PETITION FOR EN BANC REHEARING/REHEARING

COMES NOW James B. Stegeman, Appellant in the above entitled case and

timely files His PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC/REHEARING this

Court’s August 26, 2008 Unpublished Affirmation1 pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 35,

and Fed. R. App. P. 40 should Rehearing EN BANC be denied.

Fed. R. App. P. 35 (b)(1)(A): The panel decision conflicts with decision(s) of the

United States Supreme Court or of this Court and consideration by the full court is

therefore necessary to secure and maintain uniformity of this court's decisions.

The following shows, with particularity and specificity, that both this Court

and District Court failed to follow precedent concerning: Pro Se pleadings

(complaint liberally read; held to less stringent standards); Motions To Dismiss;

Immunity; Civil Rights claim; and disabled persons.

CONFLICTING CASES

See Mitchell v. Inman, 682 F. 2d 886 (11th Cir. 1982), citing Supreme

Court case Haines, Vacated, and Remanded with Instructions; it was held that pro

se pleadings are liberally read, should it appear that the complaint states more

causes of action, the pleading shall be treated as amended2:

1
A copy of the opinion sought to be reconsidered is attached is included as an
addendum pursuant to 11 th Cir. R. 40-1.
2
Duffey’s July Order of Dismissal, pg. 19 n.18 falsely alleged: “Plaintiff however
did not move to amend.”; then pg. 32 ¶3. “Plaintiff’s Motion For Leave to Amend
the Complaint” showing that n.18 was an “enhancement”.

-1-

PDF Creator - PDF4Free v2.0 http://www.pdf4free.com

 “While the plaintiff’s pro se civil rights complaint specifically cites
42 U.S.C.A. §§1983, 1985 and 1986, read liberally, it invokes Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act. 42 U.S.C.A. §2000e et seq. as well.
See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed. 2d
652 (1972). Oral argument proceeded on that basis.”

The trial Court discussed the merits and facts of the case, referenced matters

outside the pleadings in the dismissal,3 (Or. pg. 5; ), which usually converts the

action into Summary Judgment. Going against Supreme Court and this Court’s

own precedent, Appellant was neither set to a lower standard than defendant’s

legal counsel, nor his complaint liberally read and construed..

Moore v. Florida, 703 F.2d 516 (11th Cir. 1983) Reversed and
Remanded which held
“[26] ‘a court should be particularly careful to ensure proper notice
to a pro se litigant.’ Herron v. Beck, 693 F.2d at 127. See also
Barker v. Norman, 651 F.2d 1107, 1129 (5th Cir. 1981) (holding
district court abused its discretion…failing to afford to a pro se civil
rights litigant…”
“[37] The pleadings of pro se litigants…subject to less stringent
rules. ‘The prisoner’s pro se complaint, however inartfully drafted,
must be held to less rigorous standards than…by lawyers.’
Woodall v. Foti, 651 F.2d 268, 271 (5th Cir. 1981); see
Richardson v. Fleming, 651 F.2d 366, 368 (5th Cir. 1981).”

Congress recognizes disabled protected class status; both the District Court

and this Court have denied Appellant’s protected status. Congress mandated the

3
Judge Duffey’s Ruling dismissing the case, careful not to reference evidence
submitted in support of Appellant’s claim, combines only parts of the evidence to
make up Judge Duffey’s own “enhanced” version of the complaint. There is no
other explanation of how Judge Duffey could have come up with something that
was never said by Plaintiff, any of the defendants, or shown in any of the evidence.
Further, in an unrelated matter in District Court, Judge Duffey recently claimed
that this Appeal is from a Summary Judgment, reproduced in Addendum as “B”

-2-

PDF Creator - PDF4Free v2.0 http://www.pdf4free.com

 Federal govt. is disabled persons’ advocate and gave the Federal govt. the power to

enforce the Fourteenth Amendment for disabled persons, a valid congressional

override when it comes to 11th Amendment Immunity. To Rule otherwise is going

against Supreme Court and this own Court’s precedent:

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES: UNITED

STATES v. GEORGIA et al. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH
CIRCUIT, Argued November 9, 2005–Decided January 10, 2006
No. 04—1203. Scalia, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous
Court. Stevens, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Ginsburg,
J., joined.:
United States v. Georgia, et., al, 120 Fed. Appx. 785, reversed
and remanded.
“No one doubts that §5 grants Congress the power to enforce the
Fourteenth Amendment’s provisions by creating private remedies
against the States for actual violations of those provisions. This
includes the power to abrogate state sovereign immunity by
authorizing private suits for damages against the States. Thus, the
Eleventh Circuit erred in dismissing those of Goodman’s claims
based on conduct that violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp.5-7.”

