14 May: Upd: TN: ML-FL: Re LJ v GME; JSM Inc-CM Re LJ v GrgHerald: LJ#2 Re MLA-FM: Estate Late: Gill Elliott

* JS Marais Inc, Charl Marais, George Herald, Ilse Schoonraad, Marais Lamprecht, Steven Lamprecht, Francois Lamprecht
* 14 May: Upd: TN: ML-FL: Re LJ v GME; JSM Inc-CM Re LJ v GrgHerald: LJ#2 Re MLA-FM: Estate Late: Gill Elliott.
* Tygae: EoP Leg Sub: LJ v GME, EoP v Grg Herald, LJ v FW de Klerk / 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 Peacenik / EoP v WiP Neg.

From: Lara Johnson <eop-leg-sub@tygae.org.za>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2020 10:13:00 +0200
Subject: Upd: TN: ML-FL: Re LJ v GME; JSM Inc-CM Re LJ v GrgHerald
To: “Marais Lamprecht: Steven Lamprecht” <stephen@lamprecht-attorneys.co.za>, “JS Marais Inc: Charl Marais” <charl@jsmarais.co.za>, Elizma Barnard <elizma@jsmarais.co.za>, “Counsel for: George Herald: Ilse Schoonraad” <ilse@groupeditors.co.za>, Eugene Gunning <eugene@groupeditors.co.za>
Cc: “Marais Lamprecht Attorneys: Francois Lamprecht” <info@mllegal.co.za>, Sonja Corker <sonja@mllegal.co.za>
Message-ID: <ce6c9ac8bad023eacd998e6121b1bff8@tygae.org.za>
Attachment: 20-05-13_Corr_ToC.pdf

.

TO: JS Marais Inc: Charl Marais: Re: George Herald: Ilse Schoonraad:
TO: Marais Lamprecht: Steven Lamprecht: Marais Lamprecht & JS Marais Inc:
CC: Marais Lamprecht: Francois Lamprecht

Charl Marais, Steven Lamprecht.

Upd: TN: ML-FL: Re LJ v GME; JSM Inc-CM Re LJ v GrgHerald

Its difficult to find honest lawyers, because – in fairness to lawyers – most citizens are two faced hypocrite fragile ego schmucks, who don’t want to take responsibility for their fuck ups, and don’t want an honest lawyer telling them to be responsible. So lawyers spend their entire lives being legal babysitters to fragile ego children pretending to be citizens. In legal terms its called ‘professional legal services’; in Radical Honesty culture terms its called ‘bullshit the public relations lying’. Examples of Radical Honesty: SHO: Brad Blanton: And Nothing But the Truth; Radical Honesty Channel: Radical Honesty: 01:02:03; The Importance of Telling the Radical Truth [EoP RH FR: Caveat].
» EoP Leg Sub: 26 Feb: LJ v LPC: Req for Info to Cape Law Soc Pro Bono Dept.

Transparency Copy:

JS Marais Inc: Charl Marais with reference to partnership to Marais Lamprecht Attorneys is referenced in EoP-LJ 01 & 20 answers.

.

____________________________________________________
Pub: 13 May: LJ#2 Re MLA-FM: Estate Late: Gill Elliott.
From: Lara Johnson <eop-leg-sub@tygae.org.za>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 19:14:33 +0200
Subject: Re: Estate Late Gill Elliott
To: Marais Lamprecht Attorneys <info@mllegal.co.za>, Sonja Corker <sonja@mllegal.co.za>
Cc: “Brand & van der Bergh Attorneys: Desere Barnard: Rachel Hannies” <rachel@bvdblegal.co.za>, “Crawley Family: David Crawley” <crawleydavid1@gmail.com>, Garden Route SPCA <receptiong@grspca.co.za>, “The One Financial Solution: Isobel Rohwer” <isobel@theonefs.co.za>
Message-ID: <b2bc1213ef3ae3f855fbc0fd72d3c714@tygae.org.za>
Attachment: 20-05-13_Corr_ToC.pdf

Francois Lamprecht:
Marais Lamprecht Attorneys
Tel: 044 995 0409 / 1414 | Fax: 044 873 4716
Suite 106, 72 York Street, George
PO Box 1850 / PO Box 433, George, 6530
Marais Lamprecht Attorneys (info@mllegal.co.za); Sonja Corker (sonja@mllegal.co.za)

CC: E-GME Respondents.

