You are on page 1of 18

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY

STATE OF GEORGIA

JANET D. MCDONALD,
JAMES B. STEGEMAN,
PLAINTIFFS CIVIL ACTION
FILE NO: 07CV11398-6
V

GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et, al.


DEFENDANTS

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSIVE OBJECTIONS TO AND


MOTION TO STRIKE AFFIDAVITS OF BRIAN P. WATT

Defendant’s legal counsel, Mr. Watt filed his Affidavit March 28, 2008 1 attaching
nine (9) Exhibits to be used as evidence. Mr. Watt then filed Second Affidavit of Brian P.
Watt along with a Motion to Substitute Exhibits on March 31, 2008.
An Affidavit filed pursuant to O.C.G.A. §9-11-56 made in bad faith or solely for
the purpose of delay, the court shall forthwith order the party employing them to pay to
the other party the amount of the reasonable expenses which the filing of the affidavits
caused him to incur, including reasonable attorney's fees, and any offending party may be
adjudged guilty of contempt; must by stricken. Plaintiffs Move this Court to strike the
Affidavit and find opposing counsel and or the defendants in contempt as sanction. See:
O.C.G.A. §9-11-56(g)
“Affidavits made in bad faith. Should it appear to the satisfaction of
the court at any time that any of the affidavits presented pursuant to
this Code section are presented in bad faith or solely for the
purpose of delay, the court shall forthwith order the party
employing them to pay to the other party the amount of the
reasonable expenses which the filing of the affidavits caused him to
incur, including reasonable attorney's fees, and any offending party
1
Plaintiffs would like to point out that March 31, 2008 Mr. Watt filed Motion to Substitute
Exhibits to which Plaintiffs Object
may be adjudged guilty of contempt.”

Affidavit of Brian P. Watt attaches as Exhibit B “February 19, 2008 letter” which
Mr. Watt then files Second Affidavit of Brian P. Watt and Motions the Court to allow him
to substitute the letter. Second Affidavit of Brian P. Watt, attached hereto as “Exhibit A”,
2nd page, ¶4 : “The letter I inadvertently attached … addressed to Kevin Pearson, … The
inclusion … and no waiver of any privilege, whether actual or implied, was intended.
Plaintiffs take this to mean that the letter should be substituted due to privilege and it not
intended to be used as “admissible evidence” in this Civil action. Mr. Watt further claims
that the new attachment “sent to Plaintiffs pursuant to Uniform Superior Court Rule
6.4(B).” The problem with the letter is that the letter states nothing about a “videotape”
which is the issue, Plaintiffs attach the letter hereto as “Exhibit B”
Affidavit of Brian P. Watt attaches as Exhibit H first and last page of “Original
Verified Answer and Counterclaim of Defendant Georgia Power Company” to prove that
the responsive pleading was filed in a timely manner. The document is neither Certified
nor has “Filed” stamped on the first sheet, Plaintiffs Object on grounds aforementioned.
An uncertified, unfiled document shows nothing and Plaintiffs dispute the evidence.
Therefore, Plaintiffs move this Court to Strike both Affidavit and Second Affidavit of
Brian P. Watt.
See:
“Malloy v. Cauley, et., al., GA.207 <http://www.versuslaw.com>,
314 S.E.2d 464, 169 Ga. App. 623
“Nevertheless, the trial court's action was fully warranted based
upon appellant's presentation of an affidavit containing a statement
she knew to be false and other statements she knew to be based
upon other than personal knowledge. The sanctions imposed did
not exceed what is authorized by the statute.”
‘"An affidavit in support of a motion must set forth such facts as
would be admissible in evidence [OCGA § 9-11-56 (e) (Code Ann.
§ 81A-156)], and to the extent that it contains material which
would not be admissible in evidence it is subject to a motion to
strike." Vaughn & Co. v. Saul, 143 Ga. App. 74, 78 (237 S.E.2d
622) (1977).”’

-2-
See also:
Dearing v. State of Ga., 243 Ga. App. 195, 201 (1) (532 SE2d 751)
LAWSKILLS (2000): holding that a false verification by oath
constitutes perjury

O.C.G.A. §16-10-71.
(a) A person to whom a lawful oath or affirmation has been
administered or who executes a document knowing that it purports
to be an acknowledgment of a lawful oath or affirmation commits
the offense of false swearing when, in any matter or thing other
than a judicial proceeding, he knowingly and willfully makes a
false statement.