This Court states on page 3, *fn 3: “…Stegeman’s argument that Congress

abrogated sovereign immunity…(“ADA”)…Stegeman did not assert claims under

the ADA...” Appellant has found nowhere that a disabled, protected class cannot

sue under 42 §1983; to the contrary ADA states that §1983 is the proper avenue for

redress of Civil Rights violations. Further, this Court’s Ruling goes against U.S.

Supreme Court and other Federal Circuit courts precedent.

“The Judicially fashioned doctrine of official immunity does not

reach ‘so far as to immunize criminal conduct proscribed by an Act
of Congress…’” Gravel v. United States, @408 U.S. 606, 408

-3-

PDF Creator - PDF4Free v2.0 http://www.pdf4free.com

 U.S. 627 (1972).
“A state Judge can be found criminally liable under §242
although that judge may be immune from damages under §1983.”
See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 429 (1976); O’Shea v.
Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 503 (1974).

“Judges who would willfully discriminate…would willfully

deprive a citizen of his constitutional rights, as this complaint
alleges, must take account of 18 U.S.C. 242.” See Greenwood v.
Peacock supra at 384 U.S. 830; United States v. Price 383 U.S.
787, 383 U.S. 793-794 (1966); United States v. Guest 383 U.S.
745, 383 U.S. 753-754 (1966); Screws v. United States, 325 U.S.
91, 325 U.S. 101-106 (1945); United States v. Classic, 313 U.S.
299 (1941). Cf. Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 365 U.S. 187
(1961).

The grant of Immunity to Defendants results in denial of Appellant’s

protected status (disabled);4 goes against Supreme Court and this own Court’s

precedent on 11th Amendment Immunity, County as “arm of the state”, and Civil

Rights claims against the County:

Abusaid, v. Hillsborough County, et., al., 405 F.3d 1298 (11th

Cir. 2005). [84]: “the County enjoys neither Eleventh Amendment
nor state law sovereign immunity”; “by now well established that
‘[t]he bar of the Eleventh Amendment to suit in federal courts
extends to State and state officials in appropriate circumstances, but
does not extend to counties and similar municipal corporations.’”
Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. Of Educ. V. Doyle, 429 U.S.
274, 280, 97 S. Ct. 568, 50L. Ed. 2d 471 (1977) Citation omitted).
“the Court has consistently refused to construe the [Eleventh
Amendment to afford protection to political subdivisions such as
counties and municipalities, even though such entities exercise a
4
Appellant has shown the guidelines to receive Supplemental Security Income (A
person must have at least two 100% Federally recognized disabilities, one of which
is a 100% mental disability) are much more stringent than to receive Social
Security Disability. .

-4-

PDF Creator - PDF4Free v2.0 http://www.pdf4free.com

 ‘slice of state power.’” Hess , 513 U.S. at 43 (citiation omitted);
see also Hutton V. Strickland, 919 F.2d 1531, 1542 (11th Cir.
1990))”(“This Court specifically has recognized that the Eleventh
Amendment does not prevent an award of damages against a
county.”).

The Abusaid Court continued to explain that municipal corporations, and

similar governmental entities are “persons” for purposes of §1983, see below:

“Since the Court has held that since municipal corporations…are

‘persons’, see Monnell v. New York City Dept. of Social
Services, 436 U.S. 658, 663, 98 S.Ct. 2108, 2021-22, 56 L. Ed.
611 (1978); cf. will [v. Michigan Dep’t. of State Police, 491 U.S.
58, 69 ,.9. 109 S. Ct. 2304, 105 L. Ed. 2d 45 (1989))]; Mt.
Healthy City Bd. Of Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 280-281,
97 S. Ct. 568, 572-573, 50 L. Ed. ed 471 (1977). ‘By including
municipalities within the class ‘persons’ subject to liability for
violations of the Federal Constitution and laws, Congress – the
supreme sovereign on matters of federal law – abolished whatever
vestige of the State’s sovereign immunity the municipality
possessed.’ Id., at 647-648, 100 S.Ct., at 1413-14 (footnote
omitted). Howlett, 496 U.S. at 376; accord Hufford, 912 F.2d at
1341 n.1.”

