Plaintiff's Repsonse To County Defendants' Motion To Dismiss (federal Court)

;:

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 JAMES N . HAFTtN, CLE R~ ATLANTA, DIVISION BY'

JAMES B STEGEMAN, ) Plaintiff )

CIVIL ACTION

} 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; ) j JOHN DOE O 1-100 ; v

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 1

Document 49

Filed 03/05/2007

Page 3 of 20

'?

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 n of such which arises out of the facts and circumstances relating to the commissi.n 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 fulltime 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 safe from a suit such as the very one in front of this Honorable Court presently .

16

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

Case 1:06-cv-02954-WSD yA~C

~R

Document 49

Filed 03/05/2007

Page 20 of 20

+r

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