Francois Lamprecht:

Re: Estate Late Gill Elliott.

As promised in my 13 May [13 May: LJ Re MLA-FM: Estate Late: Gill Elliott] response to your 12 May 2020 letter on behalf of One Financial Solution: Isobel Rohwer [12 May: MLA-FM: Estate Late: Gill Elliott]; in response to LJ v GMElliot [lj-v-gme] correspondence. This email response is in accordance with my EoP culture fully informed consent listening practice [Edwin Rutsch: Empathy aka Active Listening Circle: 9 min]

**

MLA-FL 01: We address this letter to you on instruction of our client, The One Financial Solution of George herein represented by Mrs Isobel Rohwer.

EoP-LJ 01: Presumably when you say ‘we’; you are referring to Marais Lamprecht Attorneys partners, on behalf of your client One Financial Solution: Isobel Rohwer. If so: Acknowledged as received. If ‘we’ Marais Lamprecht Attorneys partners includes JS Marais Inc: Charl Marais. Charl Marais has been counsel for George Herald and Ilse Schoonraad in 517/19: LJ v FW de Klerk [lj-v-fwdk], which requests the respondents to agree / disagree to the Ecology of Peace law legal definition of a sincere peacenik / honourable warrior [eop-rh-fr].

**

MLA-FL 02: We are in possession of various correspondence exchanged between inter alia our client and yourself.

EoP-LJ 02: Enclosed find Applicant List of Correspondence.

**

MLA-FL 03: Please note that we are not going to respond to the averments in any of your correspondence addressed to our client and/or to any court “pleadings” at this stage, but reserve our client’s rights to do so at the appropriate time and in the appropriate forum, should the need arise at any time in the future.

EoP-LJ 03: If Isobel has what she considers legally reasonable and justifiable reasons for her failure to voluntarily answer any of my requests for information; then that is her choice; and/or your legal services advice; and she/you can provide such reasons to the court.  If the ultimate Magistrate / Judge is an ‘Only the guilty refuse to testify’ arbitrator, then the Judge will take Isobels decision and/or your advice towards Isobel making such decision into consideration in making her/his ruling and related attorneys legal services costs orders, etc.

**

MLA-FL 04: Our client’s failure to respond to any averment must accordingly not be seen as an admission of the correctness thereof.

EoP-LJ 04: As per EoP-LJ 03.

**

MLA-FL 05: Please note that our client (upon your invitation to do so) objects to the jurisdiction of the Rental Housing Tribunal in this matter.

EoP-LJ 05: If she prefers the matter be resolved in alternative arbitration or court venues, that’s okay.

For the Record: I did not invite the RHT respondents to object: I provided all respondents with the jurisdiction information; to enable them to provide their answer sooner than later; to save everyone’s time. Your client declined to do so voluntarily by the deadline date, and appears to have decided to object sometime after the Small Claims Court Letter of Demand was filed; or the Roy Letter of Apology and Request for Information to Dawn.

If your client sincerely wants the matter to be resolved sooner than later: The sooner all facts not in dispute are confirmed, the sooner sincere applicant and respondents can cooperatively focus their attention on finding and/or providing the outstanding information that can help to confirm / disprove any fact in dispute. If that can be done without court proceedings, all sincere parties benefit; saving time and resources.