District Court ignored pleas for legal counsel and assistance, further

violating the Fourteenth Amendment and due process. Appellant’s complaint

clearly claimed he had been denied due process of law, meaningful access to the

Courts; Federally funded “protective services” to protect him, his resources, and

provide “essential services” had been denied to him although he was eligible and

qualified.

How can Appellant’s complaints be outside of the statute of limitations,

when the agencies in place to protect disabled refused to do so? Facts clearly show

-5-

PDF Creator - PDF4Free v2.0 http://www.pdf4free.com

 that all programs, agencies, etc. denied Appellant all legal assistance, aid,

protection. DeKalb County kept vital information from Appellant5, making him a

victim of exploitation, vexatious litigation, seizure of property, fraud; denied him

property interests, numerous other violations committed by persons acting under

color of law, without due process of law; shows willful, wanton, malicious

misconduct, that caused statute of limitations to run in order to prevent Appellant

the Right to seek redress.

Unknown to Appellant, but known to DeKalb County and the State for the

past six years, Appellant was never investigated by the DA’s office, the

information was purposely withheld from Appellant, preventing needed evidence

to successfully navigate the Judicial system; is an excellent reason why the statute

of limitations should be tolled. Petition for Temporary Administration of Caffrey

Estate: “nephew being investigated by the DA for elder abuse and financial fraud”

Fraud upon the Court to become Temp. Administrator and Personal Rep. in

Superior Court action.

Appellant, Petitioned District Court for Permission & Assistance to have

criminal matters presented to the Federal Grand Jury. The Petition was denied.

5
Until the filing of DeKalb County defendants’ Appellee Brief, there had been no
admission from DeKalb County that Stegeman had never been charged, arrested,
tried or convicted of any crimes, especially not the crimes alleged against him for
fraud and elder abuse. The County maintained the alleged guilt until the filing of
Appellee’s Brief, this prevented Appellant from being able to bring his claims to
Court and is FRAUD UPON THE COURT.

-6-

PDF Creator - PDF4Free v2.0 http://www.pdf4free.com

 Appellant has never been charged, arrested or convicted of any crimes, in

County Appellee’s Brief, for the first time, has agreed the statement is true. Under

what authority could a Probate Clerk have to revoke a Special Durable Power of

Attorney with an Interest? Under what authority could a County Guardian,

controlled by Probate Court seize, change names and address of and use the

Stegeman/McDonald accounts at Wachovia? Under what authority could a

Probate Clerk impersonate Judge of Probate Court by making Rulings and signing

as “Judge” without using the mandatory stamp showing Clerk acting as Judge?

After Probate Court denied Appellant his Right to Appeal, he filed civil

action file no: 05cv13909-09 to have the original Order set aside, the case sits in

Superior Court. See “B” in the Addendum showing the complaint filed in Superior

Court and the current Court Docket showing case “OPEN”. It is on-going, the

Original Probate Court Ruling “coram non judice” appointing the Guardian of

Property only, as well as the Temporary Administration were obtained through

fraud and fraud upon the Court, the Rulings VOID, not worth paper written on.

FRAUD UPON THE COURT; CONSPIRACY, EXTRINSIC FRAUD

The Fourteenth Amendment/ Due Process of Law

Appellant has shown, and this Court failed to address violations of

Appellant’s Fourteenth Amendment, due process violations under color of law.

