Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Court: U. S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Docket No.’s:
There was no reference made in any other documents filed with the Court about
the hearing in which the attorney who made the new Will had a discussion with
several documents made untruthful statements meant to discredit both the Plaintiff
and myself. The statements were uncalled for and had no truthfulness or relevance
1
to the case at bar:
* The statement is incorrect (Motion for Reconsideration Exhibit D pages 3-4), see
the following:
When 02-cv-9732-8 concluded, neither attorney would file the
agreement with Superior Court; Stegeman upheld his part of
the agreement and Withdrew the Caveat to the Will. The
opposing party refused to honor their part of the agreement,
that’s why the case continued. That case finally ended, by
Stegeman obtaining new counsel to file the agreement; the
new attorney conducted a legal investigation. After
completion of the investigation, Plaintiffs Stegeman and
McDonald filed a pro se action against Wachovia, No.: 06-cv-
1056-8; which Wachovia improperly removed to this District
Court; this Court remanded to Superior Court.
2
In the case, Judge Duffey, Jr. allowed perjury and use of a fraudulent/forged
land document to be used, and other state an federal law violations to continue; the
case was dismissed under Younger abstention, but in violation of rules, Judge
Duffey, Jr. continued to make decisions on evidence which only a jury should have
been allowed to make, and showed obvious bias/prejudice by siding with the
defendants:
that our names were not on the Calendar, provided the Docket Report showing no
“Scheduled Events”, and “Petition for Docket Correction” requesting that should
3
there be hearing actually set, that it show on the Motion Calendar and in Scheduled
Nevertheless, since the Court refused jurisdiction, Judge Duffey, Jr. had no
brought before District Court, gave the District Court jurisdiction and we showed
why Younger abstention failed. The State Court did not give the arguments that
Judge Duffey, Jr. provided, in essence Judge Duffey, Jr. was acting as attorney for
the Defendants and was highly improper. The State defendants, as well as Georgia
Power defendants were represented by legal counsel with much more experience
than Pro Se Plaintiffs and it was not Judge Duffey, Jr.’s job description to make
him, he ignores it. It is improper for attorneys, to misquotes caselaw and give it
improper meanings, but is unforgivable that a District Court Judge does so.
How can a Pro Se litigant have a fair and unbiased tribunal in front of Judge
in front of Judge Duffey, Jr. doesn’t happen. He shows obvious bias and prejudice
against Pro Se litigants, ignoring that a prima facie case has been filed, evidence is
4
undisputed, and opposing party has committed perjury and fraud upon the Court.
Why? Because Judge Duffey, Jr. has past relationships with the Defendants in one
form or another.