NOTE: Plaintiffs have responded to each paragraph of Mr. Watt’s Affidavit, and have
responded in the same order in which it is written. It should be noted that the Affidavit
jumps around and contains many fraudulent conveyances. In responding, Plaintiffs will
attempt to keep the confusion down by showing the paragraph symbol and number;
followed by statements within the paragraph, i.e.: ¶1: “My …” . Plaintiffs then respond
to the statements by showing symbol *: response.

Mr. Watt’s March 28, 2008 Affidavit “Exhibit C” 2:

¶1: “My name is Brian P. Watt, … Affidavit on behalf of Georgia Power in


support of it’s Motion Pursuant to O.C.G.A. §9-11-56(f).”

*: Mr. Watt’s Affidavit is not in compliance with O.C.G.A. §9-11-56 Affidavits:

O.C.G.A. §9-11-56(e): Form of affidavits…


“… affidavits shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth
such facts as would be admissible in the evidence, …shall show
affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify … certified
copies of all papers … shall be attached thereto or served
therewith. The court may permit affidavits to be supplemented or
opposed… All affidavits shall be filed with the court and copies
thereof shall be served on the opposing parties…”

(f): When affidavits are unavailable.


2
Plaintiffs have highlighted the areas in the Exhibits to which the Plaintiffs are referring in order
to prevent further confusion and to aid the Court.

-3-
“Should it appear from the affidavits of a party opposing the
motion that he cannot, for reasons stated, present by affidavits facts
essential to justify his opposition,…”
(g): Affidavits made in bad faith.
“Should it appear … at any time that any of the affidavits presented
… are presented in bad faith or solely for the purpose of delay,
the court shall forthwith order the party employing them to pay to
the other party the amount of reasonable expenses which the filing
of the affidavits caused him to incur, including reasonable
attorney’s fees, and any offending party may be adjudged guilty of
contempt.”

¶2: “…January 4, 2008 Georgia Power served the following written discovery…”

*: Mr. Watt claims that Plaintiffs were served with written discovery on “January 4,
2008”, a false sworn statement. The written discovery were signed and possibly mailed
by defendants Friday, January 4, 2008, the requests were not hand delivered.
Furthermore, Plaintiffs did not receive the requests until mail delivery January 7, 2008,
the requests were not served until January 7, 2008. Furthermore, Georgia C.P.A.,
O.C.G.A. §9-11-6(e) is authority and surely Defendant’s legal counsel has knowledge of
the statute.

O.C.G.A. § 9-11-6.(e):
“Additional time after service by mail. Whenever a party has the
right or is required to do some act or take some proceedings within
a prescribed period after the service of a notice or other paper, other
than process, upon him, and the notice or paper is served upon him
by mail, three days shall be added to the prescribed period.”

¶3: “On January 24, 2008 I received via fax a letter from Plaintiffs requesting an
extension … According to Plaintiffs, a deadline for petitioning the Supreme Court of
Georgia …”

*: Mr. Watt fails to provide the FAX cover sheet with Plaintiffs’ FAX and fails to state
that Plaintiffs mailed him the same letter that same day. Also Mr. Watt neglects to state
that Plaintiffs’ request for extension was for fourteen (14) days, 3 Plaintiffs were granted a

3
Many of Defendant’s filings with the Court state that Plaintiffs were granted a 14 day extension

-4-
six (6) day extension. Plaintiffs have attached the FAX cover sheet which showed
preferred contact methods of Plaintiffs, the letter, and 1st page of Supreme Court Petition
showing filed.. “Exhibit D”

¶4: “… but failed to produce any copies of said documents or indicate that
inspection would be allowed.”

*: False representation, Plaintiffs have attached as “Exhibit E” the relevant material


showing that defendants were told to contact Plaintiffs in order to inspect, copy, etc., and
a showing of documents that were supplied to defendants.

¶5: “… that they possess videotapes of the incidents giving rise to this lawsuit.”
“Other documents already obtained by Georgia Power reference Plaintiff McDonald …
attempting to interact with them …Despite repeated requests dating back to February 19,
2008, for the production of a copy of the videotape … or allow inspection.”

