Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Motion To Reconsider Denial of Petition For Cert. GA Supreme
Motion To Reconsider Denial of Petition For Cert. GA Supreme
S10C0509
VS.
INDEX TO ATTACHMENTS
CASES PAGE
Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115 (10th Cir 1985) ………………….. 10
Caswell v Caswell, et., al., 285 Ga. 277 (2009) ……………………………. 7,8
Culpepper v. Thompson, 254 Ga. App. 569, 571 (562 SE2d 837) (2002)… 13
H.K. Porter Co., Inc. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 536 F.2d 1115 (6th Cir.) 10
ii
Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford Empire Co., 1944, 322 U.S. 238,
64 S.Ct. 997, 88 L.Ed. 1250………………………………………….. 10
Lillard v. Owens 281 Ga. 619, 620 (1) (641 SE2ds 511) (2007)………….. 7
Marks v. State, 623 S.E.2d 504, 280 Ga. 70 (Ga. 12/01/2005)……………. 5,6
Miller v. Lomax, 266 Ga.App. 93, 596 S.E.2d 232 (Ga.App. 03/04/2004).. 13
Reeves v. Williams & Co., 160 Ga. 15, 20-21 (127 SE 293) (1925) ……… 12
Root Refining Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., 3 Cir., 1948, 169 F.2d 514 10
Thompson v. Thompson, et., al., 9 S.E.2d 80, 190 Ga. 264 (1940)……….. 6
Tower Financial Svcs. v. Jarrett, 199 Ga. App. 248, 250 (2)
(404 SE2d 622) (1991)………………………………………………… 12
OTHER AUTHORITIES
GEORGIA STATUTE
O.C.G.A. §13-4-1…………………………………………………………… 13
OCGA § 23-2-56……………………………………………………………. 12
O.C.G.A. §30-5-1…………………………………………………………... 5
iii
O.C.G.A. §30-5-3…………………………………………………………… 5,6
iv
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The matter before this Court, although brought by a pro se litigant, is a very
serious matter; one which led to the untimely death of an elderly lady (Ms.
Caffrey), hidden from all family members, coerced into making an illegal will, all
the while the assets of the elderly lady and the disabled man (Mr. Stegeman) were
wasted. The assets of the disabled man were used to attempt to sue him. A classic
case of exploitation of the disabled and of the elderly for illegally obtained,
monetary gain.
Every possible protection had been taken to prevent the very thing that
(IDPOA) “Exhibit 1”, that by the way, was never set aside. Opposing counsel has
repeatedly insisted that Ms. Caffrey was competent and had no guardian ad litem;
there has never been, in writing or any other credible evidence, that Ms. Caffrey
Petitioner agrees that the story is long and may be confusing, but the Courts
of DeKalb County have made sure that the story died just as dead as Ms. Caffrey,
Citizens living in DeKalb County, and in the state of Georgia, are beginning
to wonder why DeKalb County and the state of Georgia has a Probate Court Judge;
for years now the Clerks have run the Court, held the hearings, and done as they
v
pleased without consequence. The elderly have been taken, hidden, allowed to be
put into homes that aren’t equipped to care for their needs, and many of them have
died horrible deaths after being lied to that family hasn’t looked for, are asked
about them. Ultimately the elderly die alone, without family at the whim of some
A new Will obtained through fraud was made by an attorney, who under
Oath stated that he knew there was a question of her competency. There is no
reason that the new Will had not been filed at the Courthouse, as was the original
Will. Furthermore, the new Will, gave away items and assets that did not belong
to the testator, and left nothing to family members on a claim that the “nephews
had starved her”. Testator had quite a few more family members if that were the
Facts clearly show that one nephew has always lived in Wisconsin, the other
was not the caregiver, there are no Medical reports supporting the claim that the
testator was ever starved by anyone. To the contrary, Medical reports before the
abduction, clearly shows the testator was well cared for, her care was under
constant Dr. supervision at the insistence of her family and her caregiver.
Opposing counsel has alleged that the testator was confined to her home and
escaped through the basement with the aid of the Sheriff’s office; none of these
vi
statements are fraud upon the Court.
