24 Mar: LJ Re: Re: DM Q’s Re: 12 Mar DM Settlement Agreement Offer.

* Marais Law Inc, Elizma Barnard, Dawn Meyer, Isobel Rohwer, Marais Law Inc: Charl Marais, The One Financial Solution: Marlise Steenekamp:
* 24 Mar: LJ Re: Re: DM Q’s Re: 12 Mar DM Settlement Agreement Offer.
* Tygae: EoP Leg Sub: LJ v GME  / 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 Religion, EoP v WiP Peacenik / EoP v WiP Neg.

From: Lara Johnson [mailto:eop-leg-sub@tygae.org.za]
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2021 10:31 PM
To: ‘Marais Law Inc: Elizma Barnard’
Cc: ‘The One Financial Solution: Isobel Rohwer’
Subject: Re: DM Q’s Re: 12 Mar DM Settlement Agreement Offer
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2021 10:32 PM
To: ‘Marais Law Inc: Charl Marais’
Cc: ‘Marlise Steenekamp’
Subject: Re: DM Q’s Re: 12 Mar DM Settlement Agreement Offer

24 Mar: 22:49: SMS: Dawn Meyer: 072 569 5555; Isobel Rohwer: 084 660 7330.
Dawn: My answers to yr lawyer settlement agreement q’s. Copy to read at lj-v-gme.tygae.org.za   lara


TO: Marais Law Inc: Elizma Barnard:
CC: Dawn Meyer, Isobel Rohwer

CC: Marais Law Inc: Charl Marais:
CC: The One Financial Solution: Marlise Steenekamp:
Pls Note: EoP-LJ 07:

Elizma Barnard:

Re: DM Q’s Re: 12 Mar DM Settlement Agreement Offer.

I received your email sent 24 March 2021 [24 Mar: MLI-EB: Re: M Steenekamp & Others / Yourself: PDF]

EoP culture active listening [Edwin Rutsch: Empathy aka Active Listening Circle] response
MLI-EB: Marais Law Inc: Elizma Barnard
EoP-LJ: Ecology of Peace: Lara Johnson


MLI-EB 01: We refer to the above and address this letter to you on behalf of Ms D Meyer, the second respondent in your application.

EoP-LJ 01: You refer to 542-21: LJ v MSteenekamp and Three Others. Your letter is on behalf of Dawn Meyer, the second respondent.


MLI-EB 02: With specific reference to your email letter sent to us at 11:59 on 12 March 2021 (and the proposed settlement agreement attached to that letter) …..

EoP-LJ 02: You refer to my email sent 12 March 2020: 11:59 hours [12 Mar: LJ Re GMC 542/21; MHC 4968/20; CCMA 1279-20: DM Settlement Agreement Offer: Settlement Agreement Offer for Second Respondent: Dawn Meyer: PDF: pp.03].


MLI-EB 03: …. we are unfortunately uncertain of the terms of your settlement proposal.

EoP-LJ 03: You – presumably Marais Law Inc, and/or Dawn Meyer – are uncertain about the terms of my settlement proposal.

My apologies for any lack of clarity: The settlement agreement was a draft, available for negotiation and further editing clarity, prior to agreement; and furthermore was an offer based upon the information available to me at that time.


MLI-EB 04: From the wording of your proposal we understand that, if Ms Meyer declares that she does not recall the alleged conversation between her and yourself regarding the adoption of the Alsation dog, Roy, on 3 March 2020, you will withdraw the application against her.

EoP-LJ 04: From the wording of my 12 March proposal you – Marais Law Inc and/or Ms Meyer – understands that, if Ms Meyer declares that she does not recall the alleged conversation between her and me regarding the adoption of the Alsation dog, Roy, on 3 March 2020, I will withdraw the application against Dawn Meyer.


MLI-EB 05: Is this interpretation correct?

EoP-LJ 05: Not entirely, but a reasonable interpretation: My offer stated:

[2.2] Subject to written confirmation from second respondent that: [A] Second Respondent [withdraws / or does not recall] her statement to applicant made on the morning of 03 March 2020 informing applicant that Gill Elliott had requested that applicant adopt and take care of Gills favourite dog-child Alsation Roy Elliott (“Lara Roy Adoption”), when Gill died.