U.S. v. Price, 383 U.S. 787 (1966) page 383 U.S. 799 states:
“This is an allegation of state action, …without …due process of

-7-

PDF Creator - PDF4Free v2.0 http://www.pdf4free.com

 law as required, …by the Fourteenth Amendment, used its
sovereign power and office to release the victims from jail so that
they were not charged and tried, as required by law, but instead
could be intercepted and killed. If the Fourteenth Amendment
forbids denial of counsel, it clearly denounces denial of any trial
at all.”
“The Fourteenth Amendment protects the individual against state
action,… Williams I, 341 U.S. at 341 U.S. 92 (opinion of Douglas
J.)… Page 383 U.S. 800 and is therefore within the scope of the
Fourteenth Amendment.” Page 383 U.S. 806: “…no State shall
deprive any person of life or liberty without due process of law …
direct traditional concern of the Federal Government, …in which
the federal interest has existed for at least a century, and in which
federal participation has intensified as part of the renewed emphasis
upon civil rights.”

Appellant was accused, released and killed. Suffering acute Bi-Polar

Disorder, Appellant has only his integrity and reputation. That was taken from him

by acts of persons under color of law. Appellant has shown undisputedly that he is

a Federally disabled adult receiving Supplemental Security Income. Officer Porter

(this Court failed to address Porter altogether), continues to state Appellant is

guilty, and should have known his POA. was being challenged. This Court goes

further and states caused Plaintiff “to lose custody” of his aunt, quoting Porter’s

Appellee Brief. Plaintiff never had or claimed to have “custody”. Porter said that,

with the knowledge that he obstructed justice and obstructed procedures for Family

Violence allegations; by doing so would deny Appellant legal counsel and the

Right to clear his name. Porter knew there’d be no hearing, he’d never face the

accused in Court.

-8-

PDF Creator - PDF4Free v2.0 http://www.pdf4free.com

 The Family Violence Act, mandates someone accused of violations of the

Family Violence Act is charged and arrested; only the District Attorney has

jurisdiction; until a thorough investigation is completed and the DA makes a

decision, there are no other actions. Both the U.S. and Georgia Constitutions

guarantee that you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law with a jury of

your peers, and have the Right to face, confront witnesses and accusers. Appellant

“was not charged”, was “denied counsel,” was not “tried as required by law”.

Arms of The State

Clearly, this Court has gone against The United States Supreme Court and

this Court’s own precedent, and/or has misinterpreted The Georgia Constitution

and State law, and/or has decided that Georgia’s Constitution is wrong, and has

changed state law to accommodate District Court’s Ruling. This Court’s Ruling

has the potential to adversely affect future cases. The Ruling must not be allowed

to stand.

District Court and this Court has said that DeKalb County, DeKalb Probate

Court, DeKalb State Court, DeKalb Solicitor’s Office are all an arm of the State.

This Court, on page 3 cites Kaimowitz v. Florida Bar, 996 F.2d 1151, 1155 (11th

Cir. 1993) (…against state courts are barred by Eleventh Amendment…).

Perhaps in Florida state courts are “state” courts. In Georgia State Courts are

County and Superior Courts are state. State statute defines State courts as County;

-9-

PDF Creator - PDF4Free v2.0 http://www.pdf4free.com

 State and Probate Courts are controlled by the County; County funds pay the

salaries of state Court personnel including the judges; and the financial

responsibility is on the County for State and Probate Courts; both are Courts of

limited jurisdiction and The Judicial Council/ Administrative Office of the Courts

states that both Courts are County Courts.

The Ruling goes against this Court’s own past Rulings and will affect this

Court’s caselaw integrity and development of the law. They are erroneously

deemed to be an arm of the state under the four prong test set out in Abusaid v.

Hillsborough County, et., al. 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 6341, *;405 F.3d 1298;

18 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 436; and as discussed in Grech v. Clayton County,

Georgia 335 F.3d 1326 (11th Cir. 2003). According to The Judicial

Council/Administrative Office of the Courts, and Your Guide to the Georgia

Courts, State Court is a County entity and Superior Court is a state Court.

Reasoning that the claims against State Court are barred by Eleventh Amendment

Immunity are clearly in err. DeKalb County, Probate Court, the Solicitor’s Office

and State Court are not arms of the state, Judge Duffey, not the defendants made

that argument, and the State’s attorney did not represent them.

