Case 1:06-cv-02954-WSD Document 49 Filed 03/05/2007 Page 1 of 20

;:

FILED IN CLEWS "( E

U . S . J . C . Atlanta

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT M AR @ 5 2007

FOR TIC NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA, DIVISION JAMES N . HAFTtN, CLE R~
BY'
JAMES B STEGEMAN, )
Plaintiff ) CIVIL ACTION

v } FILE NO. : 1 :06-cv-02954WSD

}
STATE OF GEORGIA, thru GOVERNOR )
SONNY PERDUE, In His Official Capacity ;)
STATE OF GEORGIA DEPARTMENT )
OF HUMAN RESOURCES ; )
DEKALB COUNTY, thru CEO VERN ON }
JONES In His Official Capacity )
DEKALB COUNTY DEPARTMENT }
OF FAMILY & CHILDREN SERVICES ; )
DEKALB COUNTY FIRE & RESCUE )
LT. HUGHETT -NO: 581 In His Official )
Individually and in His Official Capacity ; )
EMS MEDIC DENNIS OARLOCK )
Individually and in His Official Capacity ; }
STONE MOUNTATIN POLICE OFFICER)
R.B. PORTER BADGE, # 119, Individually )
and in His Official Capacities ; }
DEKALB COUNTY PROBATE COURT ; }
PROBATE JUDGE JERYL DEBRA ROSH)
Individually and in Her Official Capacity ; j
GEORGIA SUPERIOR COURT, STONE )
MOUNTAIN JUDICIAL CIRCUIT ; )
STATE COURT OF GEORGIA ; )
DEKALB COUNTY SOLICITOR'S )
OFFICE; )
JANE DOE 4 1 -100; )
JOHN DOE O 1-100 ; j

Defendants )
 Case 1:06-cv-02954-WSD Document 49 Filed 03/05/2007 Page 2 of 20

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE AN D OBJECTION TO

CO UNTY DEFENDANT' S MOTION TO DISMISS

COMES NOW, Plaintiff James B . Stegeman and files his Response Brief

Objection To And Motion To Den County efendant's Motion to Dismiss .

I. FACTS

Plaintiff s complaint and accompanying evidence clearly shows that the

defendants named in this Civil Action violated Plaintiffs Civil and Constitutional

Rights, violated Plaintiff's Immunities, committed several different kinds of fraud,

violated both United States Laws and Georgia Laws, are guilty of malicious abuse

of process, malicious prosecution, negligent intentional infliction of emotional

abuse, and defamation, they conspired to do same, while under "Color of Law" or

"Color of Authority" as well as other Counts . The defendants have violated their

Oaths of Office .

Further, Plaintiff, who is 100 percent legally disabled with multiple

disabilities, has shown that he has been a victim of crime . Due to the illegal acts

of the defendants, Plaintiff has suffered great financial loss, which has forced him

into proceeding as a Pro Se litigant against he wishes and against his better

judgment. This Honorable Court has the power and authority to appoint legal

See complaint Exhibit 1

2
 Case 1:06-cv-02954-WSD Document 49 Filed 03/05/2007 Page 3 of 20
1 '?

representation, or perhaps legal counsel which Plaintiff may ask legal questions, to

which Plaintiff would greatly welcome and would have no objections .

II. ARGUMENT AND CITATION OF AUTHORITIES

A. Statute of Limitations Claims Fail

1 . Many Rights violations in the complaint are current and or on-going .2

2 . Civil and Constitutional violations by DeKalb County Courts are current,

are in the nature of "continuing" violations, or are within the statute of limitations .

See complaint Exhibit 36, 37,39,40,42,43,45,47,48, showing current violations .