*: False representations, the February 19, 2008 letter to Plaintiffs did not mention the
videotape, Plaintiffs never indicated more than one videotape, never claimed the
videotape gave “rise to the lawsuit”. Mr. Watt also makes statements in which he offers
no evidence in support. Plaintiffs have never refused inspection; Mr. Watt never
suggested that he or someone he designates to make arrangements with Plaintiffs to meet
for inspection and copying, see “Exhibit F”

¶6: “With regards to the videotape,… that they are “working on it,” but have
refused … or an estimated time for production…repeated and unwarranted refusals to
allow inspection.. crucial videotape … third party vendor to create a copy…”

*: Plaintiffs did state they were “working on it”. First Mr. Watt misled Plaintiffs by
4
telling them Kinko’s “Exhibit G” to copy from Digital8 to DVD or VHS, Kinko’s
could not perform the task. Plaintiffs then attempted to copy the videotape using Plaintiff
McDonald’s computer – first attempted to copy directly to a DVD from camera using the
computer, then attempted to download the video to the computer to try to burn onto DVD

4
Mr. Watt’s February 27, 2008 letter to Plaintiffs, page 2, 1st ¶, 3rd sentence.

-5-
from computer. Then Plaintiffs attempted to copy from camera to VHS using a VCR,
then tried to use the camera to play through their TV and copy onto VHS through VCR.
When all failed, Plaintiffs began contacting third parties on their own, the only response
that Plaintiffs can show evidence of is in the form of an email attached as “Exhibit H”

It should also be noted that several times Mr. Watt was advised if he did not hear
back by a certain day to contact them, he never contacted them back. Plaintiffs never
refused to allow inspection; Mr. Watt never suggested or discussed inspection, he only
demanded that Plaintiffs provide him a copy, which Plaintiffs attempted; Mr. Watt told
them to get Kinko’s to perform the copying knowing full well that Kinko’s could not do
so and knowing the proper “lab” which could as shown by Motion To Compel. Plaintiffs
further kept Mr. Watt advised on the situation, see “Exhibit I”

¶7: “Plaintiffs have also evaded and delayed the taking of their depositions. I first
asked … in early February, 2008 … , but that Plaintiffs would provide a date shortly …
letter dated February 27, … I again requested …no time did I agree to forego …month of
March.”

*: This is riddled with falsum. Plaintiffs have not delayed, they were up front with Mr.
Watt about March and it was agreed no depositions in March due to Brief due at 11th
Circuit Court of Appeals “Exhibit J” and Mr. Watt lied about “early February”, it was
February 27th the last of February. Mr. Watt needs to produce evidence that Plaintiffs
agreed to provide a “date shortly”, that was never stated; there was verbal agreement that
Plaintiffs would not be deposed in March as evidenced by letter dated February 27, 2008,
two days before the month ended, see “Exhibit K”: 2nd page, 2nd ¶: “… You indicated
that the briefing schedule imposed by the 11th Circuit in your appeal from an unrelated
Federal lawsuit created time constraints…”

¶8: “After weeks of requesting dates … I received Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike….


I then noticed … depositions for March 27, 2008.”

-6-
*: Mr. Watt again has falsely sworn. February 27, 2008 Plaintiffs talked with opposing
counsel on the phone in discussion about Kinko’s copying the map and video; agreement
was made that Plaintiffs would copy the photos to Cd, copy Easement agreement5. Not
until Mr. Watt’s February 27th letter that “Finally we discussed scheduling…” then the
only conversation about depositions was that Plaintiff Stegeman had a Brief to Eleventh
Circuit Court of Appeals due the last day of March, that there would be nothing set for
March; there was no discussion about date, time, length, subject matter, see “Exhibit K”,
page 2. Mr. Watt twists what has happened and unless he can present evidence, he makes
unsubstantiated claims.

¶9: “Upon receiving … Plaintiffs contacted me and requested that the depositions
by rescheduled for April.”, ¶10: “… a true and correct copy of a letter dated March 18,
2008, drafted by me …” ¶11: “… Plaintiffs agreed to allow up through and including
April 25, 2008 … a true and correct copy … reflecting Plaintiffs’ agreement …” ¶12:
6
“At no time did I agree to confer…would be improper … Plaintiffs’ pro se status…”

*: Not “upon receiving” the Notice, it was received on or around March 15, 2008
Plaintiffs received “Notice to Take Video Deposition” set for March 27, 2008 even
though Plaintiffs were led to believe there would be no depositions set for March, see
“Exhibit K” page 2.