Conspiracy to violate and violating Appellant’s Civil Rights under color of

law or authority are criminal acts. The Courts have refused to recognize the

disabled/protected status and granted dismissal to all defendants though their acts

- 10 -

PDF Creator - PDF4Free v2.0 http://www.pdf4free.com

 are criminal in nature with a five year statute of limitations, §§241, 242, and

Judges are not protected by immunity under these code sections

18, U.S.C., § 241 Conspiracy Against Rights

… unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure,
oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, … free
exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her
by the Constitution or, the laws of the United States,…unlawful for
two or more persons to go in disguise . . .or on the premises of
another with the intent to prevent or hinder … exercise or
enjoyment of any rights so secured .
Punishment … fine or … up to ten years, or both; …if death results,
or …kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, …, shall be fined …or
imprisoned … years…life or… to death.”

18, U.S .C. § 242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

… makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law,
statute ordinance regulation or custom to willfully deprive or
cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or
immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of
the U.S .
“…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 must
be done while … purporting or pretending to act in the
performance of his/her official duties.”
“… in addition to law enforcement, … Judges, … U.S. law
enforcement …other officials like judges, … Preventing abuse …,
however, is equally necessary to the health of our nation's
democracy. That's why it's a federal crime for anyone acting
under "color of law" willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive
a person of a right protected by the Constitution or U.S law..

DHR and the Solicitor’s Office were contacted, knew of the crimes

committed against Appellant, of his situation before the statute of limitations ran.

A total system failure to protect, advise, prevent and represent the Appellant for the

- 11 -

PDF Creator - PDF4Free v2.0 http://www.pdf4free.com

 sole purpose of statute of limitations running.

Dept. Human Resources’(DHR) under 45 CFR 74, 45 CFR 92, 45 CFR

1321, O.C.G.A. §49-6-2G; The Health and Welfare Act, Title 42, Chapter 35,

Subchapter I –XI, and Social Security Act receives Federal Funding, has an

obligation to protect and provide to disabled, services necessary to protect their

Rights, property and resources; Adult Protective Services O.C.G.A. §§30-5-10 to

30-5-10.6 Appellant qualifies for, yet was denied these programs. Discrimination.

DeKalb Solicitor’s Office operates Adult Protective Services, has obligation

to protect and provide to disabled, services necessary to protect their Rights,

property and resources; Appellant qualifies, was denied programs. Discrimination.

See U.S.C. 42, 126, §12101(b):

(b) Purpose (1) to provide a clear and comprehensive national
mandate …
(2) to provide clear, strong, consistent, enforceable …
(3) to ensure that the Federal Government plays a central role in
enforcing … on behalf of individuals with disabilities;
(4) to invoke the sweep of congressional authority, including the
power to enforce the fourteenth amendment and to regulate
commerce, in order to address the major areas of discrimination
faced day-to-day by people with disabilities.

See also: §12102:

(2) (A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits
one or more of the major life activities…;
(B) a record of such an impairment; or

6
Protection from exploitation, the illegal or improper use of a disabled adult or
elder person or that person’s resources. To ensure they receive essential services:
legal services necessary to safeguard the person’s rights and resources; social,
medical, psychiatric; and to maintain the physical and mental well being

- 12 -

PDF Creator - PDF4Free v2.0 http://www.pdf4free.com

 (C) being regarded as having such an impairment.

§ 12101: “…with disabilities, …inferior status…severely

disadvantaged socially, vocationally, economically,
educationally…no legal recourse to redress”.

Denial of Right to Appeal

Neither this Court, nor the District Court addressed the undisputed fact and

evidence that Appellant has been denied his Right to Appeal Probate and Superior

Court Rulings. This is a matter of extreme importance.

Further, just as in Probate and Superior Courts, the District Court failed and

refused to make docket corrections, refused Appellant the filing of documents.

District Court filed the documents which showed on the Docket Report only to

disappear and never be seen again. Even after the request was made to put the

documents back in the record and on the docket report, the documents did not

return, here was never an explanation given.

How is one to Appeal when the docket reflects that not all of a party’s

documents are filed. How can one be sure that the docket reflects truly what it

shows? How can anyone trust the Courts?

Georgia lacks attorneys who work on contingency. The only way to seek

redress was to learn as much as possible about law, file as pro se. Attorneys go to

school several years, then do an apprenticeship. Appellant did not have that

opportunity, was forced to represent himself against nine (9) attorneys for the

- 13 -

PDF Creator - PDF4Free v2.0 http://www.pdf4free.com

 defendants. Then, Appellant’s case is dismissed for statute of limitations and

immunity, both reasons are clearly erroneous.

