10 Jan: LJ A to NCR Q to AEJ: What do you want us to do?

* Christine Riddick, Neville Riddick, Clive Johnstone, Ann Johnstone, Graeme Johnstone, Hilary Johnstone, Brand and van der Berth Attorneys, Desere Barnard, Frode Moe, Talitha Moe, Millers Inc, Arno Crous.
* 10 Jan: LJ A to NCR Q to AEJ: What do you want us to do?.
* Tygae: EoP Leg Sub: LJ v GHJ, LJ v CHJ, LJ v FTM / EoP NWO SCO: EoP NTE GM: EoP NTE GMA, EoP NTE GMUK, 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 ReligionEoP v WiP Peacenik / EoP v WiP Neg.

From: Lara Johnson <eop-leg-sub@tygae.org.za>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2020 01:12:54 +0200
Subject: LJ A to NCR Q to AEJ: What do you want us to do?
To: Christine Riddick <christineriddick@gmail.com>, Neville Riddick <nevilleriddick@yahoo.com>
Cc: Clive Johnstone <clann@telkomsa.net>, Ann Johnstone <annscg@telkomsa.net>
Message-ID: <1e82cde69f175f4c1772d3ffe3c515e8@tygae.org.za>
X-Sender: eop-leg-sub@tygae.org.za
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2020 01:18:51 +0200
Subject: LJ A to NCR Q to AEJ: What do you want us to do?
To: Graeme Johnstone <graeme.johnstone@gmail.com>, Hilary Johnstone <hilary.johnstone@gmail.com>, “Brand & van der Bergh Attorneys: Desere Barnard: Rachel Hannies” <rachel@bvdblegal.co.za>, Frode Moe <fro.moe@online.no>, Talitha Moe <lee.moe@telkomsa.net>, “Millers Inc: Arno Crous” <arno@millers.co.za>
Message-ID: <d9ac11064483c9e8f0f61ea540d01d02@tygae.org.za>
X-Sender: eop-leg-sub@tygae.org.za

Sent Separately:
TO: Neville & Christine Riddick
CC: Frode & Talitha Moe, Graeme and Hilary Johnstone:
CC: Ann Johnstone

Neville and Christine:

LJ A to NCR Q to AEJ: What do you want us to do?

Ann passed along the following message:
She said that she spoke to Tiensie on the phone, and the following – paraphrased – conversation occurred about my equality court application.
Tiensie asked: What do you want us to do [about Lara’s court case].
Ann answered: Ask Lara.

LJ A: What do I want Neville & Tiensie to do?:

Summary: To the extent that you have any relevant information – whether it is positive or negative to me or anyone else – I simply want you to tell your objective and subjective truth, so that we can hopefully get a clearer picture and from such clearer picture, resolve whatever are the facts in dispute.

Generally speaking lawyers define legal relevancy very narrow [Wikipedia: Legal Relevance], within their own subjective – win at all costs – legal reality context.

My definition of relevance is truthseeking based. If you subjectively think you have relevant information; I am want to hear it, and consider how you consider it relevant, and engage you and anyone else relevant to the information; in a truthseeking accuracy or inaccuracy enquiry of your information. The sooner I am provided with information that proves any of my working hypothesis conclusions to be accurate or inaccurate, the sooner I can confirm the accuracy/ or correct the inaccuracy, enabling my working hypothesis about objective and/or subjective reality to be more accurate.

Summary Response:
* Got Relevant Information
» If you have involved relevant ‘mental disorder’ information
» If you have ‘not involved’ relevant information

Got Relevant Information:

If you have ‘involved’ relevant information:

If you were involved in discussions with one or more family members where (a) they and/or you expressed opinions about my alleged ‘mental health’ and/or lack thereof; and/or (b) where they expressed opinions about my alleged ‘mental health’ and/or lack thereof; and you recommended that they discuss their information with me to my face, not behind my back; or failed to recommend that they discuss their mental disorder allegation with me to my face, not behind my back.

If so: You can express your relevant info in writing and/or affidavit now if you want.

If your relevant info includes a denial of involvement in personal mental disorder allegations against me and/or knowledge of mental disorder allegations against me; I shall provide you with a written and/or affidavit apology.

If your relevant info includes a withdrawal and apology of (a) mental disorder allegations made by you and/or (b) knowledge of others making mental disorder allegations, where you failed to ethically suggest that they make such allegations to my face and provide me with the requested mental disorder definition information; I shall accept your written and/or affidavit apology and withdrawal.

I shall remove you as a respondent, since our ‘issue in dispute’ is effectively resolved by means of your (a) denial and my apology; or (b) withdrawal & apology and my accepting of your apology.

You may be still be called as a witness, if your information is considered relevant to any fact in dispute; once such facts in dispute are clarified by other respondents.

If you have ‘not involved’ relevant information:

If you were not involved in any discussions with one or more family members where they expressed opinions about my alleged ‘mental health’ and/or lack thereof; and consequently you are effectively ‘not involved’ in the issues in dispute.

If so: You can express your ‘Denial: I have no relevant’ info in writing and/or affidavit now if you want.

If so: I shall provide you with a written and/or affidavit apology.

I shall remove you as a respondent, since our ‘issue in dispute’ is effectively resolved by means of your denial and my apology.

You may be still be called as a witness, if any other respondent has information about you being involved in discussions about mental disorder allegations against me, which they consider relevant to a fact in dispute.

EoP TRC Negotiations correspondence is published at EoP Leg Sub [eop-leg-sub.tygae.org.za]

Respectfully,

Lara Johnson,
EoP MILED Clerk [EoP Oath PDF]
16 Taaibos Ave, Heatherpark, George, 6529

Sent per electronic notice to:

Christine and Neville Riddick:
Christine Riddick (christineriddick@gmail.com); Neville Riddick (nevilleriddick@yahoo.com)

Graeme and Hilary Johnstone:
Graeme Johnstone (graeme.johnstone@gmail.com); Hilary Johnstone (hilary.johnstone@gmail.com); Brand & van der Bergh Attorneys: Desere Barnard: Rachel Hannies (rachel@bvdblegal.co.za)

Frode & Talitha Moe:
Frode Moe (fro.moe@online.no); Talitha Moe (lee.moe@telkomsa.net); Millers Inc: Arno Crous (arno@millers.co.za)

Clive and Ann Johnstone:
Clive Johnstone (clann@telkomsa.net); Ann Johnstone (annscg@telkomsa.net);

.

Leave a Comment