*: March 18, 2008 Plaintiffs contacted Mr. Watt via telephone about the deposition,
mentioning the fact that there had been an agreement that nothing would be set in March;
Mr. Watt’s response had something to do with being angry at Plaintiffs. It was obvious
from the telephone conversation that Mr. Watt had set the Depositions in March for the
sole purpose of extorting Plaintiffs into extending the time for filing Georgia Power’s
Response to Motion to Strike. Plaintiffs were negotiating a change of date, time,
location and because Plaintiff Stegemans disabilities, and Plaintiffs’ severe transportation
problems, - in exchange for extension of time for Defendant’s Response to Motion to
5
Plaintiffs thought they had already provided a copy of easement agreement to defendants
6
Because of the confusion brought on by jumping around of dates, and events, Plaintiffs have put
¶¶s 9, 10, 11, 12 together

-7-
Strike. It was agreed that nothing would be filed with the Court until confirmation by all
parties’ on what changes were agreed upon.
“agreement to agree. 1. An unenforceable agreement that
purports to bind two parties to negotiate and enter into a contract;
esp., a proposed agreement negotiated with the intent that the final
agreement will be embodied in a formal written document and that
neither party will be bound until the final agreement is executed. 2.
A fully enforceable agreement containing terms that are sufficiently
definite as well as adequate consideration, but leaving some details
to be worked out by the parties.”
“[I]t has been many times reiterated that the law does not
recognize ‘an agreement to agree’ as a valid contract. So, an
agreement under which a builder for a developer was held not
to be binding because no price was fixed, it being simply
agreed that fair and reasonable sums would be negotiated. An
‘agreement to agree would be unobjectionable if the parties
had definitely agreed to enter into a contract on terms which
were themselves sufficiently definite. What they cannot do is
to bind themselves to negotiate and reach agreement, for the
negotiations may quite genuinely fail to lead to an
agreement.” P.S. Atiyah, An Introduction to the Law of
Contract 89 (3d. ed. 1981)’” Black’s Law Dictionary
Seventh Edition, pg. 68

*: Plaintiffs bring to this Court’s attention that several key important incidents have been
left out of Mr. Watt’s Affidavit at this point. Plaintiffs respond in sequence so all facts are
properly shown before the Court:

March 19, 2008 Mr. Watt called Plaintiffs, the only conversation was Mr. Watt asked if
they had read their email. He was told that the “email is not read every day” and they
would read it “shortly”. (*NOTE: Plaintiffs have never emailed Defendants, never
suggested that email was to replace letter, “Exhibit D” shows that Plaintiffs will accept
FAX when time is of the essence, but must be called before FAX due to lack of dedicated
FAX line, showing preference.) The email sent to Plaintiffs contained Mr. Watt’s March
18, 2008 letter that was supposed to confirm of the March 18th phone conversation before
anything was filed with the Court. The March 18, 2008 email and letter, received March
19th are attached as “Exhibit L” the email stated and letter stated:

-8-
March 18, 2008 email:
1st ¶: “… I appreciate your cooperation and willingness to resolve
these minor scheduling issues without court involvement.”
2nd ¶: “Attached to this email is a letter … confirming the agreements
…”
3rd ¶: Please also confirm … the letter contains an accurate …
agreement.”

March 18, 2008 letter:


1st ¶: “This letter will confirm …, the parties mutually agreed …”
“All other aspects of Defendants’ notices will remain the same.
Revised notices reflecting the new date will be filed with the Court
tomorrow, …”
3rd ¶: “We also discussed the video recordings in your possession…
At your earliest convenience, please provide me with a date certain by
which Plaintiffs will provide the videotape.”7