Manifest Injustices

In the trial Court, Judge Duffey “enhanced” facts, falsifying statements and

falsifying what the undisputed evidence 7 showed.

Per Curiam page 2 “Stegeman’s claims arise out of proceedings in the

DeKalb County Probate Court that revoked Stegeman’s power of attorney…found

that Stegeman had engaged in elder abuse and financial fraud; appointed a

guardian ad litem…” This statement is incorrect. A Probate Clerk, without

jurisdiction or authority, found Stegeman guilty of criminal acts, elder abuse and

financial fraud, and appointed a guardian of property Only.

Further throughout Judge Duffey’s enhanced version of Appellant’s

complaint, Judge Duffey makes ludicrous, inflated, false statements concerning

Appellant and Ms. McDonald (non-party)8 that neither the Plaintiff, nor

7
making blown out of proportion statements that Plaintiff was “being investigated
for criminal theft by taking and elder abuse charges” when the complaint stated
“being investigated for financial fraud and elder abuse.
8
Judge Duffey’s Order, pg 8-9: “Lillig stated Caffrey and Plaintiff were
estranged, and that the District Attorney’s Office was investigating Plaintiff for
felony theft by taking and elder abuse” (the complaint said Lillig, in Petition to
Probate the new Will, said that there were no other Wills, Lillig admitted in
deposition that he knew of the Original Will on filed at DeKalb County; Lillig also
stated that Plaintiff was being investigated by the DA’s office for fraud and elder
abuse, and the Plaintiff and his brother were estranged from Caffrey) the brother
lives in Wisconsin and was not estranged and No mention of McDonald.

- 14 -

PDF Creator - PDF4Free v2.0 http://www.pdf4free.com

 Defendants had stated or referenced. Obviously, the trial Court expresses

bias/prejudice toward either disabled persons (denied Appellant member of

protected class), or Pro Se litigants (holding them to higher standard, and failed to

liberally construe pleadings).

CONCLUSION

Appellant has shown why this Court should grant his Petition, for the sake of

the Court’s integrity as well as to rectify manifest injustice and to prevent future

Courts from making erroneous Rulings based on this case. Appellant prays his

Petition be granted.

Respectfully submitted this 15th day of September, 2008.

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

Duffey then states “Plaintiff claims Joyner’s attorney called two witnesses who
falsely testified that Caffrey was abused by Plaintiff and McDonald.” (the
complaint stated that one of Joyner’s two witnesses, the attorney who made the
new Will, was told by Caffrey, Lillig and Mavis Turner that Plaintiff and his
brother had starved Caffrey) the brother lives in Wisconsin and No mention of
McDonald.
Caffrey suffered from symbolic disorder, mid-mild cognitive and immobility
syndrome; early signs of Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s, she was mentally
incompetent, but not dangerous to herself or others.

- 15 -

PDF Creator - PDF4Free v2.0 http://www.pdf4free.com

 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I Certify that this Petition is prepared for James B. Stegeman complies with the

type-volume limitation set forth in FRAP 32(a)(7)(B). This Brief contains 3476

words.

Prepared By: ___________________________

Janet D. McDonald

- 16 -

PDF Creator - PDF4Free v2.0 http://www.pdf4free.com

 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I have this 15th day of September, 2008 served a true and correct copy of

PETITION FOR EN BANC REHEARING/REHEARING upon the Appellees in

this matter through their attorney(s) on file by causing to be deposited with USPS,

first class Certified Mail, with proper postage affixed, as follows:

Cristina Correia
Assistant Attorney General
40 Capital Square, S.W.
Atlanta, GA 30334-1300

Mr. Peter C. Brown

Carothers & Brown
278 West Main St.
Buford, GA 30518

Brenda R. Raspberry
DeKalb County Law Department
1300 Commerce Drive, 5th Floor
Decatur, GA 30030
______________________________
JAMES B. STEGEMAN, Pro Se
821 Sheppard Rd
Stone Mountain, GA 30083
(770) 879-8737

- 17 -

PDF Creator - PDF4Free v2.0 http://www.pdf4free.com

 - 18 -

PDF Creator - PDF4Free v2.0 http://www.pdf4free.com