3 . Plaintiff is legally 100 percent Federally disabled with multiple disabilities .3

4 . Plaintiff suffered his claims due to actions recognized as crimes4 by the State

2 "County Defendants" Brief. . .Motion To Dismiss, page 3, II .A. ¶1 : ". . .has

failed to allege . . . occurred within . . . limitations time period" . Although all
defendants' counsel in this action contend the "statute of limitations" claim,
Plaintiff has claimed that the violations are current, on-going, disguised by
fraudulent acts which prohibited Plaintiffs discovery, the falsifications of
documents by defendants . Plaintiff has shown as well as stated several times that
the incidents occurred within the statute of limitations or should be tolled for
several reasons .

3 Thomson * Gale Legal Encyclopedia : "Tolling the Statute : If a party is under

more than one disability, the statute of limitations does not begin to run until all the
disabilities are removed." "In cases where a cause of action has been fraudulently
concealed, the statute of limitations is toll until the action is, or could have been
discovered. . ."

a TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECT ION 241 : If two or more persons conspire to
inju re, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory,

3
 Case 1:06-cv-02954-WSD Document 49 Filed 03/05/2007 Page 4 of 20

of Georgia and The United States, for which the statute of limitations is six years5 .

5 . The defendants conspired to deprive Plaintiff of his Civil and Constitutional

Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any

right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States,
or because of his having so exercised the same ; .. . They shall . . .or imprisoned not
more than ten years, or both ; and if death results from the acts . . .or if such acts
include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, . . ., or an attempt to kill, they shall be
. . . or imprisoned for an term of years or for life or both or ma be sentenced to
death. *ref: h :/lwww.usdo'. ovlcrtlcnm/241fin .htm
TITLE 18 i].S .C, SECTION 242 : Deprivation of Ri hts Under Color of
Law "This statute makes it a dime for an -person actin under color of law
statute ordinance regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be
de rived from an person those ri is rivile es 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 b federal state or local officials within the
bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and be and
the bounds of their lawful authori • provided that, in order for unlawful acts of
any official to be done under "color of any law," the unlawful acts must be done
while such official is purporting r pretending to act in the performance of his/her
official duties . This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials,
individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors,
Security Guards, etc ., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances,, or
customs ." "Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment . . . if bodily injury
results or . . . 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 ."
h :/Iwww .fbi. ovlh Icid/civilri is/statutes .htm

5 O.C .G.A. § _9-3-99. The running of the period of limitations with respect to
any cause of action in tort that may be brought by the vi ctim of an alleged crime
which arises out of the facts and circumstances relating to the commissi.n n of such
alleged crime committed in th i s state . . . provided that such time does not exceed
six years.

4
 Case 1:06-cv-02954-WSD Document 49 Filed 03/05/2007 Page 5 of 20

Rights, falsified reports, legal documents, Orders, withheld Appeals6, thereby

preventing Plaintiff necessary to file suit at an earlier date .

6. The defendants, while acting under color of law , or color of statute , or color

of authority conspired in the deprivation of Plaintiff's Civil Rights, their acts were

negligent, malicious, vile and evil showing moral turpitude 7 , with the intent of

harm to the Plaintiff.

7. Jeryl Rosh was not elected Probate Judge until 2004, began serving as

Probate Judge January 2005 . "Exhibit 1".

8 . According to Georgia Legislature, there is one elected Probate Jud ge for

each County, with no provisions for an "Associate Probate Judge" .

9. Probate Courts have no jurisdiction in criminals cases.

6 extrinsic fraud : n. fraudulent acts which keep a person from obtaining

information about his/her rights to enforce a contract or getting evidence to defend
against a lawsuit

7 http:ll ww.lawdictionary.com: moral turpitude: n. gross violation of

standards of moral conduct, vileness. An act involving moral turpitude is
considered intentionally evil, making the act a crime . The existence of moral
turpitude can bring a more severe criminal charge or penalty for a criminal
defendant.

a 15-9-36. (b) "The appointed clerks, including the chief clerk of the probate
judge, may do all acts the judges of the probate courts could do which are not
judicial in their nature . . ." (c)(1) "In addition to other powers granted to appointed
clerks . . . may exercise all the jurisdiction of the judge of the probate court
concerning uncontested matterss in the probate court . . . ."