*: After reading opposing counsel’s March 19, 2008 email, Plaintiffs sent a FAX (and
letter) to Mr. Watt indicating that the letter confirming the discussion left out much of
what was verbally agreed upon and the issues still being negotiated. Opposing counsel
had omitted: 1) location change; 2) Plaintiff Stegeman’s disabilities and having to use
wheelchair; 3) Plaintiff’s transportation difficulties; 4) Plaintiffs had not waived their
right to oppose or file for protective order; 5) conferring on scope of questioning for
depositions. The end of the communication clearly stated “… diligently attempting to
copy the tape … although we do not have a date for completion … feel free to call for
update on this.” And “Should this not be your understanding, please call us and confer
with your understanding of the conversation.”, see “Exhibit M”
“confirm, vb. 1. To give formal approval to… 2. To verify or
corroborate ... 3. To make firm or certain ...” Black’s Law
Dictionary, Seventh Edition, pg.294

7
There was no date for set for which Plaintiffs were to provide opposing counsel a date; it should
also be noted that Plaintiffs are unsure exactly when opposing counsel changed from “videotape”
to “videotapes” (in plural form), but Plaintiffs only have one videotape and any reference by
opposing counsel to more than one is a fraudulent representation, but Plaintiffs will not respond
in the plurality form when Mr. Watt so refers.

-9-
“formal agreement. An agreement in which the law requires not
only the consent of the parties but also a manifest of the agreement
in some particular form, in default of which the agreement is null.”
Black’s Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition, pg. 68

*: Soon after the first FAX and letter Plaintiffs’ mail was delivered. Certificate of
Service for “Notice … Deposition” showed March 18, 2008, DeKalb County’s On-line
Judicial site also showed March 18th which would mean that (phone conversation was
around or after 3:00 p.m.), while or immediately after talking with Plaintiffs, opposing
counsel had someone go to DeKalb Courthouse and file the document, before
confirmation and a formal agreement had been made.8 Mr. Watt violated the agreement
of waiting until formal agreement had been reached and confirmed. The filed Notice did
not contain and had omitted relevant facts. Plaintiffs sent another March 18th FAX (and
letter) to Mr. Watt indicating that he had violated what was agreed upon, the agreement
had not yet been confirmed before filing with the Court, therefore there was no
agreement, period, see “Exhibit M”
*: Mr. Watt did not respond March 19th, waited until March 20, 2008 which Plaintiffs
received the 22nd attached hereto as “Exhibit N”. Mr. Watt confuses the reader by
referencing back and forth between “March 18, 2008”, “March 19, 2008” and
“yesterday”. Mr. Watt further would have this Honorable Court believe that out of the
goodness of his heart he rescheduled the depositions, when in reality: (1) “Exhibit K”
shows that there should not have been a deposition set for any time during March, and (2)
the discussion was that in exchange for extending the time in which Defendants would
have to address Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike, the depositions would be rescheduled, 9 see
“Exhibit N”:
1st pg., 3rd ¶: “First of all, I rescheduled your depositions as an
accommodation to you -- …” “… the second … the first being a

8
Could also mean that the Calendar Clerk allows Defendants to FAX filings Defendants’
documents get filed the same day as signed, even when signed late in the day.
9
Plaintiffs were extorted because no depositions were to be set in March, then Plaintiffs received
Mr. Farrow’s Leave of Absence so that Mr. Watt could claim the depositions had to be set in
March and could be set no later in April. Mr. Farrow’s Leave of Absence never filed

- 10 -
two week extension …”10
“After extending this courtesy, I requested an extension in the time
for Georgia Power to respond to your Motion to Strike…”

Clearly Mr. Watt shows that it does not matter what issues are being negotiated, he
decides when agreement has been reached; when and what will be Noticed to the Court
even if negotiations have not concluded and confirmed knowing that the Court will
neither recognize nor enforce an agreement to agree, but can and will enforce what is
purported to be a formal, confirmed agreement.
Mr. Watt has decided that he will present to the Court whatever he wants,
whenever it suits him whether or not an agreement and confirmation has been reached.
His letter states that he will not Notice the Depositions to the Court until after
confirmation on the changes. He lied, then Plaintiffs find that Notice had been filed
before confirmation. Mr. Watt, his letters, and filings with the Court shows that he,
himself contradicts what he and his letter stated to Plaintiffs.
*: Opposing counsel, on the second page further referenced the possible location
change, discovery conference that Plaintiffs had suggested, scope of questioning at the
depositions; then goes on to state that he decided that:
2nd pg., 1st ¶: “… for now the most important thing was to set the
new dates for the deposition and the due date for Georgia Power’s
response to your motion…”; “I did not deem it proper or necessary
to put …”;
2nd ¶: “… nor would I ever, agree … consult with you … would be
improper given our adverse positions and Plaintiffs’ pro se status.”