**

MLA-FL 06: With reference to your (Small Claims Court) letter of demand received under cover of your e-mail of 10 May 2020 (transmitted at 16:23) and addressed to our client, we are instructed that our client denies liability for payment of any damages to yourself and will vigorously defend any action instituted against it or the estate late Gill Elliott.

EoP-LJ 06: As per EoP-LJ 03.

**

MLA-FL 07: We are further in possesson of our clients letter dated 10 March 2020 addressed to yourself, in which you were requested to remove your belongings from the property situated at 18 Chestnut Street, Heatherpark, George (“the Property”) by 12h00 on 6 April 2020 and to further hand in any/all keys and remotes in respect thereof at our client’s business premises at 22 Wellington Street, George, a request you have failed to comply with.

EoP-LJ 07: I received Isobel’s 10 March registered letter on 18 March [18 Mar: TOFS-IR Re: Barter exchange agreement with late GM Elliott] I responded on 18 March [18 Mar: LJ Re: TOFS-IR Re: Barter exchange agreement with late GM Elliott] to enquire whether it was her or David decision. She responded on 19 March 2020 [19 Mar: TOFS-IR Re: Barter Exchange Agreement with GM Elliott] that it was her and Davids decision to proceed with eviction, of only 20 days notice. The Covid 19 lockdown became effective on 27 March 2020, suspending all evictions.

**

MLA-FL 08: In an effort to avoid costly and protracted litigation,

EoP-LJ 08: In my culture the the tactical negotiation way to avoid costly and protacted litigation is to engage in ego literate reasonable cooperative compromising negotiation. Isobel and Davids tactical negotiation way appears to be the mafia white supremacist capitalist way: fuck the poor, sincere, commies and niggers. It may work if they end up with a capitalist fuck the poor, sincere, commies and niggers, judge. We’ll have to wait and see.

**

MLA-FL 09: … our client is prepared to afford you a final opportunity to make the necessary arrangements and to remove your belongings (in particular your SQWorm farm) from the Property by no later than 12h00 on Thursday, 4 June 2020…..

EoP-LJ 09 A:
Isobel and Davids original eviction demand was: 20 days.
19 March [dated 10 March] to 06 April = 20 days.

David and Isobels ‘final opportunity’ has now been downgraded to 08 days.
19 March to 27 March is 08 days. [27 March – 04 June = lockdown days: 27 March was the start of the lockdown; which has not and does not allow for voluntary or involuntary eviction of non-essential property, without a court order. If lockdown level carries on till 04 June, the period from 27 March to 04 June.]

EoP-LJ 09 B, subject to C & D:
It is not possible for me – alone – to move – pack, transport and unpack – my SQWorms property in one day with a bicycle and trailer. It will require I imagine approximately a hundred trips, considering all the bricks, which are heavy to be moved with a small bicycle trailer. The compost boxes need to be emptied and the contents moved, the wooden boxes must be disassembled so they can be placed on the trailer to be moved. Two or three trips a day on every alternate day, allowing for a day of unpacking and repacking at the destination is approximately 90 days. If it can be done sooner, it will be done sooner.

EoP-LJ 09 C:
According to Dept of Human Settlements: Frequently Asked Questions – Landlords and Tenants during the COVID-19 Lockdown:

[3] Can a landlord terminate services during the period of lockdown?

No. Irrespective of the lockdown, a landlord is not entitled to terminate services without a Court Order. As a landlord will not be able to obtain such an Order during the period of lockdown, any termination of services will be unlawful.

[14] Is a tenant allowed to move to a new residence under Level 4?

No, section 16 of the Regulations includes strict restrictions regarding movement of persons (SAPS is also not authorised to issue permits for tenants to move).

A tenant is not allowed to vacate the property, whether it is voluntary or by an eviction order;
Eviction orders are suspended during the period of lockdown
Tenants cannot be sued, because landlords cannot issue legal processes during the lockdown. This does not change the fact that tenants are still obliged to pay rent.
Tenants cannot be sued, because landlords cannot issue legal processes during the lockdown.

