In the Supreme Court
State of Georgia

Marquitta L. Portman *
      Appellant *
   vs. *
The Honorable George H. Kreeger *
The Honorable Robert E. Flournoy, Jr. * Supreme Court Action
The Honorable Dorothy Robinson * S01A1424
The Honorable S. Lark Ingram *
The Honorable James G. Bodiford *
The Honorable Michael Stoddard * Lower Court
Jay Stephenson, Clerk of Cobb County Superior Court * Civil Action File Number
Larry W. Yarbrough, Attorney at Law * 99-1-7941-99
Daryl L. Kidd, Attorney at Law * Cobb County Superior Court
Gregory Russell Portman, and *
R. Wynette Kennedy Portman *
     Appellees *

APPELLANTS MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
and
APPELLANTS MOTION FOR STAY OF REMITTITUR
and
Appellants Motion to Correct Clerical Errors in Brief of Appellant

    COMES NOW, MARQUITTA L. PORTMAN, Appellant in the above styled action, and files this Motion for Reconsideration of the Order of this Supreme Court of Georgia, dated July 16, 2001 and received by Appellant July 17, 2001. Further, Appellant hereby files this Motion for Stay of Remittitur, as it is Appellants intent to appeal the said ruling of the Georgia Supreme Court to the United States Supreme Court. Appellant hereby seeks the Court’s consideration of the following:

1.

Said Order was ruled and filed on July 16, 2001 (Exhibit A). Appellant’s Brief was due the same day, July 16, 2001. Appellant properly filed her Brief on July 16, 2001.

2.

Appellant has filed an Interlocutory Appeal with the Court of Appeals, an Application for Discretionary appeal with the Court of Appeals, and a Direct Appeal with the Supreme Court of Georgia Precisely because she is inexperienced, she submitted all three types of appeals in her attempt to complete due diligence.

3.

Cause of the Supreme Court’s Dismissal of Appellant’s action was that Appellant chose the wrong form of appeal; that she should have filed a discretionary appeal. As stated in her brief, and as is documented with the Court of Appeals, Appellant did file both an interlocutory appeal AND a discretionary appeal. Solely because the Court of Appeals ruled that Appellant’s interlocutory appeal should have been a DIRECT appeal (Exhibit B), did the Clerk of the Court of Appeals REFUSE to accept the fee for the discretionary appeal.

4.

Additional cause of the Supreme Court’s Dismissal of Appellant’s action is stated as, “there are no constitutional questions presented that have been raised and ruled on by the trial court that would invoke this Court’s jurisdiction.” (Exhibit A)

5.

Appellant shows this Court that she has consistently, and with due diligence, claimed her right to due process. Said due process has been lacking in the actions of the lower court. Further, it has been a willful and intentional act on the part of the judges of the Superior Court to deny this Appellant due process. Said intent thereby removes all sovereign immunity on the part of the judicial officers.

6.

This appellant hereby requests that the remittitur be stayed pending Appellant’s Application for Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. Appellant seeks review by the Nation’s highest court for the purpose of protecting her property rights, Further, appellant claims to the US, Supreme Court that the State of Georgia Judicial Branch has consistently, and intentionally, denied this Appellant her due process rights as defined by both the Georgia Constitution and the United States Constitution. Said dismissal by the Georgia Supreme Court, prior to a hearing of the merits, is further indication of malice and intent.

7.

Appellant, in and through this Motion, submits as Exhibit C, Appellant’s First Amended Brief in Support of Direct Appeal for the purpose of correcting the following clerical errors and omissions:

  • Page 1, Paragraph 2, line 1 “out of Cobb County”
  • Page 3, Paragraph 1, line 6 “Council of the …
  • Page 3, Paragraph 2, last line [to add end quotation marks] “body.”
  • Page 10, Paragraph 3, line 2 [remove “consequently”], leaving “from the court; it had no effect…”
  • Page 17, Paragraph 1, line 3 [to add page numbers of the transcript] “(T – 2/15/01, p. 28-31)”
  • Page 17, Paragraph 2, line 2 “actions of one defendant”
  • Page 17, Paragraph 2, line 6 “Conclusions of Law in written
  • Page 19, Paragraph 3, line 10 “Law shall prevail, and must always”
  • Page 21, Paragraph 2, line 2 [to remove possessive] “McCombs”
  • Page 21, Paragraph 2, line 4 [to remove possessive] “McCombs”

8.

Appellant hereby reminds the Court that as a class, i.e., an inexperienced, pro se citizen, she seeks substantive justice from the judicial system, and further seeks the protection of the judicial system as a U.S. and Georgia citizen to which she is entitled by operation of Ga. Const., Art. I, Sec. I, Par. II. The operation of that clause prohibits any court of competent jurisdiction from allowing the use of any otherwise constitutional statute, ordinance, or rule of court that would have the effect of, and be in the nature of, a denial of equal protection and due process.

WHEREFORE, Appellant prays that this Court will:

  1. Reconsider the Order of the Georgia Supreme Court, dated July 16, 2001,
  2. Enter a retraction of said Order,
  3. Consider the merits of the action, that being Case Number S01A1424, and
  4. Further, rule so as to establish substantive justice in said matter.

Respectfully submitted this 23rd day of July, 2001,

Marquitta L. Portman
Appellant, pro se
P.O. Box 1262
Kennesaw, GA  30156

  Thank you for your interest in this web site.