IN THE STATE COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY

STATE OF GEORGIA

HERITAGE BANK,
Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION
FILE NO: 09A11175-3
v

JAMES B. STEGEMAN,
Defendant

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

COMES NOW, James B. Stegeman1 and files his Brief in Support of Motion
for Appointment of Counsel.
Mr. Stegeman is One Hundred percent (100%) Federally disabled and receives
Supplemental Security Income2. As a disabled adult receiving Supplemental Security
Income, Mr. Stegeman is qualified and eligible for, and has a property right of legal
assistance through Georgia’s Legal Assistance programs which do receive Federal
funding. Further, a cause of action is a property interest which qualifies as
entitlements, see the following:
“Over the years, the Court has found a wide range of property
interests that qualify as entitlements, including mere possessory
interests in chattels (Fuentes v. Shevin, 1972), intangible interests
such as causes of action (Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 1982),
the right of an employer to discharge an employee for cause (Brock
1
Referred to hereinafter as either Mr. Stegeman, or Defendant.
2
Mr. Stegeman has been receiving SSI since 1993, and the current monthly benefit is
$674.00 monthly, see US District Court’s Order GRANTING Motion to Proceed on
Appeal in Forma Pauperis in which states that Mr. Stegeman is disabled and only source
of income is from disability “Exhibit A”; he cannot afford an attorney to protect his
Rights, and he is not an attorney, therefore he cannot protect his Rights. The only way to
assure Mr. Stegeman will be treated fairly in this matter, is to appoint counsel for him.
 v. Roadway Express, Inc., 1987), a child’s entitlement to a public
school education (Goss v. Lopez 1975), and continued gas and
electric service conditioned upon payment of proper charges
(Memphis Light, Gas & Water v. Craft, 1978).”

"No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United

States, ... shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be ... denied
the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program
or activity receiving Federal financial assistance...." 29 U.S.C. Sec.
794(a)