According to Eviction Guide: Covid-19 Lockdown Regulations: Level Four [PDF].

Eviction Matters:
Landlords CAN make applications at court to evict tenants during level 4.
It IS possible for courts to hear eviction applications during lockdown Level 4 under certain circumstances.
The sheriff will not execute an eviction order until the end of level 4 unless the court has said that it is “just and equitable” to do so.

EoP-LJ 09 D:
If you have Government Gazette legislated information that can reasonably be interpreted to mean that a landlord of a non residential tenant-landlord agreement can evict their tenants property during the lockdown; without the tenants consent and if none: without a court order, please provide such legislation; I shall be happy to read such legislation and if your interpretation is reasonable, accept your interpretation.

If or when I am informed of (a) any Lockdown level legislation that can reasonably be interpreted as allowing for me to move SQWorms property that is not considered essential services movement of property; and (b) your client consents to a reasonable – three month /90 days access to pack and load and cart away – time period for me to move the SQWorms property; then I can start doing so, making a few bicycle and trailer loads a day. If  so: given that I am the only SQWorms labourer, who has to pack, move with a bicycle and trailer, and unpack; all SQWorms property; then my estimate of a reasonable eviction time period is three months. It may be less, and if so, then all landlords benefit from having me off the property much sooner, without having to deal with costly legal disputes.

If not, possible alternatives:
* Provide me with an impartial written legal opinion from an attorneys office that is not directly involved in these issues in dispute; that says that lockdown level four or lower, allows for the eviction movement of non-essential property; or.
* File an eviction application and ask the eviction court what they consider a reasonable and fair resolution of the barter exchange agreement issues in dispute.

**

MLA-FL 10: failing which our client will necessarily have to consider further legal options available against you in order to protect the interests of the estate.

EoP-LJ: 10: If the interests of Gills estate are to represent Gill as a capitalist racist white supremacist – fuck the poor, commies, vulnerable and niggers – bigot; then your clients are doing an excellent job.

**

MLA-FL 11: We trust that you will adhere to our client’s demand

EoP-LJ: 11: See EoP-LJ 09 D.

**

MLA-FL 11: … and that you will ensure that the Property is neat and in a clean state once you have removed any and all of your belongings.

EoP-LJ: 11  The property where my SQWorms farm is situated behind the fence was not anywhere what could reasonably be interpreted ot mean ‘neat’ or in a ‘clean state’ when Gill agreed to let me use it. It was overflowing with weeds knee high, because the gardner never went in there with the lawnmower; it was covered with dog poo because the fence was broken and dogs shat in there and nobody cleaned it up. I cleaned it up, and laid the bricks and fixed the fence, and built the gate.

When I leave: I shall leave it cleaner than when I found it; since it will not be covered in weeds or months of dog shit, since I have cleaned the dogs shit, in there, since Dawns little SPCA puppys broke the fence.

**

MLA-FL 12: Please further note our client’s additional requirements (effectively immediately):

EoP-LJ 12: If settlement agreement negotiation offers; please see EoP-LJ: 13-17 A & B.

If final orders that are not subject to negotiation; please see EoP-LJ 14 – 17 C.

**

MLA-FL 13: Any and all correspondence regarding this matter must be addressed to our offices and not to our client or any other party who does not have a direct interest in the matter.

MLA-FL 14: You may only enter the Property on Wednesdays between 12h00 and 16h00 and ….  with prior arrangement with Dawn, the current occupier of the Property.

MLA-FL 15: You are not allowed to bring any additional items onto the Property.

MLA-FL 16: You may not take the dog (“Roy”) of the late Gill Elliott from the Property for any reason.

MLA-FL 17: Please further note that Roy is not available for adoption.

EoP LJ 13 A:
If Isobel does not want me to copy her on my negotiation correspondence to you acting on her behalf; that’s okay. To enable a fully informed consenting agreement for all, could she put her request to you in writing. Simple clear unambiguous one sentence email will suffice.