*: All along Mr. Watt had been deciding what he deems necessary and proper for
both the Plaintiffs and Defendants; when, where, how, why, and what to include when
confirming negotiations and verbal agreements to agree; only what he wants to include in
letters, and Notices; picks out what he wants to use from conversations. In one instant,
he cannot have a discovery conference or discuss documents to be used at depositions
because it would be unethical; the next instant he is making decisions on what is
10
Plaintiff have previously shown that there was only a six day extension, February 7, 2008 to
February 13, 2008 not two weeks; see page four above and attached “Exhibit 2”

- 11 -
necessary and proper on Plaintiff’s behalf (advising Plaintiffs), and he is making
decisions for Plaintiffs (representing Plaintiffs).11 The facts clearly show that the March
18, 2008 letter stated: “All other aspects of Defendants notices will remain the same”
which means no other changes. Mr. Watt, attempting to have Plaintiffs trust him when he
said “.. I had already indicated my willingness to entertain further discussion on the
topic” was a lie. Mr. Watt should be found in contempt, Defendant’s Answers stricken,
and Dismissal of Counterclaim as sanctions for Defendants’ legal counsel’s
representation of both parties.

See “Exhibit N” page 2, 1st¶.

See Green v. Green, (S.E.2d 457), (263 Ga. 437) 5511993.


GA.2404 <http://www.versuslaw.com>, (1993):
“[10]: Benham, Justice. All the Justices concur, except
Sears-Collins, J., who concurs specially, and Fletcher, J., who
concurs in the judgment only.”
“[16]: 2. In addition to the purely legal question …, the role
appellee's counsel played in procuring the judgment must be
examined.”
“[20] … That spirit of cooperation and civility, with the notions of
fundamental fairness that lie at the heart of the principle of due
process of law, requires that attorneys, as officers of the court,
make a good faith effort to ensure that all parties *fn3 to a
controversy have a full and fair opportunity to be heard. *fn4 …”
“[21] Given all the circumstances of this case, and
especially the lengths to which appellee's counsel went to ensure
that this case was tried in the absence of appellant, we hold that the
proper exercise of the trial court's discretion established in
Spyropoulos, supra, required that the judgment be set aside. The
trial court's denial of appellant's motion to set aside was, therefore,
an abuse of that discretion.”
“[40] … "due process" is "'flexible and calls for such
procedural protections as the particular situation demands,'"
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334 (96 S. Ct. 893, 47 L. Ed.
2d 18) (1976), and due regard must be given to the particularities
11
Because Mr. Watt has decided to represent and speak for the Plaintiffs as well as the
Defendants, Plaintiffs Object and suggest that there are grounds to strike Defendants answers,
counterclaim, Affidavits of Brian P. Watt, Deny Motion For Continuance. Mr. Watt cannot make
decisions and file what he pleases regarding Plaintiffs who have not given Mr. Watt permission
to speak for them.

- 12 -
and practicalities of each case and to the effect the different types
of notice may have on state interests, see Mullane, 339 U.S. at
314-315; Tulsa Professional Collection Svcs. v. Pope, 485 U.S.
478, 489 (108 S. Ct. 1340, 99 L. Ed. 2d 565) (1988).

Mr. Watt’s Affidavit cont’d:


¶13: “… Plaintiffs then filed their Motion to Stay … apparently seeking to avoid
their depositions altogether.”
*: Mr. Watt again lies, Plaintiffs never said or indicated that. Mr. Watt makes that
claim for the sole purpose of trying to have this case dismissed. Plaintiffs have shown
they were attempting to negotiate location, date, time and circumstances of the demanded
that location for the depositions at opposing counsel’s office and Plaintiffs would be
unduly burdened considering Mr. Stegeman’s health issues and their current automobile
difficulties. Plaintiffs be allowed to be deposed at the “Conference Room” within
DeKalb County Courthouse, that a Judge be present, and the depositions have a limited
subject matter and time appointed. It has been shown without doubt that Mr. Watt has
continually made false representations to Plaintiffs, orchestrated a plan to make it appear
they have refused discovery requests and depositions, and has made other fraudulent
conveyances to the Court and Plaintiffs. He cannot be trusted.
Further, given Plaintiffs’ pro se status and Mr. Watt’s refusal of Plaintiffs’
requested Discovery Conference, discussion on what Plaintiffs will be interrogated on,
what documents they would be questioned on at the depositions, and the demand of “day
to day until completed”, Plaintiffs have no way of preparing for deposition, it would be
unfair to have depositions at opposing counsel’s office as usually depositions are held at
the office of legal counsel who is representing the party being deposed.
NOTE: Mr. Watt was told that there was no agreement reached, yet Mr. Watt took it
upon himself and insisted that the new date and times would be “honored” when
Plaintiffs clearly told him no agreement. The rescheduling was an act of bad-faith to yet
again be able to claim that Plaintiffs have failed to comply and he would have another
reason to have the case dismissed. Mr. Watt also had put Plaintiffs in a position that if

- 13 -
they had attended the deposition, the agreement would have become enforceable and
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Stay would have become MOOT, he has since filed second Motion
to Compel.
Mr. Was continually sets inappropriate dates, times and locations for depositions
so that Plaintiffs would not be able to appear. Further, Mr. Watt has taken it upon
himself to decide issues for Plaintiffs, which forced Plaintiffs to file Motion to Stay
seeking a Protective Order, not to prevent the depositions, but for an Order from this
Court to make it a fair and level playing field so to speak. Plaintiffs are not Pro Se by
their choosing, it is a position they have been forced into to lack of assets, lack of
attorneys willing to accept full contingency basis, and the need to protect their Rights.

Mr. Watt’s Affidavit cont’d:


¶14: “Plaintiffs … did not provide an explanation for their retraction of the
extension that was previously granted.”

* Another falsum. Mr. Watt violated the agreement, see “Exhibit M”


¶15: “… Georgia Power would honor …commit to reschedule …, rather than the
original date in March.”

* Plaintiffs had already informed Mr. Watt that there was no agreement to changing date
or extending because he had violated the agreement, see “Exhibit M”

¶17: “Georgia Power will be prejudiced … Georgia Power’s ability to respond


will be hindered … lack a sufficient factual basis for asserting …Plaintiffs have withheld
crucial evidence and refused to sit for their depositions. ¶18: “… Georgia Power intends
on taking the depositions of … Trooper Elbert Slappy, Trooper Bobby Mathis, … seeks to
depose Plaintiffs so that the essential allegations in this action can be established and
better understood.”

* There is no lack of sufficient basis, facts clearly show and Plaintiffs have evidenced
that there was no easement agreement concerning Plaintiffs’ property. Defendants’

- 14 -
statement shows that they cannot defend against the fraudulent document and their fraud
upon the Court.
¶19: “Unfortunately, Plaintiffs have refused to sit for their depositions and have
withheld crucial evidence, frustrating the progress of discovery in this case.”

* The whole of Mr. Watt’s Affidavit is riddled with falsum, fraud on the Court and shows
that Mr. Watt himself has frustrated the progress of discovery. He has consistently made
decisions for both Plaintiffs and Defendants; has intimidated, harassed, and caused undue
hardship upon the Plaintiffs, while the Plaintiffs have diligently bent over backwards to
appease Mr. Watt.

CONCLUSION

Clearly both Affidavit of Brian P. Watt and Second Affidavit of Brian P. Watt are
made in bad-faith, an act to delay and attempt to discredit Plaintiffs. The defendants ask
in bad-faith for an unwarranted Continuance, because they cannot defend their
fraudulent actions shown within Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Answers and
Motion to Stay.
Plaintiffs have shown that they have been threatened with Motions to Compel
when they have in fact complied with unreasonable demands made upon them; that
opposing legal counsel has taken it upon himself to make false statements to the Court,
make fictitious agreement confirmations when negotiations did not lead to an agreement
so that he could attempt to provide evidence to the Court.
Plaintiffs have further shown that Mr. Watt has refused a Discovery Conference
with Plaintiffs as required before filing Motion to Compel. Mr. Watt then makes
decisions for Plaintiffs that only an attorney representing them would be allowed to
make.
The Defendants continue to insist they have an easement agreement, claim to have
no idea of what this suit is about, would have this Honorable Court believe that Plaintiffs

