IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTYSTATE OF GEORGIA

JANET D. MCDONALD,JAMES B. STEGEMAN,

PLAINTIFFS

V

GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et, al.DEFENDANTS

CIVIL ACTION

FILE NO: 07CV11398-6

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

1 Plaintiffs would like to point out that March 31, 2008 Mr. Watt filed Motion to Substitute Exhibits to which Plaintiffs Object

incur, including reasonable attorney's fees, and any offending party 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…”

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 -

(f): When affidavits are unavailable.“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

- 4 -

that Plaintiffs’ request for extension was for fourteen (14) days,3 Plaintiffs were granted a

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

telling them Kinko’s “Exhibit G” 4 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

3 Many of Defendant’s filings with the Court state that Plaintiffs were granted a 14 day extension4 Mr. Watt’s February 27, 2008 letter to Plaintiffs, page 2, 1st ¶, 3rd sentence.

- 5 -

computer, then attempted to download the video to the computer to try to burn onto DVD

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 11 th

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:

“At no time did I agree to confer…would be improper … Plaintiffs’ pro se status…” 6

*: 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 defendants6 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 18 th 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 RdStone Mountain, GA 30083

(770) 879-8737

By: _____________________________JAMES B. STEGEMAN, Pro Se

821 Sheppard RdStone Mountain, GA 30083

(770) 879-8737

- 17 -

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTYSTATE OF GEORGIA

JANET D. MCDONALD,JAMES B. STEGEMAN,

PLAINTIFFS

V

GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et,al.,DEFENDANTS

CIVIL ACTION

FILE NO: 07CV11398-6

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, LLPC/o Brian P. Watt5200 Bank of America Plaza600 Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30308-2216

By: ____________________________JANET D. MCDONALD, Pro Se

821 Sheppard RdStone Mountain, GA 30083

(770) 879-8737

By: _____________________________JAMES B. STEGEMAN, Pro Se

821 Sheppard RdStone Mountain, GA 30083

(770) 879-8737

- 18 -