Re: direct interest in the matter. Do you, Isobel or Dawn have any specific definition of ‘direct interest in the matter’. If so: please clarify who exactly you consider ‘direct interest in the matter’ parties, or provide a definition. Suggested definition:a party has a reasonable subjective belief / hypothesis that an individual or organization has a direct interest in the matter, if such individual or organization has information, or is alleged to have information by an application or respondent; to enable verifiable confirmation or denial resolution of a particular fact not in dispute or fact in dispute, between the applicant and respondents”.

EoP-LJ 14 A:
The original barter exchange agreement had no limitation to tenant to access 18 Chestnut St, day or night, because at the time of the original barter exchange agreement, Jill had been experiencing a large number of robberies [before she got Roy]; and she was very afraid, and I offered to go and sleep there a few nights a week and to be on call 24 hours, if she was afraid, or wanted me to come over. I made time to go to Chestnut St, on days that I did not need to, just to pop in and say hi, and make sure all was okay. I always went in the day, but if there was an emergency or if Jill needed me for an emergency then she was welcome to call me at anytime, day or night, any day of the week. Once she got Roy, the robberies stopped, so she was less afraid at night. She was still welcome to call me, but I knew she loved her privacy and so I did not bother her with check up visits. Once Dawn moved in, she was still welcome to call me if or when she needed me, but she never did. I went to Chestnut st a few times, at the request of Gill, when she called about a particular request. Average daylight hours for a month is 240 hours. Access has now been reduced to 16 hours. That is a 93% reduction of access to the rental agreement; without anything remotely resembling a reasonable reason for such request.

EoP-LJ 15 A:
For the past seven years, the average amount of SQWorms property that has been stored at 18 Chestnut St has not changed. On average it has remained exactly the same for seven years: Food for the worms and composting materials, leaves, grass and Bokashi dog and humanure has been taken to 18 Chestnut St, where it is fermented and composted. Once composted it is removed and sold or used to pay my rent; or on months where there was extra, given as barter exchange gifts of thanks to people who have provided me with voluntary help / services.

EoP-LJ 16 & 17 A:
The agreement with regard to Roy was made with Gill. That means that I promised Gill that I would continue to walk Roy while he was at 18 Chestnut St, as per here allowing Dawn to remain there; and that once Roy left 18 Chestnut St, he came to the Johnstones, or went to a home where he was comfortable and knew the owners and would be in a loving home. That was my commitment to Gill when I agreed to the request to adopt Roy.

EoP-LJ 14, 15, 16 and 17 B:
If any of Isobel / David / Dawn / SPCA additional requirements requests have some logical reasonable justification, please ask the particular individual who made the decision or is alleged to have made the decision to clarify what the logic and reasoning is behind their decision request.

Furthermore, I am still waiting for them to provide the related Letter of Demand [10 May: RHT / SCC: Re: RHT Jurisdiction / Letter of Demand] and Request for Information [11 May: Req for Info to Garden Route SPCA: Dawn Meyer] information or reasonable reasons why they cannot or refuse to provide the requested information, to demonstate their good faith reasonable cooperating intentions.

If any of their reasons are reasonable, I have no problem compromising and cooperating.

If they don’t want to order their dictator-ego’s to cooperate; they can explain their reasons to the Magistrate; whose innocence/guilt decision will be partly based upon whether they are an – Only the guilty refuse to testify – magistate or not

EoP-LJ 14, 15, 16 and 17 C:
If any of Isobel / David / Dawn / SPCA demands are because they consciously or uncosncioiusly are being petty and malicious; then a discrimination applicaton can can be filed in the equality court.

**

MLA-FL 18: We await your confirmation of the date and time when you will be removing your belongings from the Property, in order to confirm say to our client.

EoP-LJ 18: See EoP-LJ 09 D.

**

MLA-FL 19: We are diarizing our file accordingly.

