully to
deprive or conspire to deprive a person of a right
protected by the Constitution or U.S. law. “Color of law”
simply means that the person is using authority given to
him or her by a local, state, or federal government
- 8 -
agency.”
"Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to
one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such
acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a
dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or
imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or
if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap . .
or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or
imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or
may be sentenced to death."3
Title 18, U.S.C., § 241. Conspiracy Against Rights
“This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons
to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any
person of any state, territory or district in the free
exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to
him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United
States, (or because of his/her having exercised the