First, Ms. Caffrey lived alone. It would be extremely hard for anyone to
Second, the home where Ms. Caffrey lived did not have a basement, it was a
split-level home. Further, it would be impossible for her to escape because she
Third, the Sheriff’s Office has never been stated in documentation at all.
Opposing counsel has continually made fraudulent claims about Mr. Stegeman.
After being scrutinized for more than two and a half years, it was never shown that
In support of the above statements is the fact that a Superior Court action
brought by the person claiming to be guardian of the property, in which the request
to revoke the irrevocable durable power of attorney with an interest “Exhibit 2”.
After Ms. Caffrey’s death, Judge Hunter orally ordered that a personal
representative be appointed and substituted within 10 days “Exhibit 3”, the written
order showed 30 days “Exhibit 4” or the case would be dismissed. The law
allows for substitution with six months, which opposing counsel assured Judge
Hunter would be done, see “Exhibit 3”; the Ruling was never amended.
One year later, the Will still not probated, and no personal representative had
vii
been appointed. A lay person, as well as one educated in the law would question
why, and would question why a Judge would allow the sham of a lawsuit to
continue; just as one would question why this Court does nothing to undo a least
part of the manifest injustice that has been bestowed upon an innocent disabled
counsel “Exhibit 5”, the suit that had been allowed to go on with no proper party
Plaintiff was ended by agreement fraudulently obtained, and never honored by the
opposing party; which in fact went out of their way to see it wasn’t honored. This
proves that Petitioner’s own attorney was part of the grand conspiracy concocted
by the opposition.
The only reasons opposition had entered into agreement was 1) the only
way to get a personal representative appointed, was to have the Caveat to the Will
withdrawn; and 2) to have the case removed from the civil jury calendar in
Superior Court, so that the lack of a proper party Plaintiff could be concealed from
the public. Mr. Stegeman, as the injured party to the agreement asked the Probate
Court to have the agreement set aside. Probate Court ignored the request and never
ruled on it.
When Mr. Stegeman tried to have the agreement enforced in Superior Court,
viii
Judge Hunter refused “Exhibit 6”, and a new agreement had to be drawn up
“Exhibit 7”, the original agreement had listed an entity that was not a proper party
Plaintiff. Clearly, all of these acts show one thing. Fraud, and fraud upon the
Court to obtain rulings. This Court has a duty to set aside rulings that are void on
their face, as well as rulings obtained through fraud upon the court.
attorney for Ms. Caffrey “Exhibit 8” committed several felonies. The courts have
protected these criminals, and justice has been denied to Mr. Stegeman.
It has long been held in Georgia that exploitation of the disabled and/or
State, 623 S.E.2d 504, 280 Ga. 70 (Ga. 12/01/2005). In Marks, this Court
described in detail “exploitation” of the Disabled and Elder Persons Protection Act:
ix
attorney for the purpose of changing his will…Marks exploited
Mr. Stewart for his own profit or advantage, as defined by
OCGA § 30-5-3 (9), and to find Marks guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt of the crimes of exploitation of an elder person.
Jackson v. Virginia, supra”
“[31] OCGA § 30-5-8 (a) (1) provides, in relevant part, that "it
shall be unlawful for any person to ... exploit any disabled adult
or elder person." According to OCGA § 30-5-3 (9),
"exploitation" means "the illegal or improper use of a disabled
adult or elder person or that person's resources for another's
profit or advantage."
Power of Attorney
Stegeman. The original Will, left all of Ms. Caffrey’s property to Mr. Stegeman,
both documents had been properly filed at DeKalb County Courthouse upon their
having being signed and properly witnessed. There was never any evidence
“revocable at will”; see Thompson v. Thompson, et., al., 9 S.E.2d 80, 190 Ga. 264
(1940) which held: “So far as the cancellation of the power of attorney is
concerned, the same, not being coupled with an interest, was revocable at will”.
Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th Ed. defines irrevocable power of attorney as “A power
of attorney that the principle cannot revoke. – Also termed power of attorney with
an interest. Page 1191. Under power with an interest, on page 1190 it shows that
x
would be highly unfair to the agent to allow his principal to revoke.”