EoP-LJ 19: Presumably some legal jargon. You have a 04 June date with your file.

**

MLA-FL 20: Beat the Facts of they Will Beat You.

EoP-LJ 20 A:
Ecology of Peace law definition of objective and subjective reality as submitted to Judge Nathan Erasmus:

Ecology of Peace cultures definition of objective truth / reality:

Ecology of Peace Functional Interpretation of Objective Reality Transforming the World Constraints for Sincere Peaceniks / Honourable Warriors:

Ecology of Peace Radical Honoursty Factual Reality [eop-rh-fr] and EoP Scientific and Cultural Law [eop-scicultlaw] are EoP culture’s functional group shared system of thought and action frame of orientation and object of inter-species relating devotion interpretation of reality for individuals whose object of devotion/values include: (i) honest – race, religious, gender and cultural – relationships; (ii) an ecological carrying capacity based perspective of observable factual social contract reality; and (iii) non-violent cooperative root cause problem solving.

* Objective Factual Reality:
[1] Earth is not flat.
[2] Resources are finite.
[3] When humans breed or consume above ecological carrying capacity limits, it results in ecological overshoot, resource depletion and resource conflict.
[4] Some of the socio-cultural and psycho-political consequences of overpopulation & consumption collision with declining resources include: climate change, mass migration, poverty, slavery, unemployment, food shortages, food inflation, cost of living increases, urban sprawl, traffic jams, toxic waste, pollution, peak oil, peak water, peak food, peak population, species extinction, loss of biodiversity, peak resources, racial, religious, class, gender resource war conflict, militarized police, psycho-social and cultural conformity pressures on free speech, etc; inter-cultural conflict; legal, political and corporate corruption, etc.
[5] The root cause of humans breeding and consuming above ecological carrying capacity limits is the ‘right to breed and consume with total disregard for ecological carrying capacity limits’ clauses of the Babylon Masonic War is Peace international law social contract.

* Sincere Peacenik / Honourable Warrior: Interpretative Reality:
[6] If individuals, families, tribes, races, religions, political parties, corporations and/or nations sincerely – aka egological literacy [ego-eco-literacy] – want to (a) sustainably protect natural resources for future generations; and/or (b) reduce class, racial and/or religious local, national and international resource war conflict; and/or (c) enable honourable, transparent and humane international cooperative de-industrialization and depopulation of the planet to return to living in accordance to ecological carrying capacity limits; they should (d) cooperate [eop-cooperator] to nullify the ‘right to breed and consume with total disregard for ecological carrying capacity limits’ clauses and replace them with EoP Scientific and Cultural law [eop-scicultlaw] clauses that restricts all the worlds citizens to breed and consume below ecological carrying capacity limits; or be humanely eliminated from the planetary genepool.
» EoP Leg Sub: 16 May: LJ v LS Court Filing: NoM Afd & EoP UN Res [PDF] EoP Scientific and Cultural Law [PDF]; EoP Footprint [PDF]; EoP Radical Honoursty Factual Reality [PDF]

.

Ecology of Peace cultures definition of subjective truth / reality:

[10] Sincere Peacenik / Honourable Warrior: Subjective Reality:

[11] In a Babylon WiP international and national constitutional law polegal system, most subjective reality resource conflict disputes, are symptoms of living in a Babylon WiP international law legal system, that allows procreation and consumption above ecological carrying capacity limits, resulting in resource depletion, ecological overshoot and resource conflict.

[11.1] Judges, lawyers, editors, academics, politicians, religious leaders, etc can encourage citizens to focus only on their individual or group racial, religious, class or gender subjective reality resource conflict dispute, totally ignoring the root WiP international law causes of their subjective resource conflict reality; or

[11.2] Judges, lawyers, editors, academics, politicians, religious leaders etc can encourage the individuals to focus on their subjective reality resource conflict dispute, within the context of recognizing their resource conflict dispute, is a symptom of living in a Babylon WiP international law legal system; and cooperatively legally, politically, religiously, academically, etc advocate on behalf of abolishing the root WiP international law cause of all racial, religious, class and gender resource conflict disputes.