BRIEF BACKGROUND
May 1998 Defendant, who is 100% Federally disabled “Exhibit A”, and his
elderly aunt Jean Caffrey3 visited John Bleakley RV Center, a salesman talked Ms.
Caffrey into buying a 1998 Winnebago Brave SE. The salesman filled out the Loan
Application with Ms. Caffrey as principal on the loan and Mr. Stegeman a co-signer.
Had the John Bleakley dealership and Heritage Bank performed the necessary
credit checks and bank account checks, as well as income checks the loan would have
been denied. Heritage Bank was negligent.
Mr. Stegeman in 2002, contacted the Plaintiff and informed them that there had
been a guardian of property appointed for Ms. Caffrey; and April 2003, Mr. Stegeman
contacted Plaintiff about her death. Mr. Stegeman was advised to send a Death
Certificate, which was done, see Ms. McDonald’s Affidavit attached to Answer to
Foreclose. Ms. McDonald who resides with Mr. Stegeman paid for, obtained, and
mailed out Death Certificates to several entities.
A. Related Cases
Not only did the Probate Court have actual knowledge of the “vehicle” Ms.
Caffrey bought, but the Guardian of Property and Administrator of the Estate had
3
Ms. Caffrey was born in 1911, in 1998 she was visibly elderly.
2
actual knowledge as well. September 23, 2002 a date that Guardian of Property had
for Mr. Stegeman had to respond to Subpoena Duces Tecum, issued through Probate
Court; one of the requests was for documentation for the “vehicle” “Exhibit B”.
Furthermore, Attorney Stephen Carley had made a demand that the Guardian of
Property take over the payments of the “vehicle” as well. The “vehicle” has been
brought up in numerous lawsuits, as well as Mr. Stegeman’s Objection to Discharge of
Administrator of Jean Caffrey’s Estate due to Mr. Lillig, III’s false swearing, perjury
“Exhibit C”.
Heritage Bank was negligent and forced Mr. Stegeman into default. Heritage
Bank contributed quite heavily to the default by failing to file upon the Estate of
Caffrey. Ms. Caffrey had never defaulted, she passed away. Mr. Lillig, III committed
fraud upon the Court, he failed to satisfy any of the debts of the Estate “Exhibit D”.
Probate Estate No.: 2002-1161, riddled with fraud upon the Court, the Probate
Clerk in 2002illegally appointed a Guardian of Property for the Estate of Jean Caffrey.
Assets belonging to Ms. McDonald and Mr. Stegeman were illegally seized without
due process of law, and directly led to Superior Court Civil Action No: 02-cv-9732-8,
which was a frivolous, vexatious litigation brought for the sole purpose of keeping the
assets tied up by the bank by claiming the accounts were in litigation; thereby
preventing Ms. McDonald and Mr. Stegeman their assets while the assets were being
wasted. The case drug on for two years.
Probate Estate No.: 2002-1161 directly led to Pro Se action: In Re: Estate of
Jean Caffrey(Appeal from Probate Court/Void Judgment) Superior Court Stone
Mountain Judicial Circuit Civil Action File No.: 05-cv-13909-94.
4
Mr. Stegeman filed Notice of Appeal and the fee was paid; Probate Court held the check
until an Appeal would not be timely filed, mailed the check back and said that they were
not going to let him Appeal, so he filed in Superior Court Appeal and Void Judgment.
This Appeal was held and not Ruled on for over three years. June 26, 2009, after two
preemptory hearings a jury trial set for an Appeal, a Final Order was given. Mr.
Stegeman timely filed Notice of Appeal to Supreme Court, and filed Motion to Proceed
on Appeal in Forma Pauperis July 16, 2009; Motion to Proceed on Appeal in Forma
3
 Probate Estate No.: 2002-1161 directly led to Hicks v. Stegeman, Civil Action
File No.: 06A44151is State Court DeKalb County, which Mr. Stegeman proceeded
Pro Se. The case has been before that Court for over three years. More than one year
ago, Mr. Stegeman filed for Judgment as a Matter of Law. The Motion has been
unopposed for over a year and the Judge still has failed to Rule.
Probate Estate No.: 2002-1161 directly led to Superior Court Civil Action No.:
06-cv-1065-8, Stegeman, and McDonald v. Wachovia Bank, N.A. and Wachovia
Securitiesin which Plaintiffs proceeded Pro Se. Plaintiffs were denied the Right to file
any evidence, and the case was Dismissed for failure to state a claim for which relief
can be granted. Appealed to Georgia Court of Appeals No: A07A1846; then Petition
for Certiorari to The Supreme Court of Georgia No: S08C0805.
Probate Estate No.: 2002-1161 directly led to Pro Se action: Stegeman v. State
of Georgia, et., al., in The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
Atlanta Division Civil Action File No.: 1:06-cv-02954-WSD, which was Appealed to
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Appeal No.: 07-13540-I, for which
Cert. to U.S. Supreme Court was filed No.: 08-8320.
Probate Estate No.: 2002-1161 directly led to State Court Heritage Bank v.
Stegeman, Civil Action Nos.: 09A11175-3, and 09A11176-3. Mr. Stegeman cannot
and will not have a fair and impartial tribunal in this Judicial Circuit, he MOVES this
Court to GRANT his Motion for change of venue and have the case taken to Fulton
County where the DeKalb County Courts and employees are not intimately involved,
and thereby will not attempt to protect the proper parties to the cases at bar, the
entities that should be held responsible to Heritage Bank.
Two related cases were attempts to sue Mr. Stegeman for Credit Card debts that
neither the Guardian of Property, nor Administrator of the Estate paid: CACV of
Colorado, LLC Successor in Interest of Fleet Bank v Caffrey and StegemanCivil
Action No.: 07A62179-7; and CitiBank v. StegemanCivil Action No.: 05A33060.
Both of these cases were Dismissed due to Mr. Stegeman not being the proper party
Pauperis has yet to be ruled on and is currently pending in Superior Court.
4
defendant to the suit.

ARGUMENT AND CITATIONS OF AUTHORITY5

It has been long realized by many Pro Se litigants that they are looked upon
with bias/prejudice by not only attorneys, but Judges as well. Many times, Pro Se
litigants have been subjected to harsher, stricter standards than attorneys; the receive
Rulings with no explanations or caselaw; the Court’s Opinions are “Unpublished”,
marked “Do Not Publish”, or contain one sentence rulings, “Motion is Denied” and
their Rights to Appeal are hampered and tampered with.
A. Past Case Precedent and Principles of Stare Decisis
Past case precedent and the application of the doctrine of stare decisis is
essential to the performance of a well ordered system of jurisprudence . When ruling
on Pro Se litigant’s filings, the principles of stare decisis and past case precedent are
often ignored; Courts refuse to liberally construe Pro Se pleadings, and fail to hold to
them and their pleadings toless stringent standards; the judicial system fails resulting
in manifest injustice and the Courts find in favor of the opposition, who can afford
legal counsel. “Courts will go to particular pains to protect pro se litigants … if
injustice would otherwise result” U. S. v. Sanchez, 88 F.3d 1243 (D.C. Cir. 1996).
An appeal court's panel is "bound by decisions of prior panels
unless an en banc decision, Supreme Court decision, or subsequent
legislation undermines those decisions." United States v.
Washington, 872 F.2d 874, 880 (9th Cir. 1989).

