Professional Documents
Culture Documents
STATE OF GEORGIA
JAMES B. STEGEMAN,
APPELLANT APPEAL NO.: A10A0420
vs.
HERITAGE BANK,
APPELLEE
Pursuant to Rule 37, Appellant timely1 files Motion for Reconsideration, and
shows that the Court overlooked many material facts in the record, as well as
controlling authority which would require a different judgment from that rendered.
Appellant further shows that the Court has erroneously construed or misapplied
the Court overlooked a material fact in the record, a statute or a decision which is
1
Rule 37(b)
controlling…would require a different judgment .., erroneously construed or
Nowhere in the Ruling, does this Court state that Heritage Bank failed to
respond to, dispute or rebut the Verified Answers and Counterclaim, motions in the
trial court; and failed to file a Brief in this Court. Further, this Court has failed to
treat Appellant the same as they have treated others in the same, or in similar
circumstances. This court has not acted with neutrality or impartiality as required
of an Appellate Court; this Court has in fact, acted on behalf of the Appellee and
done the work of Appellee’s counsel; the results of this Court’s and it’s clerk’s
Moves this Court to reconsider it’s Ruling. Having been exposed to the corruption,
unfair and unethical treatment bestowed upon many litigants, especially pro se
and/or disabled litigants, Appellant has lost faith in Justice and the Judicial system.
I. UNDISPUTED FACT
protected under O.C.G.A. §30-5-1 through 30-5-10 The Disabled and Elder
2
Persons Protection Act. 2 Appellant has never been indicted, charged, arrested or
convicted of a crime. The disabled in this county are among the most
2. Appellant has been denied the fundamental of due process, the Right to
be heard. The trial court ignored Appellant’s Verified Answer and Counterclaim,
2
30-5-3. As used in this chapter, the term: (1) 'Abuse' …willful infliction of
adult …or that persons resources for another’s profit or advantage. (10) 'Neglect'
3
U.S.C.42 §12101(b) disabled persons: “relegated to a position of political
Appellant failed to show his claims “by the record” [pgs.4-6]. Not true, the record
5. This Court complained that the Appellant failed his duty to “include in
the appellate record the items necessary for the appellate court to objectively
review the evidence and proceedings giving rise to the judgment” [pg.4].
Appellant asked nothing be omitted from the record, which the clerk, not the
Appellant, is responsible for and she certified the record complete. [pg.3].
7. The August rescheduled hearing, and the September 10, 2009 hearing, were
both held in Magistrate Court, presided over by the Magistrate Judge LeShaw.
4
Uniform State Court Rules: Rule 6. Motions In Civil Actions 6.2Reply
…, each party opposing a motion shall…file a response, reply… not later than 30
days after service … or on the date of the hearing …whichever occurs sooner.
4
The DeKalb County State Court Judges are: Div.1: Judge Wong; Div.2 Judge
DelCampo; Div 3: Judge Purdom; Div4 Judge Panos; Div5: Judge Mobley;
Div 6 Judge Carriere, Jr.; Div7 Judge Gordon; no State Court Judge LeShaw.
authorize a transfer [pg.7 ¶2]. Judge LeShaw ( Magistrate Judge), held a hearing
1st Floor, Courtroom 1200C (Magistrate Courtroom), Appellant was not listed
on the State Court calendar5 ( was listed on the Magistrate Court calendar) and
the hearing was for Writ of Possession, the proceedings and pretrial were
ten year old date: 19___, (we are in 2010). The Writ had no written order with it,
no findings of fact and conclusions of law; This Court implies that because there is
nothing in the record showing the transfer that Appellant lied [pg.5@2]; The trial
court obviously knows this Court would do NOTHING about the transfer to
Magistrate Court. This Court is too concerned with protecting the guilty and their
criminal acts, to take steps to correct and halt the trial court’s criminal behavior.
5
Appellant May 11, 2010 was able to obtain the State Court, September 10 th Court
Calendar for State Court Div 3, Appellant is not on calendar, which Appellant has
the hearing, Appellant in wheelchair; had to be taken directly to the Judge’s bench,
the Courtroom is not handicapped friendly, the microphones do not reach down far
enough for persons in a wheelchair. Even if there had been a court reporter, the
Judge gave Appellant no more than five minutes, and the court reporter would not
have been able to hear what was said. Writ was already filled out prior to hearing.