The Wills
claims that 1) there were no other wills; 2) that Petitioner and his brother were
estranged from decedent; and 3) that Petitioner was being investigated by the
DA’s office for felony theft by taking “Exhibit 9”. DeKalb County DA’s Office,
in conversation with Petitioner’s attorney, stated that was not true that they had no
A will had been on file at DeKalb County since 1992 file by attorneys hired
by Ms. Caffrey. The new Will offered to the Probate Court, made after Ms.
Caffrey’s primary physician had deemed her incompetent, had been secreted and
A hearing to determine the validity and proper jurisdiction for the Will had
never been concluded. The attorney who prepared the new Will, under Oath stated
hearing on the matter, did not have in attendance, the witnesses to the Will so that
they could be questioned or cross examined as would have been required for
determination; see Caswell v Caswell, et., al., 285 Ga. 277 (2009) citing Lillard v.
Owens 281 Ga. 619, 620 (1) (641 SE2ds 511) (2007).
xi
present when the will was signed…” led to the Will being probated; whereas here,
the Will was never accepted to be Probated, yet the one to benefit from the new
altogether, and totally different than the Irrevocable Durable Power of Attorney
with an Interest held by Petitioner (because the IDPOA made all the property of
the decedent, property of the Petitioner), that Power of Attorney had been revoked
when “testator signed written revocations of the power of attorney”. Ms. Caffrey
never indicated that she wished the IDPOA be revoked, and it could not be revoked
on a mere whim of her or any other person, it was binding until death. The only
way to get rid of the IDPOA was to show that Petitioner had committed criminal
acts. Although the holder of the new Will made allegations of criminal acts, and
criminal acts, yet he was the one that committed the criminal acts by illegally
having names changed on brokerage accounts and accessing, selling, and wasting
the assets. The assets were held in “Joint Tenants With Rights of Survivorship”
form are not part of an Estate. It was illegal for both the entity pretending to be
xii
guardian of property as well as the entity named Temp. Administrator of the Estate
to access and waste those assets. The entity pretending to be guardian of property
O.C.G.A. §53-5-62:
“Only individuals whose registration of a security shows sole
ownership by one individual or multiple ownership by two or
more with right of survivorship, rather than as tenants in
common, may obtain registration in beneficiary form. Multiple
owners of a security registered in beneficiary form hold as joint
tenants with right of survivorship, as tenants by the entireties, or
as owners of community property held in survivorship form and
not as tenants in common.”
With no Court Orders, all protections ignored, the Courts stood idly by, even
Clearly, there was a great deal of fraud upon the Court. Not only were the
fraud on the court." H.K. Porter Co., Inc. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 536
F.2d 1115 (6th Cir.) Fraud upon the Court is further described as
See also:
“In order to set aside a judgment or order because of fraud upon
the court under Rule 60(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28
U.S.C.A., it is necessary to show an unconscionable plan or
scheme which is designed to improperly influence the court in its
decision. Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford Empire Co., 1944,
322 U.S. 238, 64 S.Ct. 997, 88 L.Ed. 1250; Root Refining Co. v.
Universal Oil Products Co., 3 Cir., 1948, 169 F.2d 514.”
Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the
States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated:
"Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial
machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or
fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. ... It is where
the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is
attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial
function --- thus where the impartial functions of the court have
been directly corrupted."
"Fraud upon the court" has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals
xiv
"to embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to,
defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the
court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual
manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented
for adjudication." Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968);”2
The 7th Circuit further stated "a decision produced by fraud upon the court
Further, this Court, as well as the U.S. District Courts have held that fraud
upon the Court can be attacked at any time, in any Court. Petitioner has been
attacking the Rulings founded or obtained through fraud upon the Court, and every
Court has continually refused to address the issue. The issue is not without merit!
Only after a hearing could a new Will be offered into Probate. Without first
having held a hearing, the holder of the new Will was granted Emergency Temp.
and why it was never honored by either the opposing party, nor Superior Court.
Settlement Agreement
The only way to get the case removed from the Civil Jury calendar was for
Petitioner’s attorney to insist that he make agreement to settle, his attorney insisted
that even if he won, Judge Hunter would never allow an award be granted him; that
the only way to recoup what he had paid out to her was to sue after the fact.
