IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY

STATE OF GEORGIA

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

GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et., al.,

DEFENDANTS

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
1
Counsel’s 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
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 7th, 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.. 295
9
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 Rd
12
Plaintiffs’ address is Sheppard Rd
13
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 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.
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 grant their

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-
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!
* 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
discovery, hoping To have this case dismissed.18
18
Feb 19th letter from Watt to Georgia Power (Exhibit B Affidavit of Brain P Watt), see “Exhibit A”,
pages 1-11.

- 11 -
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
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
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, 2008
21 st
1 ¶ Mr. Watt’s April 15th Certification
22
It appears that Mr. Watt is trying to use the same Feb. 19th letter as a fictional claim that Plaintiffs were
refusing to be deposed, Plaintiffs see no other reason Watt refers to the letter

- 12 -
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
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

- 13 -
 “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 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.

PLAINTIFFS DIRECT RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT’S ALLEGATIONS

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

Feb 19, Defendants and Watt ¶2: both claim that February 19 th “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
23
Defendant’s Motion is referenced by the date and Mr. Watt’s Certification is referenced by ¶

- 14 -
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.
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.

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

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

- 15 -
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;
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

26
quid pro quo (kwid proh kwho), n. Latin “something for something”] Black’s Law Dictionary,
Seventh Edition, pg. 1261
27
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
anywhere for very long without being able to walk or lie down and becomes ill from pain if sitting
cramped
28
“…deposition is limited to one day of seven hours…” not “day to day” as shown in the Notice

- 16 -
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!
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
29
It had been agreed that until the letter was confirmed by all parties, nothing would be
rescheduled within the Court

- 17 -
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,
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)

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 -
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.
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.

- 19 -
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
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
33
Plaintiffs never advised email replaces FAX or letter, previously advised Mr. Watt that Plaintiffs don’t
read email everyday.

- 20 -
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 3 rd then “recalled” the message,
he also failed to attach all the emails accompanying the letters, see “Exhibit 4”

¶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

- 21 -
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
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 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.
_______________________________________________________________________

* NOTE: A good example of why Plaintiffs sent FAX to Mr. Watt April 3 rd telling him that there
34

would be no more phone conversations with him unless they can “tape” the conversation, “Exhibit 5”

- 22 -
 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
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

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.
36
Preposterous Outside the reach of reason. Incapable of being called reasonable. “Jurisdictionary”

- 23 -
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
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 …”;

- 24 -
 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.

“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.

- 25 -
 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."
“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…”

- 26 -
 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.
* 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.
__________________________________________________________________

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

__________________________________________________________________

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

- 27 -
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
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

- 28 -
 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY
STATE OF GEORGIA

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

GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et., al.,

DEFENDANTS
__________________________________________________________________

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, LLP

C/o Brian P. Watt
5200 Bank of America Plaza

- 29 -
600 Peachtree Street
Atlanta, GA 30308-2216
_____________________________
JANET D. MCDONALD, Pro Se
821 Sheppard Rd
Stone Mountain, GA 30083
(770) 879-8737

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

- 30 -