This Court references [Order pgs.1,2,5] Appellant’s Demand for Jury Trial, and
states that Appellant’s claims of error are “either unsupported by the record or
without merit”. Appellant, through caselaw, proved that the case should have been
reversed and Remanded. The trial court docket clearly shows a Non-Jury hearing.
Further, the record is devoid of a necessary pre-trial Order (Rule 7.2), and fails
to show which courtroom. This Court stated there is nothing in the record to show
whether or not there was a jury hearing, the court then immediately insinuated
This Court’s claims are quite convenient given that Appellant’s Brief and
caselaw on ignoring Jury Demands shows without question that this case had to be
Rosser White &c., Inc., 146 Ga. App. 789, 795-796 (247 S.E.2d 479) (1978);
Coker v. Coker, 251 Ga. 542 (307 S.E.2d 921) (1983); Scott v. W. S. Badcock
The Constitution of Georgia as well as the Civil Practice Act guarantees the
right to a jury trial for civil litigants. See Raintree Farms v. Stripping Center,
(judgment reversed) in holding: “Constitution 1976, Art. VI, Sec. XV, Par. I
Georgia of 1982, effective July 1, 1983); OCGA § 9-11-38 (formerly Code Ann. §
81A-138 (Ga. L. 1966, pp. 609, 652)). The right may be "expressly waived" by
"written stipulation filed with the court…" OCGA § 9-11-39 (formerly Code Ann.
This court cited Robenolt v. Chrysler Fin Servs Corp., which actually says:
The record reveals…rule nisi …on the petition for writ of possession,…parties
evidentiary hearing did not take place, while appellee, in its brief, states that the
was present. The big differences between Robenolt, and Heritage Bank v
which would show that there was never a Jury Trial scheduled; and 4) An
evidentiary hearing and a Jury Trial are two very different hearings.
This Court stated that Appellant “claims” the trial court “erred in transferring”
the action from State to Magistrate Court”[Ruling pg.5] bringing up that there was
there was nothing showing the transfer, it was illegally done. This Court insists
that State Court Granted the Writ of Possession. Appellant’s response is: 1)
Judge Gary Leshaw is a Magistrate Court Judge; 2) The hearing was held in
Purdom’s Courtroom is 3C; 4) The State Court would have been required to
file a real Order, not merely a Writ with no written Order; 5) A State Court, and
Heritage Bank would have been required to follow the Georgia Civil Practice Act
and Uniform State Court Rules, but did not, they used Magistrate Court Rules.
8
IF State Court held the hearing, where is the Order with findings of fact and
conclusions of law, or is that just for non-disabled persons that the Court picks and
chooses is deserving of such. And why is there only a Writ of Possession? This
Court has repeatedly held “the lack of findings of fact and conclusions…in the
Ga. App. 760, 761 (2) (278 SE2d 694)(1981). This Court held “it may not be
Credit Mgmt. Corp. v Friedenberg, 275 Ga. App. 236,241(2)(b)(620 SE2d 463)
(2005); Maryland v Brown 276 Ga. App. 229,231 n.2 (622 SE2d 901)(2005)
This Court failed to address the Counterclaim and the lack of ruling thereon.
Further, for Counterclaims and Motions that the trial court ignored, there isn’t a
more affirmative way to show it was ignored, it is not in the record. This Court
claims it is acceptable for State (or magistrate) court to close the case, remove it
from the records, into the dead case file with an undecided Counterclaim and
The Appellee having failed to file a Brief, and the record being devoid of any
9
Orders, speaks for itself. This Court in past cases held: “Because appellee has
failed to file a brief with this court”, the Court “will accept appellant's statement
of the case as prima facie true and decide the case on the basis of this
statement and the evidence cited and quoted in support thereof”. Cincinnati
&c. R. Co. v. Hilley, 121 Ga. App. 196 (1) (173 SE2d 242) (1970); see Colson v.
State, 138 Ga. App. 366 (1) (226 SE2d 154) (1976); Clark v. Stafford, 239
Ga.App. 69, n. 1, 522 S.E.2d 6 (1999); Daniel v. Allstate Ins. Co., 660 SE2d 765
(2008). “We note that appellee has failed to file a brief on appeal. Accordingly,
‘we will accept appellant's statement of the case as prima facie true and decide
the case on the basis of this statement and the evidence cited and quoted in
support thereof.’" Jones v. Cooke, 169 Ga.App. 516(1), 313 S.E.2d 773 (1984).