2
Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶ 60.23.
xv
Agreement was reached that bound together the Probate and Superior Court
matters. Petitioner was to withdraw the caveat to the will and the opposing party
After the agreement was Ok’d and signed by both counsel, opposing counsel
immediately used the Withdrawal of Caveat, and got the holder of the new Will
Representative in Superior Court, hiding the fact one had never been appointed.
Petitioner later found that the agreement had been changed by opposing
counsel without his permission; one of those changes was to add the words “with
prejudice” after the words dismiss. Then opposing counsel wrote to Wachovia and
said that Petitioner’s attorney would not file the agreement with the court and not
to release the accounts, and did everything possible to keep from abiding by the
agreement. Furthermore, the acts of the two attorneys was clearly fraud; "[f]raud
means of deceiving the opposite party." (Citation omitted.) Tower Financial Svcs.
v. Jarrett, 199 Ga. App. 248, 250 (2) (404 SE2d 622) (1991). See also OCGA § 23-
2-56.
“In Reeves v. Williams & Co., 160 Ga. 15, 20-21 (127 SE 293) (1925), our
Supreme Court considered when silence by one party could amount to a fraud on
xvi
the other party to a contract:
Further it has been held the elements of intentional interference with contract
are:
“(1) improper action or wrongful conduct by the defendant
without privilege; (2) the defendant acted purposely and with
malice with the intent to injure; (3) the defendant induced a
breach of a contractual obligation or caused a party or third party
to discontinue or fail to enter into an anticipated business
relationship with the plaintiff; and (4) the defendant's tortious
conduct proximately caused damage to the plaintiff. (Citation
omitted.) Culpepper v. Thompson, 254 Ga. App. 569, 571 (562
SE2d 837) (2002).
the Estate, he filed to have the agreement deemed void under O.C.G.A. 13-4-1:
O.C.G.A. §13-4-1:
“If a written contract is altered intentionally and in a material
part thereof by a person claiming a benefit under it with intent to
defraud the other party, the alteration voids the whole contract, at
the option of the other party.”
The Probate Court never Ruled on the Motion, just as the Probate Court
refused to rule on other Motions filed by Petitioner; yet the Probate Court Granted
xvii
attorney within six months filed for withdrawal, which was granted by the Court.
The Court then set the case on the Jury trial calendar again knowing Petitioner was
unrepresented. Petitioner had to hire another attorney to file Motion to Enforce the
agreement, the Court refused to sign the agreement, forcing Petitioner into a new
agreement was titled with a new name, clearly an attempt to hide the fact that there
had not been a proper party Plaintiff listed the whole time and hide the fact that a
case that was to be dismissed within 30 days if a proper party was not named
For this Court, the highest Court in the State to refuse to rule on the legality
of the Will, or to ignore that fraud upon the court to obtain rulings in one’s favor
CONCLUSION
Petitioner has shown just cause for this Court to reconsider it’s denial of
Petition for Writ of Cert. In reality, rather than sending Petitioner’s Appeal to the
Court of Appeals for determination, this Court should have kept and Ruled on the
Appeal because it questioned the legitimacy of and legality of a Will. This Court
The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Respondent, and one would believe
xviii
that the Court had not even read the Appeal. It is a sad day in this State when a
disabled, pro se litigant is not taken seriously, and they are outright Denied their
First the Probate Court denied a disabled pro se litigant his statutory Right to
an Appeal; then the Superior Court held the Appeal for three and a half years, also
denying the disabled pro se litigant his Right to Appeal. This Court sent the
Appeal to the Court of Appeals, who went right along with the other Courts by
dismissing the appeal. Then this Court denied Petition for Cert.
By: ____________________________
JAMES B. STEGEMAN, Pro Se
821 Sheppard Rd
Stone Mountain, GA 30083
(404) 300-9782
xix
No. S10C0509
__________________________________________
Versus
________________________________________________________________
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
_______________________________________________________________
I hereby Certify that I have this 25th day of March, 2010 served a true and
be deposited with the United States Postal Service, First Class Mail with proper
Robert E. Turner
111 North McDonough St.
Decatur, GA 30030
_____________________________
JAMES B. STEGEMAN, Pro Se
821 Sheppard Rd.
Stone Mountain, GA 30083
404-300-9782
xx