5
 Case 1:06-cv-02954-WSD Document 49 Filed 03/05/2007 Page 6 of 20
J

B . "Official Capacities" Should Not Be Dismissed

10 . Defendants' request dismissal of lawsuit against "Hughett, Oarlock and

Rosh" as "redundant"9, Plaintiff listed CEO Vernon Jones in His Official Capacity

because he Officially represents DeKalb County true . Defendants Hughett,

Oarlock and Rosh Individually and Officially because of their independent acts (as

a regular person) and Official acts (capacity acts) were just that . Each of them

performed acts "Under Color of Law" 10, "Under Color of Authority" and or

"Under Color of Appointment" . See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S . 42 , 49

(1988)(quotin~ United States v . Classic, 313 U.S. 299,326 (1941)); Lug

Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S . 922, 937 (1982); Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S . 144,

Attorney General's Department of Law, Unofficial Opinions, State of

Geor~: "The Georgia Court of Appeals has held that "~w~here the constitution
creates an office and prescribes the duties of the holder thereof, and declares that
other duties may be imposed upon him by statute, he has no authority tv perform
an act not le itimatel within the scope of such statutory and constitutional
provisions." Bryant v. Stag, 164 Ga . App . 555, 55 6 (1982) (citations and internal
quotation marks omittedl. The office of fudge of the probate court is an office
created by the Georgia Constitution . Ga. Const., Art. IX, Sec. 1, Para. 111. The
office has "such qualifications, powers, and duties as provided by general law."

9 Document 37, page 5, under heading "B ."

1 0 " . . .why under color of [state law] . . ." The traditional definition of
acting under the color of state law requires that the defendant have exercised power
"possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is
clothed with the authority of state law," and such actions may result in liability
even if the defendant abuses the position given to him by the state .

6
 Case 1:06-cv-02954-WSD Document 49 Filed 03/05/2007 Page 7 of 20

152 1974 . However, in the only case in which the Supreme Court held that a

government employee did not act under color of sate law, the Court held that a

public defender does not act under color of state law while performing a lawyer's

traditional function of representing criminal defendants. Polk County „v. Dodson,

454 U.S. 312,_. 32. 5_( 1981 1

11 . Each defendant committed fraud, violated their Oaths of Office, aided and

conspired to abduct or kidnap, falsely imprison and directly caused a death ; all

criminal acts with extensive prison time . (See fn4} It would be unjust to dismiss

any defendant in this action on this attorney's opinion until the attorney takes the

time to read the complaint and look over the evidence .

C. Jeryl Rosh, Probate Court Judge Jeryl Rosh

12 . Defendant's Brief to Motion to Dismiss, page 5, last ¶ "Judges are

absolutely immune . . . clear absence of all jurisdiction" . Again, the complaint has

not been read . Clerk Jeryl Rosh, who had heard three cases that month" where the

elderly had been taken advantage of. Even Probate Judge Marion Guess would not

have had authorization to find Plaintiff guilty of felonious acts . The accusations

against Plaintiff were of a criminal nature, as such all of these defendants knew or

11 Al Thompson Deposition Complaint Exhibit 7,

7
 Case 1:06-cv-02954-WSD Document 49 Filed 03/05/2007 Page 8 of 20
JI

should have known the proper procedure of contacting APS'2, not DFC S.

13 . Defendant Rosh would have this Honorable Court believe that this was

simply an average Guardianship hearing . The facts with supporting evidence has

been provided, undisputed by defendant . The defendants had to "get rid" of

Plaintiff and the Special Durable Power of Attorne(see complaint Exhibit 2j"

which appointed Plaintiff "general power of appointment in the attorney-in-fact", it

only terminated upon her death, made while Ms . Caffrey was of sound mind .

14 . Plaintiff has never received anything in writing revoking POA, Wachovia

never received a Court Order terminating the document . Defendants then,

according to their reports, decided that Plaintiff was guilty of abusing and

attempting to murder his elderly aunt , the only way to overcome the Will in which

Plaintiff was sole heir and beneficiary .