"Stare decisis is usually the wise policy, because in most matters it

is more important that the applicable rule of law be settled than that
5
It has long been a known fact that State and Superior Court Rules are almost identical to
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; Georgia is one such state that has almost identical
Rules and Procedures. Mr. Stegeman’s Argument and Authorities use caselaw from
several sources including US Supreme Court, US Court of Appeals, and US District
Court which is acceptable due to the closeness of the Rules and Procedures.
5
 it be settled right" (Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U.S.
393, 52 S. Ct. 443, 76 L. Ed. 815 [1932]).

In Dreyer v. Jalet, 349 F.Supp. 452, 486 (S.D.Tex.1972), affirmance order, 479
F.2d 1044 (CA5 1973) it was held: "[I]f a civil action brought by an indigent acting
pro se, including prison inmates, has merit … then counsel should be appointed to
properly present the claim." In Bounds v. Smith, et., al., 97 S. Ct. 1491, 430 U.S. 817
(U.S. 04/27/1977), 52 L. Ed. 2d 72, (1977) [ 430 U.S. Page 826] it was stated: “If a
lawyer must perform such preliminary research, it is no less vital for a pro se prisoner.
Indeed, despite the ‘less stringent standards’ by which a pro se pleading is judged”,
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972).
B. The United States Constitution and State of Georgia Constitution
The Fifth Amendment says, "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law." The Fourteenth Amendment says, "no state
shall... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor
deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Georgia Supreme Court’s Equal Justice Commission Committee On Civil
Justice. The “Minutes” of the December 4, 2006 Meeting:
“…in August 2006, the ABA endorsed the right to counsel in
certain civil cases, also known as the civil Gideon…The kinds of
cases of which the ABA endorses a civil right to counsel…”
“The ABA’s principles endorse the inclusions of all persons in a
state’s system for the delivery of civil legal aid, including …the
disabled…vulnerable populations…”
“Fourth,…promote …the judiciary and court personnel in
reforming rules, procedures and services to expand and facilitate
access to justice…to support pro se litigants.”
“Clients that most touch the public’s sympathy are children,…and
the disabled.”
6
 Both the Georgia and United States Constitutions prohibit the state from
depriving `any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.' United
States Const., amend. XIV, sec. 1; see also Ga. Const., [Art. I, Sec. I, Par. I]. The
fundamental idea of due process is notice and an opportunity to be heard." 6
As stated in Citizens & Contractors. Bank v. Maddox, *fn2 "[t]he benefit of
notice and a hearing before judgment is not a matter of grace, but is one of right." "A
party's cause of action is a property interest that cannot be denied without due process.
(Cit.)" In RE Law Suits, 235 Ga.App. 551, 510 S.E.2d 91 (Ga.App. 12/02/1998).
Wilhelm H. Joseph Jr. 7: Justice system should be equal for rich and poor
2006-07-12; explained: “Effective participation in the system of justice requires the
assistance of competent counsel, which is usually beyond the financial capacity of …
Americans in general.”
In Frase vs. Barnhard, a 2003 case seeking to create a right to counsel in critical
civil cases, a judge on Maryland’s highest court wrote, “[I]t is my belief that there is
no judge on this Court that believes in his or her heart or mind that justice is equal
between the poor and the rich — even in the tradition-hallowed halls of our appellate
courts.”
It would be a great day when we get past the fear expressed in the 2001 State of
the Judiciary speech by California Court of Appeals Chief Justice Ronald George: “If
the motto ‘and justice for all’ becomes ‘and justice for those who can afford it,’ we
threaten the very underpinnings of our social contract.”
“The gap between civil legal needs and available services has been well
6
O.C.G.A. §9-15-2 (d)
7
Wilhelm H. Joseph Jr. has served as executive director of the Legal Aid Bureau of
Maryland since 1996. Previously he was director of the legal support unit at Legal
Services for New York City. A law graduate of the University of Mississippi and
Harvard’s JFK School of Government, Joseph is the immediate past chair of the Legal
Services Project Committee of the American Bar Association Section of Litigation.
7
documented. A 1993 American Bar Association study showed that 70 percent of poor
people could not obtain legal help for their serious legal problems. Many follow-up
studies suggest the number is closer to 90 percent. As a consequence, poor people
largely cannot enforce what rights they have.”8
“Although lay litigants are no better able to navigate the legal system in civil
cases than in criminal ones, the simple logic of Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335
(1963), has yet to be applied in the civil arena. In Gideon, the U.S. Supreme Court
required that counsel be appointed for criminal defendants because “the right to be
heard would be, in many cases, of little avail if it did not comprehend the right to be
heard by counsel.” Id. at 344–45.
Eighteen years later, the Supreme Court in Lassiter v. Dep’t of Social Services,
452 U.S. 18 (1981), acknowledged that federal due process does at times require
appointment of counsel in civil cases.”
“Indeed, creative litigation and legislative efforts are underway in California,
Georgia, Maryland, New York, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin to recognize the
right to civil counsel.”
C. ADA Title II and 42 §1983
In Miller v. King, et., al., 449 F.3d 1149, 17 A.D. Cases 1758 (11th Cir. 2006)
in which the opinion was vacated in full “in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in
United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. ___ 126 S. Ct. 877 (2006)”, it was held:
At [13] “However, the analytical difficulties created by Miller;s
pro se pleadings are now heightened by the Supreme Court’s
decision in Georgia, which indicates that it is important for lower
courts to determine on a claim by claim basis (1) which aspects of
the State’s conduct violate Title II; (2) to what extent such alleged
misconduct also violates the Constitution; and (3) whether such
alleged misconduct violates Title II but does not violate the
Constitution. Georgia 546 U.S. at___, 126 S. Ct. at 882.”
A Civil Right to Counsel for the Poor By Paul Marvy and Debra Gardner.
8

