* Craig Lucas, Legal Practice Council, Kathleen Dlepu, JS Grobler, Frank Dorey, P Arnold-Mfusi, T Leope, Millers Inc, Arno Crous
* 25 Mar: EoP Re: C Lucas: Re: LJ v CRLRC/LPC: H 45/19: re Sheriff Service Preference.
* Tygae: EoP Leg Sub / EoP ADR: LJ v CRL Rights Comm, LJ v Frode Moe, LJ v Graeme Johnstone, State v LJ, LJ v State / EoP NWO SCO: EoP NTE GM: EoP NTE GMZA | EoP Axis MilNec Evac: Lotto: EoP v WiP Law, EoP v WiP Academia, EoP v WiP Media, EoP v WiP Charity, EoP v WiP Psych / EoP v WiP Neg.
From: Craig Lucas <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 13:12:49 +0000
Delivery-date: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 15:13:50 +0200
Subject: RE: EoP Re: C Lucas: Re: LJ v CRLRC/LPC: H 45/19: re Sheriff Service
To: Lara Johnson <email@example.com>
Dear Ms Johnson
Our previous communication was merely intended to make it clear that we would respond to any court process which is properly issued by a court and served in accordance with the rules of court. We do not intend to delay the matter any further and look forward to receipt of your application.
From: Lara Johnson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 20:38:57 +0200
Subject: EoP Re: C Lucas: Re: LJ v CRLRC/LPC: H 45/19: re Sheriff Service Preference
To: Craig Lucas <email@example.com>, Legal Practice Council <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “Director: Kathleen Dlepu” <email@example.com>, “Provincial Director: Gauteng: JS Grobler” <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “Western Cape: Frank Dorey” <email@example.com>, “KZN: P Arnold-Mfusi” <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “Free State: T Leope” <email@example.com>
Cc: “Millers Inc:
Newsdesk” <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “Millers Inc: Arno Crous” <email@example.com>
TO: Legal Practice Council: Craig Lucas:
Craig Lucas (firstname.lastname@example.org); Legal Practice Council (email@example.com) Director: Kathleen Dlepu (firstname.lastname@example.org); Provincial Director: Gauteng: JS Grobler (email@example.com); Western Cape: Frank Dorey (firstname.lastname@example.org); KZN: P Arnold-Mfusi (email@example.com); Free State: T Leope (firstname.lastname@example.org);
CC: Millers Inc:
Newsdesk (email@example.com); Millers Inc: Arno Crous (firstname.lastname@example.org)
EoP Re: C Lucas: Re: LJ v CRLRC/LPC: H 45/19: re Sheriff Service Preference.
I received your email sent 25 Mar 2019: 13:12 hrs presumably in response to EoP Pro Se email sent to Legal Practice Council et al on 19 Mar 2019 [19 Mar: EoP Re: C Lucas: Re: LJ v CRLRC/LPC: H 45/19: re Sheriff Service] and my response to Millers Inc [25 Mar: EoP Re: Millers Inc: Update Your Preference].
Our previous communication was merely intended to make it clear that we would respond to any court process which is properly issued by a court and served in accordance with the rules of court. We do not intend to delay the matter any further and look forward to receipt of your application. – Craig Lucas; 25 Mar 2019; Legal Practice Council: Western Cape.
I know what my preferences are. The EoP Applicants know what my preferences are. My – EoP OKC Bomb TRC – preferences and my interpretations of EoP Applicants – EoP SciCult intn-law TRC to End Abel and Kane Cold War – preferences are documented at Ego/Eco Literacy [ego-eco-literacy.tygae.org.za].
 In May 2001, I wrote a letter to President Bush requesting President Bush to suspend Timothy McVeigh’s execution pending OKC bombing Truth and Reconciliation, to facilitate honest forgiveness and truth-seeking problem solving related to the US domestic and foreign policy causes of the OKC bombing. If the OKC TRC proceedings did not grant Timothy McVeigh amnesty, they would choose to sentence Timothy McVeigh and myself to death.
If accomplishing my / EoP Applicants preferences can be accomplished – or partially accomplished – by delivering the EoP Pro Se – LJ v CRL Rights Comm – documents to the appropriate Sheriff’s office for service upon CRL Rights Commission and Legal Practice Council; I have no problem doing so.
If accomplishing my / EoP Applicants preferences can be accomplished by some other political and/or legal process; I have no problem cooperating – whether that involves sharing EoP objective and/or subjective truth; or shutting up, or amicably departing to another country – to facilitate such process.
In context of:
Ecology of Peace Hypothesis: If we implement EoP SciCult intnl-law; we might have 2 years  to do so:
EoP hypothesis: we maybe have 2 years – till 2020 – to change the world, if by change the world we mean implement Ecology of Peace Scientific and Cultural law [eop-scicultlaw.tygae.org.za] as international law; to enable orderly and humane deindustrialization and depopulation, denuclearization and land reform.
» EoP Leg Sub: 16 Mar: EoP Re: Greta Thunberg: We have 11 years left to save the world.
The EoP Pro Se LJ v CRL Rights Comm / Legal Practice Council Amended Notice of Motion invoking Equality Court procedural rules for Pro Se applicants; or alternatively the Equality Court cultural discrimination application; is almost finalized.
In the absence of any higher KISS – Keep it Simple Stupid – return on investment towards EoP future [24 Nov: Charles Hall: EoP v WiP Social Contract Energy Return on Investment] tactical political / legal options, it will be mailed to the Sheriff closest to Legal Practice Council offices, by the end of the week.
Similarly other draft applications are also being drafted, which may or may not result in a change in tactical lawfare course.
A copy of this correspondence shall be documented at EoP Legal Submissions [eop-leg-sub.tygae.org.za]: LJ v CRL Rights Comm [lj-v-crlrc.tygae.org.za].
Lara Johnson [EoP Oath PDF]
Pro Se Applicant