12 http ://www.dekalbsolicitorgenera.l.org
/elderconsumer .php
"Elder Abuse/Consumer Fraud Unit : Elder abuse is usually defined as the physical
or psychological mistreatment of a senior , and can include taking financial
advantage or neglect ing the care of a senior ." "Our investigators are certified
peace officers licensed by the Georgia Peace Officers Standards and Tra ining
Council . . . . a wide range of law enforcement and life experience . The eleven full-
time investigators in our office . . ., GBI agent, parole officer, DeKalb Police
homicide detective, DA's Office investigators , sheriff 's deputy, police officers , and
even a Minister."
" The clause stating POA could give items away come s to mean: if the
attorney-in-fact dies, his estate is deemed to include the assets of the principal .
 Case 1:06-cv-02954-WSD Document 49 Filed 03/05/2007 Page 9 of 20

15 . Rosh had an EMERGENCY GUARDIANSHIP HEARING FOR AN

ALLEGEDLY GRAVELY INCAPACITATED ADULT, held at a hospital . This

mentally incompetent individual was sworn under Oath and testified . As shown in

evidence submitted along with the complaint, every rule, law, custom, process for

such hearings was violated .

16 . For the defendants to "get rid" of Plaintiff and the Special Durable Power of

Attorney they had to violate everything from the day Captain Hughett deemed

Caffrey's "life at risk under nephew's care", Officer Porter's falsified "Reports"

How was Caffrey's life at risk under her nephew's care? To this day Plaintiff has

been denied all information on this .

1 7 . The facts are clear, these defendants did not have proper credentials to make

the decision to take this elderly, incompetent lady from her home when prior to the

incident and while of sound mind, she had decided beyond doubt who was to care

for her, make health decisions when the time came .

18 . Law dictates con crete proof for Guardianship hearing for An Allegedly

Gravely Incapacitated Adult (See O .C.G.A. §29-5-6 and 4 .C .G.A.§29-5-8

(complaint Exhibit 10).

19 . A Probate Court CLERK cannot "play" Judge in a contested case with so

much controversy, find Plaintiff guilty of crimes and allow the elderly to be taken,

9
a , _ H Case 1:06-cv-02954-WSD Document 49 Filed 03/05/2007 Page 10 of 20

confined with no information ever again to go to family members . These

defendants violated many Federal and State laws, violated the Civil and

Constitutional Rights of the Plaintiff and his elderly aunt and directly caused her

death, they are criminals . (See fn 4)

20 . Counsel goes on, page 6, I " ¶ "In Georgia, Probate Judges have jurisdiction

over the determination of legal heirs . O.C.G.A. § 53-4-30." "The . . .concerning

Guardianship of Ms . Caffrey ." Plaintiff fails to see the relevance in the

"determination of heirs" and "Guardianship" of which counsel speaks .

21 . The only way to get r i d of Plaintiff and the Special Durable Power of

Attorney is if the Plaintiff was found guilty of felonious or criminal acts,

specifically trying to kill or cause the death of the ward .

22 . Probate Court lacks jurisdiction to make such decision as a matter of law,

the Constitution and the Georgia Legislature . For this reason Rosh has no

immunity and it was not within her "judicial capacity", again, there is only one

judge of the Probate Court under Georgia Legislation, Rosh was a Clerk

purporting herself to be a judge . 14

14 "Color of Law . n. the appearance of an act being performed based upon

legal right or enforcement of statute, when in reality no such right exists or is
deliberately extended beyond it's legislative intention for improper purposes ."
"An example: a judge who determines in advance how he wants a case to be
resolved and manipulates the proceedings to achieve his personal agenda ."

