10 May: LJ QoL Afd & Filing Date for Answering Affidavits: 24 May 2019

* Frode Moe, Talitha Moe, Graeme Johnstone, Hilary Johnstone, Millers Inc, Arno Crous, Brand & van der Bergh Attorneys, Desere Barnard
* 10 May: LJ QoL Afd & Filing Date for Answering Affidavits: 24 May 2019
* Tygae: EoP Leg Sub / EoP ADR: LJ v GH Johnstone, LJ v Frode Moe  / 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: Lara Johnson <eop-leg-sub@tygae.org.za>
Date: Fri, 10 May 2019 17:49:56 +0200
Subject: LJ QoL Afd & Filing Date for Answering Affidavits: 24 May 2019
To: Frode Moe <fro.moe@online.no>, Talitha Moe <lee.moe@telkomsa.net>, Graeme Johnstone <graeme.johnstone@gmail.com>, Hilary Johnstone <hilary.johnstone@gmail.com>
Cc: “Millers Inc: Arno Crous” <arno@millers.co.za>, “Brand & van der Bergh Attorneys: Desere Barnard: Rachel Hannies” <rachel@bvdblegal.co.za>
Message-ID: <f1ed2ee0894b62fd38b0fccf9443e06a@tygae.org.za>
X-Sender: eop-leg-sub@tygae.org.za
Attachment: 19-05-02_LJvGHJ_ShfSvc_FS-Afd-E_C-Svc.pdf; 19-05-09_LJvGHJ_QoL_FS-Afd_C-Svd.pdf

.

TO: Frode Moe (fro.moe@online.no); Talitha Moe (lee.moe@telkomsa.net); Graeme Johnstone (graeme.johnstone@gmail.com); Hilary Johnstone (hilary.johnstone@gmail.com);
CC: Millers Inc: Arno Crous (arno@millers.co.za); Brand & van der Bergh Attorneys: Desere Barnard: Rachel Hannies (rachel@bvdblegal.co.za);

Frode, Graeme et al:

LJ QoL Afd & Filing Date for Answering Affidavits: 24 May 2019:

The sooner you file your Answering Affidavits, the sooner it will be more clear, as to what exactly the question of fact and/or law issues in dispute are.

Generally the respondent is required to file their Reply Affidavit, within ten days of filing their Notice to Oppose. The last Notice to Oppose was filed by Frode on 02 May 2019.

Is Friday 24 May 2019 a reasonable and agreeable date for you to file your Answering Affidavits?

If your resistance to withdrawing and/or apologizing for your mental disorder allegations, is because of your belief and/or working hypothesis opinions that DSM bible mental disorder definitions are based on scientific law, and consequently applicable to all individuals; .

If that is an accurate working hypothesis conclusion as to your reasons for refusing my requests for you to withdraw and/or apologize for your mental disorder allegations, attached is my – APA DSM is not scientific, but cultural law – Applicant Question of Law Affidavit.

If you acknowledge that APA DSM Bible is not scientific but cultural law, and insist that I am a member of your culture, and that your cultural mental disorder allegations are relevant to me, we will need to add that as an additional question of fact. Although it’s a question of fact that can reasonably easily be resolved by affidavit and supporting evidence. However if that is not the foundation upon which your mental disorder allegations are based, then there is no need to waste allot of time, ink and paper on a fact not in dispute.

Question of Law: Is APA DSM-Bible Scientific or Cultural Law.

I delivered the following documents to your counsel’s office today. I went to file the documents into the court record at the High Court Registrar, but they were closed today, so will file it with the Registrar on Monday.

* Applicant Question of Law Affidavit [PDF]
* Copies of Sheriff Service Affidavits [PDF]

A copy of this correspondence is documented at EoP Legal Submissions [eop-leg-sub.tygae.org.za]: LJ v GH Johnstone et al [lj-v-ghj.tygae.org.za].

Respectfully,

Lara Johnson,
Pro Se, EoP Applicant [EoP Oath PDF]

.