“Curtis Products failed to file an appellee's brief. However, this does nothing
more than admit the appellant's statement of facts, "which …, this court may
accept as being prima facie true." (Emphasis supplied.) Montford v. State, 164
Apparently, the Court puts too much emphasis on Appellant’s failure to concoct
a transcript from memory. Nevertheless, this Court’s past cases shows that in a
10
case that never had more than a bench trial lasting five (5) minutes in a Magistrate
Court, a transcript is not fatal to the Appeal because the record clearly shows the
In fact the record clearly supports enumerations of error. The record clearly
shows that although Appellant filed several unopposed Motions, they were not
ruled on. The record further clearly shows that Appellant’s Verified Answer and
This Court complains that Appellant failed “to include in the appellate record
the items necessary for the appellate court to objectively review the evidence and
proceedings giving rise to the judgment”. The record, which this Court states was
“Certified” and sent by the trial court, clearly shows that there was nothing in the
record other than what Appellant filed, nothing to reference; the blame for this
Further, the trial Court failed to provide any written Orders, even the Writ, and
failed to make “required express findings of fact and conclusions of law”, this
Court had to “remand the case for reconsideration”. "A judgment devoid of these
findings must be vacated and the case must be remanded for reconsideration."
Bailey v. McNealy, 277 Ga. App. 848, 849 (1) (627 SE2d 893) (2006).
11
In Gilchrist v. Gilchrist, 650 S.E.2d 795, 287 Ga.App. 133 (Ga.App.
08/07/2007), this court held: “As the trial court's order omitted these mandatory
findings, we must remand this case ‘with direction that the trial court either include
in its order findings of the conduct that authorized the award or vacate its order.
[Cit.]’" Justice v. Musselman, 214 Ga. App. 762, 763 (450 SE2d 460) (1994).
The facts surrounding the record, the enumerations of error and lack of
Appellee’s Brief clearly shows that the trial court’s ruling had to be reversed and
remanded, but this Court in Appellant’s Appeal, has refused to do so; subjecting
Nevertheless, this Court in other appeals has held that “trials’ court oral
findings in the transcript are not sufficient to satisfy the requirement for express
findings of fact and conclusion of law” Maynard v. Brown, 276 Ga. App. 229, 231
discrimination against the disabled. The 11th Circuit in Sheely v MRI Radiology
Network, P.A., 2007 WL 3087215 (11th Cir. Oct. 2007) held: “When an entity
12
accepts federal funding…it does so in exchange for a promise not to discriminate”;
local government; or (B) the entity of such State or local government that
Protective Services: “Policy: to protect the welfare of the disabled adults …subject
References: Title XX of the Social Security Act, Social Services Block Grant,
This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute,
or local officials within …their lawful authority, but also acts done without …their
CONCLUSION
Heritage Bank, has been estopped by this court of collecting a money judgment.
Had the Court ruled that Ms. Caffrey’s death was not a default, the Estate would
have been liable for the debt, Administrator of Caffrey’s Estate has ample funds to
satisfy the debt. Instead, the Courts falsified the records, to protect Joyner and
Lillig, who committed bank fraud. (OCGA §16-10-20) None of the estate debts
were paid, Lillig perjured himself, and Appellant has had numerous suits against
him filed for debts of the estate. Because of the corruption within the DeKalb
County Stone Mountain Judicial system, and the continuous falsification of records
and fact, the criminals are protected, and the innocent suffer. Appellant’s only
was of this that Mr. Justice Holmes and Mr. Justice Brandeis so eloquently spoke
in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 , at 469, 471, more than 30 years ago.:
"For those who [364 U.S. 206, 223] agree with me," said Mr. Justice Holmes, "no
14
distinction can be taken between the Government as prosecutor and the
Government as judge." 277 U.S., at 470 .277 U.S., at 470 . (Dissenting opinion.)
"In a government of laws," said Mr. Justice Brandeis, "existence of the government
will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the
potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by
breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it
invites anarchy.”
Falsification of the record is an illegal act. By ignoring the record and the
By: ______________________________
JAMES B. STEGEMAN, Pro Se
821 Sheppard Rd.
Stone Mountain, GA 30083
(404) 300-9782
15
JAMES B. STEGEMAN,
APPELLANT APPEAL NO.: A10A0420
vs.
HERITAGE BANK,
APPELLEE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby Certify that I have this 17th day of May, 2010 served upon Heritage
Bank, the foregoing Motion for Reconsideration through their attorney on file, by
causing to be deposited with U.S.P.S., First Class Mail with proper postage
16