10
 Case 1:06-cv-02954-WSD Document 49 Filed 03/05/2007 Page 11 of 20

23. The fact that Rosh immediately, in front of Attorney Sam Appel, Al

Thompson Plaintiff s witness, Ms . McDonald, incompetent Ms . Caffrey, Sandra

Al-Khaja, Mavis and Mandy Turner, and a Probate Court appointed Attorney

stated that "Sandra and I have been friends for eighteen years" . This means that

before June 13'hthat Rosh had already held two criminal Guardianship hearings

which would make it a policy and that Pro Tem Judge Rosh was approved by

Vernon Jones because O.C .G.A. §29-5-6(e)(6) holds "The compensation of a

person so appointed shall be as agreed upon by the judge who makes the

appointment and the person appointed, with the approval of the governing

authority of the County for which the person is appointed, and shall be paid from

the County funds of said County. (Vernon Jones)

24. O .C.G .A. §29-5-6 and §29-5-8 give very lengthy guidelines for these type

hearings, they were all violated, Plaintiff was told he was guilty and that his

Special Durable Power of Attorney was revoked and a County Court appointed

hrip ://www.tbi . ov/hq/cid/civilri hits/statutes .hhn : "Under Color of Law" :

"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 ; provided that, in order for
unlawful acts of any official to be done under "color of any law," the unlawful acts
must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the
performance of his/her official duties . This definition includes, in addition to law
enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges,
Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc ., persons who are bound by laws,
statutes ordinances, or customs ."

11
t ANN Case 1:06-cv-02954-WSD Document 49 Filed 03/05/2007 Page 12 of 20

Guardian of Property for this "Gravely Incapacitated" mentally incompetent lady

was appointed. At that time, Plaintiffs assets" were "seized without due process

of law", wasted by the guardian, with Rosh approving . Exhibit 1 attached hereto

clearly shows that Rosh was not Probate Judge during this period of time .

Furthermore, Probate Court cannot decide criminal cases. The only way to get rid

of the Special Durable Power of Attorney was if Plaintiff was a criminal .

25. At the so called Guardianship hearing, Attorney Sam Appel carrying the

Special Durable Power of Attorney, and Rosh went into the hall for discussion,

door left ajar, all could hear: Appel : "You are breaking the law." Rosh : "I don't

care". Appel : "You cannot do that" Ro s h: "It don't matter." (See Exhibit 7, Al

Thompson deposition .)

D. Official Capacity Claims Should Not Be Dis missed.

26. Opposing counsel presumes "he will not be able to establish Section 1983

liability"; page 7, D. The above paragraphs address the "liability" issues .

27 . Plaintiff is a member of a class that is afforded special protection under

§ 1985(3) .

15 Assets belonging to Plaintiff and Ms . McDonald, the reason for Stegeman,

McDonald v. Wachovia Bank, Wachovia Securities in Superior Court, Remanded
from U.S . District Court to Civil Action 06cv1065-5, and is on-going .

12
 Case 1:06-cv-02954-WSD Document 49 Filed 03/05/2007 Page 13 of 20

28 . Plaintiff was denied protection under a Federal\State programs for which he

was eligible .

E. Defendants are not entitled to Sovereign Immunity

29. TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 126 > SUBCHAPTER N > § 12202

§ 12202 . State immunity . A State shall not be immune under the eleventh

amendment to the Constitution of the United States from an action ink [ 1] Federal

or State court of competent jurisdiction for a violation of this chapter . In any action

against a State for a violation of the requirements of this chapter, remedies

(including remedies both at law and in equity) are available for such a violation to

the same extent as such remedies are available for such a violation in an action

against any public or private entity other than a State .

30. Title 42, Chapter 21, Subchapter V §2000d.-7. (a){1) .

A State shall not be immune under the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution

from suit in Federal Court .

