Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Versus
AND
Cir. R. 27-1(b)(2), files Emergency Motion for the Court to Direct the Clerks to
harm to other parties if relief is granted; and It is within the public’s interest that
this Motion is granted. The paragraphs below show proper grounds for this Court
Further, Appellant is invoking the full extent of his Rights under ADA Title
The United States as Intervenor in Spencer v Earley, et., al., fully explained
12101(b)(1). Congress found that, “historically, society has tended to isolate and
2
Congress found that persons with disabilities
and local governmental entities in the operation of public services, programs, and
activities. Appellant is invoking his Rights under ADA Title II, which provides
that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be
entity.” 42 U.S.C. 12132. A “public entity” is defined to include “any State or local
3
government” and its components, 42 U.S.C. 12131(1)(A) and (B). Title II’s
the States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity to such suits in federal court, 42 U.S.C.
12202. Title II prohibits governments from, among other things, denying a benefit
with a lesser benefit than is given to others, or limiting his enjoyment of the rights
and benefits provided to the public at large. See 28 C.F.R. 35.130(b)(1)(i), (iii),
with a disability, a public entity must make reasonable modifications to its policies,
of the service. See 28 C.F.R. 35.130(b)(7), 35.150(a)(2) and (3). The ADA does
not normally require a public entity to make its existing physical facilities
accessible. 28 C.F.R. 35.150(a)(1). Public entities need only ensure that “each
buildings constructed or altered after Title II’s effective date must be designed to
1
Congress instructed the Attorney General to issue regulations to implement Title
II, based on regulations previously promulgated under Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794 (2000 & Supp. I 2001). See 42 U.S.C.
12134.
4
provide accessibility. 28 C.F.R. 35.151.
private right of action for damages against entities that receive federal funds and
violate that prohibition. See 29 U.S.C. 794(a) Barnes v. Gorman, 536 U.S. 181
In 1985, the Supreme Court held that the text of Section 504 was not
waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity for private damages actions against state
entities. See Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 245-246 (1985). In
Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-506, § 1003, 100 Stat.
42 U.S.C. 2000d-7(a).
Every Court, and Legal Program that Appellant has attempted to obtain
5
assistance from with legal problems, or sought an attorney’s aid through, has
August 30, 2010, the date that the Courier hand-delivered Appellant’s
Motion for Leave to Appeal in Forma Pauperis, the Clerk of this Court, had
already written up a letter dated September 03, 2010 “Exhibit 1” and a letter dated
September 07, 2010 “Exhibit 2”, which were both obtained from the Pacer
Website on or around September 1, 2010. The dates at the tops of the letter reflect
the date on which the letters were filed, that date is 08/30/2010. There is a real
problem with the Clerks of this Court tampering with and hindering Appellant’s
It has been held that: “The most basic function of a court system is to
promote the rule of law. Courts promote the rule of law by earning the respect of
the people as the fair and dispassionate arbiters of society's disputes, …. A court
system cannot operate effectively without the respect of the people. If the people
do not respect the judiciary, the people will disobey its edicts and flout its
commands. The people will resort to self-help. Court personnel who cause people
to question the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary therefore undermine the
rule of law and disrupt the functioning of the courts.” US v Gunby, 112 F.3d 1493,
6
79 A.F.T.R.2d 97-2764, 10 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 960 (11th Cir. 1997).
It is well known that the Court’s clerks enjoy judicial immunity. By the
Courts extending immunity to the Clerks, the Courts are thereby responsible for
C This is Not the First Time This Appellant has Filed an Appeal in This
Court.
Appellant has successfully filed an Appeal in the US Court of Appeals for
the Eleventh Circuit,2 otherwise, he would be much more inclined to believe that
he erred. Appellant knows for a fact, that the claims made by the Clerk when he
attempted to Appeal in 2009,3 were erroneous. The first time Appellant filed
Motion for In Forma Pauperis in the 11th Circuit, was filed on or around October
19, 2007. This Court denied the Motion, because District Court had claimed that
the Appeal would be frivolous. This time, the Court had already granted Pauperis
status, thus the reason Appellant felt it necessary for him to provide an explanation
Appeal in Forma Pauperis, using the Court’s preprinted Motion with Affidavit
2
See Stegeman v State Appeal No.: 07-13540-BB
3
See Stegeman v Superior Court Appeal No. 08-16174-CC
4
Receipt for Courier Service showing destinations, the date, time of delivery, etc.
7
showing the Court meritorious ground for his Motion to be granted “Exhibit 4”.5
The following day, Appellant’s copy was delivered back in the mail. The
Copy he received back, rather than being stamped as “Filed”, the Motion was
stamped “Received”, see Exhibit 4.6 Appellant attempted to call the Clerk to
inquire about the problem, but only received the clerk’s voicemail.
The following day, Pacer website for the Eleventh Cir. showed that the
Motion had been filed, on August 30, 2010 “Exhibit 4”; Appellant gave it no more
thought. Next thing Appellant knows he gets a letter that either the Motion for In
Forma Pauperis has to be filed, or the costs for the Appeal paid to the District
Apparently, the Clerks have decided to hinder and tamper with every Appeal
that Appellant has attempted to file with this Court; beginning with his attempt to
Although Appellant had couriered to the Court, the Motion and Affidavit for
Forma Pauperis, which included all the required documents, and the Certificate of
5
NOTE: The Original, Certified Denial from the District Court was attached to
the Motion to Proceed on Appeal In Forma Pauperis that was hand-delivered by
the Courier; what the Clerk has done with what was sent, is anybody’s guess.
6
The entire Motion, with Exhibits is attached hereto as Exhibit 4; rather than
include it is part of the current Motion(s), Appellant has it attached as an Exhibit,
just in case the Clerk has a tendency to get confused.
7
See Exhibit 2 attached to Exhibit 4, which is the letters from the Clerk had sent
blocking the Appeal.
8
Interested Persons, the Clerk sent Appellant the following letter “Exhibit 5” ,
stating that Appellant had not filed the Motion and Affidavit, and/or had not paid
The clerk’s letter clearly states that within fourteen days, Appellant must
comply or his Appeal will again be dismissed, just like the last time he attempted
CONCLUSION
Should the Clerks continue blocking Appellant and refusing to file his
documents, claiming that there was something missing, when he is positive nothing
was missing, and when the courier also saw what was being delivered to the Court,
and signed a documents saying as much; Appellant will have no other choice than
Supreme Court.
Appellant has complied with the whims of this Court’s Clerks, and moves
the Court for an Order directing the Clerk to cease tampering with and hindering
his attempts to Appeal. Appellant further moves the Court for an Expedited
9
BY: ___________________________
JAMES B. STEGEMAN, Pro Se
821 Sheppard Rd.
Stone Mountain, GA 30083
(404) 300-9782
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I Certify that I have this 16th day of September, 2010 served a true and
correct copy of the foregoing Emergency Motion for the Court to Direct the
with the U.S.P.S., First Class Mail, proper postage affixed thereto, addressed as
follows:
_______________________________
JAMES B. STEGEMAN, Pro Se
821 Sheppard Rd
Stone Mountain, GA 30083
(404) 300-9782
10