- 15 -
have intentionally withheld “vital evidence”12; “crucial videotape”13; “crucial evidence”;14
that deposing Plaintiffs and State Patrol Troopers will give defendants the answers that
they desperately need. Again, Defendants make false representations to this Honorable
Court resulting in fraud on the Court. Not one of the relevant Georgia Power employees
have an Affidavit filed with the Court.
Plaintiffs based their suit on legal documentation, not “he said, she said” theories
and or hypothesis. The legal documentation came from Georgia Power, Georgia State
Patrol Headquarters, DeKalb County Magistrate Court Hearing, etc. Defendants
deposing Plaintiffs or anyone else cannot turn falsum to truth; turn fabricated evidence
into concrete evidence or evidence that pertains to Plaintiff’s property; cannot change
Georgia Power’s Matt Goff’s false representations to State Patrol Troopers; and cannot
change what Georgia Power said in a Magistrate Hearing.
Plaintiffs have shown that Defendants and their legal counsel’s conduct results in
fraud upon the Court; they have continually made false representations to this Honorable
Court. Plaintiffs have further shown that they have in fact attempted to work with
opposing legal counsel in a good-faith effort hoping to prevent problems only to have
their good-faith attempts twisted, manipulated, and falsified in Defendant’s desperate
attempt to have this case Dismissed rather than respond to Plaintiffs’ Motions.

Plaintiffs in this action are acting on their own behalf, not out of desire, but to
protect their Rights, the right to privacy and property as guaranteed by The State of
Georgia and The United States Constitutions. The Defendants failed to file for
condemnation, or any of the many kinds of easements they want to claim a right to,
which forced Plaintiffs into action, thereby the Defendants lost the ability to claim any
such easement. The Georgia and United States codes expressly prohibits taking of land
without just compensation, Plaintiffs have been victimized at the hands of the
Defendants.

12
Motion to Compel, pg. 1, 1st ¶
13
Motion to Compel, pg. 2, 4th ¶.
14
Motion to Compel, pg. 3, last sentence

- 16 -
PRAYER

The Plaintiffs, having shown reason and merit, Pray that this Honorable Court will
GRANT their Motion To Strike Affidavits of Brain P. Watt. Plaintiffs further having
shown that opposing counsel has been making decisions as if he represents Plaintiffs and
Defendants, making decisions for both, Plaintiffs Pray this Honorable Court will Strike
the Verified Answers, Dismiss Defendants Counterclaim, Deny Defendant’s Motion For
Continuance, and sanction opposing legal counsel, he is in contempt. Should this Court
find that Plaintiffs’ depositions will not provide to Defendants what they are claiming to
hope to gain by the depositions, and decide depositions are unnecessary, that would be
acceptable to Plaintiffs as well.

Respectfully submitted this 28th day of April, 2008,

By: ____________________________
JANET D. MCDONALD, Pro Se
821 Sheppard Rd
Stone Mountain, GA 30083
(770) 879-8737

By: _____________________________
JAMES B. STEGEMAN, Pro Se
821 Sheppard Rd
Stone Mountain, GA 30083
(770) 879-8737

- 17 -
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY
STATE OF GEORGIA

JANET D. MCDONALD,
JAMES B. STEGEMAN,
PLAINTIFFS
CIVIL ACTION
V FILE NO: 07CV11398-6

GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et,al.,


DEFENDANTS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that I have this 28th day of April, 2008 served a true and correct
copy of the within and foregoing Plaintiffs’ Responsive Objections To And Motion To
Strike Affidavits of Brian P. Watt upon defendants through their attorney on file by
deposition in the United States Mail, adequate postage affixed thereto, as follows:

Troutman Sanders, LLP


C/o Brian P. Watt
5200 Bank of America Plaza
600 Peachtree Street
Atlanta, GA 30308-2216

By: ____________________________
JANET D. MCDONALD, Pro Se
821 Sheppard Rd
Stone Mountain, GA 30083
(770) 879-8737

By: _____________________________
JAMES B. STEGEMAN, Pro Se
821 Sheppard Rd
Stone Mountain, GA 30083
(770) 879-8737

- 18 -

You might also like