[12] Subjective Reality Summary:

[12.1] Factual Reality is founded upon Facts: what happened, who said what, who did what to whom, how, when and where. We create the world by noticing who, what, when and how via our senses of sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch.

[12.2] Our motives for who we choose to be, and what we choose to do and say — covertly and/or overtly — are a reflection of our cultural subjective – ethnicity, religion and class identity – reality.

[12.3] In any objective and/or subjective reality event or circumstance, interpretive Reality is founded upon the interpretation of concrete facts and/or abstract concepts.

[12.4] Different interpretations of concrete facts and/or abstract concepts can be quickly resolved with no wasting of time or resources; with ego literacy sincere honest listening and confirming of accuracy or inaccuracy of interpretations [ego-eco-literacy: lj-v-ls: PDF pp.36-37/70].

[12.5] Different interpretations of concrete facts and/or abstract concepts can take forever to resolve with massive wasting of time and resources where individuals lack ego literacy character communication skills; and refuse to answer questions and/or confirm the accuracy or inaccuracy of an interpretation; resulting in negligent and/or malicious misrepresentations and/or misunderstandings, where such misrepresentations and/or misunderstandings then become fodder for more disagreements, and more Babylonian confusion and conflict.

[12.6] Objective and Subjective reality interpretations can be functional or dysfunctional. Cooperative resource sharing interpretations will be considered functional amongst individuals who identify as cooperative resource sharing individuals and considered dysfunctional amongst individuals who identify as competitors. Village idiot interpretations will be considered functional amongst individuals who identify as village idiots, and considered dysfunctional amongst individuals who identify as expert deceivers. Objective and subjective interpretations of reality will be considered functional amongst individuals who value brutal honest sharing of objective and subjective interpretations to reach a collective consciousness truth conclusion; and considered dysfunctional amongst individuals who have do not value brutal honest sharing of objective and subjective interpretations to reach a collective consciousness truth conclusion.

[13] An individuals subjective reality can either be honestly transparent, or covertly hidden behind a false public relations image management subjective reality.

[14] Ecology of Peace Scientific and Cultural international law solution for avoiding subjective reality conflicts with individuals who have strong attachments to a particular racial, religious or cultural value system, is to provide such groups of individuals with Cultural Law Self Rule Homelands [cult-law-self-rule: lj-v-ls: PDF pp.34-35/70]..
» EoP Leg Sub: 09 Nov: LJ Re: Notice: Judicial Service Commission and Judge NC Erasmus: EoP Applicant Statement to Judge Erasmus: Request Written Reasons for Case DismissalEoP Applicant Statement to Judicial Service Commission: Request EoP and WiP Conflict of Cultures Judge: Case Dismissal Merit Issues in Dispute.

EoP-LJ 20 B:
If any of your Marais Lamprecht ‘we’ partners and/or clients are interested in cooperating with Ecology of Peace resource conflict solutions. If so, I’ll be happy to consider any tactical suggestions Marais Lamprecht Attorneys have for building an EoP Axis Alliance to submit EoP UN Resolution [mcveigh2020: PDF: pp.26-67/71; lj-v-ls: PDF: pp.25-66/70] to UN General Assembly; to implement EoP Scientific and Cultural law as international law; to enable orderly and humane deindustrialization to a global low tech organic family farm agrarian economy.

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

Respectfully,

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

.

2 Comments

    1. […] TO: JS Marais Inc: Charl Marais: Re: George Herald: Ilse Schoonraad: Ref: 14 May: Upd: TN: ML-FL: Re LJ v GME; JSM Inc-CM Re LJ v GrgHerald: LJ#2 Re MLA-FM: Estate Late: Gill Elliott. […]

Leave a Comment