F. Official Immunity Fails

31 . Counsel must mean Qualified Immunity . This fails because "unless their

conduct violates clearly violates Constitutional Rights of which a reasonable

person would have known . See Harlow, 457 U.S. at 817• Lassiter, 28 F.3d at

11 49. Or unless his "act" is so obviously wrong, in the light of preexisting law, that

13
 Case 1:06-cv-02954-WSD Document 49 Filed 03/05/2007 Page 14 of 20

only a plainly incompetent officer of one who was knowingly violating the law

would have done such a thing . Lassiter, 28 F .3d at 1149; Ensla v. Sopert 142

Fad 1402, 1406. ( l lth Cir. _ 1998,

F . The Defendants Discriminated, therefore should not be

dismissed

G. See 1 28 above .

H. DeKalb Fire & Rescue & DeKalb Probate Court Are Capa ble Of

Being Sued .

33 . Counsel is wrong . Civil Action File No .. 1 :4S-cv-01721-WSD Sheryl L .

Huff, R. Scott Huff, Timothy A. Guinn, David Miles, Mary Martin, and Jackie

Craig v . DeKalb County, Georgia, and David A . Foster, Individually and in his

official Capacity as Fire Chief of the DeKalb County Fire & Rescue Services was

not dismissed because the defendants were not capable of being sued .

NOTICE

On Defendant's Brief for Motion to Dismiss, page 21 Endnotes 1 and 2 :

"1 On page four of this brief, Defendants have shown that the instant suit, which

names DeKalb County CEO Jones and Fire Chief Foster in their official capacities

shall be considered a suit against DeKalb County. Inasmuch as the County is

entitled to sovereign immunity from suit, the same is true for the official capacity

14
 Case 1:06-cv-02954-WSD Document 49 Filed 03/05/2007 Page 15 of 20

defendants."

"2 Defendants show that if the motion to dismiss is granted, the remaining claims

will be as follows : Title VII and 42 U .S.C. §X981 against Vernon Jones in his

official capacity ; breach of contract and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Foster in his

individual capacity ; and 42 U.S .C.§ 1981 against Jones and Foster ."

This makes no sense to Plaintiff what-so-ever .

Counsel claims the suit against "Foster", when there is no Foster named in

the complaint and then Counsel states : "breach of contract and 42 U .S .C . § 1983"

and then "and 42 U .S .C . § 1981 against Jones and Foster" . This makes no sense to

Plaintiff, he does not know how to respond to it .

CONCLUSION

The "County Defendants" Motion To Dismiss should be denied . They want

to claim every kind of "Immunity" there is, they claim they are not "persons that

can be sued", they claim "statute of limitations" . Plaintiff has shown that these

claims fail .

Plaintiff again states that should this Honorable Court feels that appointing

Counsel for the Plaintiff would be appropriate or appointing Counsel that Plaintiff

can ask legal questions to is acceptable, he would welcome the same .

Plaintiff's Civil and Constitutional Rights have been violated by the

15
 Case 1:06-cv-02954-WSD Document 49 Filed 03/05/2007 Page 16 of 20

Defendants, he has suffered discrimination, his assets were seized without due

process, he lost property in the form of inheritance that were personal family items

not to mention property such as the house . His reputation and personalty

destroyed, to that there is no doubt .

The Plaintiff had to endure over two years in a lawsuit in which opposing

party had a duty to the Probate and Superior Courts to find Plaintiff guilty and have

Plaintiff prosecuted of trying to kill his elderly, disabled aunt so that all would be
16
safe from a suit such as the very one in front of this Honorable Court presently .

16 O .C.G .A. § 53-1-5.

(a) An individual who feloniously and intentionally kills or conspires to kill
or procures the killing of another individual forfeits the right to take an interest
from the decedent's estate and to serve as a personal representative or trustee of the
decedent's estate or any trust created by the decedent . For purposes of this Code
section, the killing or conspiring to kill or procuring another to kill is felonious and
intentional if the killing would constitute murder or felony murder or voluntary
manslaughter under the laws of this state .
(b) An individual who forfeits the right to take an interest from a decedent's
estate by virtue of this Code section forfeits the right to take any interest such
individual would otherwise take at the decedent's death by intestacy, year's
support, will, deed, power of appointment, or by any other conveyance duly
executed during life by the decedent and is treated as having predeceased the
decedent for purposes of determining the distribution of the decedent's property
and of appointing personal representatives or trustees .
(c) This Code section shall have no effect on the rights of the descendants of
the individual who forfeits the right to take from the decedent's estate ; provided,
however, that if the descendants are taking by intestacy in place of the individual
who forfeits, the descendants may take only that share of the decedent's estate to
which the individual who forfeits would have been entitled . The provisions of
Code Section 53-4-64 shall not apply with respect to the descendants of the