http://www.abanet.org/irr/hr/summer05/counsel.html.
8
 At [20] “*fn 3 Miller filed his complaints pro se and remained
pro se until this Court appointed him pro bono counsel on appeal.”

The U.S. Supreme Court in Lane, 541 U.S. at 523-528 teaches that Title II
enforces rights under the Equal Protection Clause as well as an array of rights subject
to heightened constitutional scrutiny under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment; accord Constantine, 411 F.3d at 486-487. Title II enforces the Equal
Protection Clause’s prohibition of arbitrary treatment based on hostility, or “mere
negative attitudes”, University of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 367 (2001); to private
biases, Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U.S. 429, 433 (1984).
CONCLUSION
Appointment of counsel in this matter will ensure Mr. Stegeman proper and fair
treatment; would ensure the guaranteed meaningful access to the Courts; and would
also ensure that his defenses would be properly presented to the Court.
The Supreme Court has recognized that at times, even for Civil actions in civil
cases, the only way for an Appellant to be afforded proper protection of one’s rights,
legal counsel must be appointed.
Appellant prays this Court will appoint to him legal counsel, even if it is just
for direction and advice on filings, and to represent him at hearings.

Respectfully Submitted this 20th day of August, 2009

By: _______________________________
JAMES B. STEGEMAN, Pro Se
821 Sheppard Rd.
Stone Mountain, GA 30083
(404) 300-9782
9
 IN THE STATE COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY
STATE OF GEORGIA

HERITAGE BANK,
Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION
FILE NO: 09A11175-3
v

JAMES B. STEGEMAN,
Defendant

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I Certify that I have this 20th day of August, 2009 served a true and correct copy
of the foregoing Motion for Appointment of Counsel and Brief in Support of Motion
for Appointment of Counsel, through their attorneys on record by causing to be
deposited with the U.S.P.S., First Class Mail, proper postage affixed thereto,
addressed as follows:

Thomas E. Austin, Jr.

10
3490 Piedmont Road, N.E.
Suite 1005
Atlanta, GA 30305

_______________________________
JAMES B. STEGEMAN, Pro Se
821 Sheppard Rd.
Stone Mountain, GA 30083
(404) 300-9782

11