16
,~ , - ... Case 1:06-cv-02954-WSD Document 49 Filed 03/05/2007 Page 17 of 20

The heartache, abuse, exploitation, while being denied "programs" that are

in place to assist the disabled such as the Plaintiff . Every complaint ignored, or the

answer to Plaintiff was "Well you shouldn't have abused your aunt" or "Well you

shouldn't have mishandled your aunt's assets", when the allegations were untrue

and no proof of such ever shown .

Not one defendant has disputed the events, evidence or denied that they

made the claimed allegations against the Plaintiff . The "Answers" that have been

filed to the complaint were that everything that's happened to Plaintiff was "his

own fault" or "he failed to protect" . Plaintiff has provided proof of his allegations

and proof that he never did wrong . These defendants still make false allegations

against him .

I f need be, Plaintiff will gladly Amend his complaint to keep it from being

dismissed . The Plaintiff still tries to believe in Justice, that in the end Truth will

prevail, that the guilty will be punished never to do this to anyone again, but that is

hard for the Plaintiff at this point .

The Plaintiff respectfully MOVES this Honorable Court to deny dismissal to

individual who forfeits the right to take from the decedent's estate unless those
descendants are also descendants of the decedent .
(d) A final judgment of conviction or a guilty ea for murder , felon
murder, or voluntary manslaughter is conclusive in civil proceedings under this
Code section. In the absence of such a conviction or plea, the felonious and
intentional killing must be established by clear and convincing evidence .

17
 Case 1:06-cv-02954-WSD Document 49 Filed 03/05/2007 Page 18 of 20

the Defendants in this Civil Action . Plaintiff, forced to proceed as a Pro Se

litigant, further MOVES this Honorable Court to consider all three of Plaintiff s

Objections to Motions to Dismiss along with the "Plaintiffs Addendum of

Arguments, Citation and Authorities In Support of Plaintiff's Objection to

Defendant's Motions To Dismiss" .

Respectfully submitted this 3rd day of March, 2007 .

AMES B.--&TEGEN. Pro Se

821 Shennd Rd
Stone Mountain, GA 30083
(770) 879-8737

18
 Case 1:06-cv-02954-WSD Document 49 Filed 03/05/2007 Page 19 of 20

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

In compliance with LR 7 .1D, N.D. Ga., I certify that the foregoing Motion

has been prepared in conformity with LR 5 .1, N.D . GA. This Motion was prepared

with Times New Roman (14 point) type, with a top margin of one and one-half

(1 .5") i nches and a left margin of one (1") inch, is proportionately spaced.

This 3`d day of March, 2007 .

B . S'`TEG o Se
821. Sheppard Rd
Stone Mountain, GA 30083
(770) 879-8737

19
yA~C ~R +r
Case 1:06-cv-02954-WSD Document 49 Filed 03/05/2007 Page 20 of 20

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was mailed to the defendants
through their attorney on record by caus ing a true and correct copy of same, to be
deposited into The United States Postal Service, proper postage affixed as follows :
Matthew R. LaValle
Daley, Koster & LaValle, LLC
Overlook 1
2849 Paces Ferry Rd ., Suite 160
Atlanta, GA 30339

Mr. Carothers
278 West Main St
Buford, GA 30518

Brenda A . Raspberry
DeKalb County Law Department
1300 Commerce Drive, 5~' Floor
Decatur, GA 30030

This 3`d day of March, 2007

AMES B` SIEGE ,Pro Se

82 eppard Rd
Stone Mountain, GA 30083
(770) 879-8737

20