By ‘withdraws’ I meant:
If Dawn confirms that she made the 03 March 2020 Roy Adoption request, however withdraws that she made it on the instructions and at the request of Gill; then – in the absence of Isobel disclosing who Gills carer agency was, and Gills carer confirming that she was there at the Mediclinic when Gill asked Dawn to ask me to adopt Roy, those who have obstructed holding S32 enquiry into these matters presumably know; its unlikely that the carer would remember such request a year after it happened – according to my interpretation of the law and my honour responsibilities to Jill; to see that her wishes are respected; I have no Roy adoption claim.

Whatever is Dawns sincere – her subjective truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth – recollection is my focus. If Dawn does recall: I don’t want her to enter into a settlement agreement with me, saying that she does not recall.


MLI-EB 06: We await your reply.

EoP-LJ 06: The 12 March 2020 offer was based upon the following information:

In Dawn’s Answering affidavit she says: [DM: I am an unemployed female currently residing at 60 Mitchell Street George.   20.1: I deny that I ever informed the applicant as alleged.  Late Ghislaine Madelene Elliott never expressed to me that she wanted the applicant to adopt the Alsation dog named Roy.     20.3: Apart from admitting that the Alsation dog named Roy remained with me at the late Ghislaine Madelene Elliotts home after her death, I deny the content of paragraph 15.      27.3 I further submit that the applicant makes no averment that I am in possession of the relevant Alsation dog or that I know where the dog is. She gives no explanation as to why an order for delivery of the dog is sought against me instead of the executrix, who is legally charged with disposing of late Ghislaine Madelene Elliotts estate, of which the dog forms part.]

Dawn appeared to be saying that (a) I was lying about Gill’s Roy Adoption request / instructions via herself on 03 March 2020; and (b) she does not currently have Roy and does not know where Roy is; i.e. does not care what happens to Roy.

This morning after receiving your email: I asked my mother whether she remembered our 03 March 2020 conversation where I came to tell her that Dawn had told me that Gill had asked whether we would adopt Roy, and I said I must first get my parents consent. She said yes she remembered.

This afternoon while doing some chores for my father in town, in the industrial area, on the way home; I drove past 60 Mitchell Street. An alsation that looks very much like Roy, was lying by the gate.


EoP-LJ 07: If your request for information should be interpreted as ‘We – Marais Law Inc and/or Dawn Meyer – want to know: under what circumstances would you withdraw your breach of agreement claim against Dawn Meyer’:

If that is your question on behalf of Dawn Meyer. That is a reasonable question; I shall think about it overnight and let you know, hopefully tomorrow, or latest Friday.

Offhand: My focus is truthseeking to enable fully informed decision-making:

Any terms you – Marais Law Inc – think could get Dawns attention to provide myself, yourselves – if you are truthseeking parties – the Executor and Master – if they are truthseeking parties – and any other Elliott Estate truthseeking parties; with answers to their questions, to enable the Executor and/or Master and/or Magistrate; to conduct a fair and impartial truthseeking enquiry into my breach of agreement claims, I would happily include such terms in such settlement agreement with Dawn

If Executor Steenekamp’s decision with regard to my resubmitted claims is:

Section 32: Disputed Claims Hearing:
More information will become available and all parties will be able to make more fully informed decisions.

Section 35: Liquidation and distribution accounts
If so, the Executor has decided to submit my claims to the Liquidation and distribution accounts.

If so: If Dawn intends to object to my Roy Adoption claim, which she is more than entitled to, then I imagine – I could be wrong – the Executor and/or Master would prefer if Dawn is going to object now; providing the Executor with a reason to dispute my Roy Adoption claim, before making a decision whether to include it in the Liquidation and Distribution accounts; and to initiate a Section 32 hearing, where my evidence for my claim; and Dawns reasons and evidence for her objections can be further enquired into.


EoP – OKC TRC – Axis Alliance [31 Mar: EoP Upd: Sergey Lavrov: Re: EoP Axis Alliance negotiations] Honest Lives Matter [29 Jun: EoP Axis Alliance is an Honest Lives Matter culture] Negotiations correspondence is published at EoP Leg Sub [eop-leg-sub.tygae.org.za]


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

Sent per electronic notice to:

Marais Law Inc: Elizma Barnard:
Marais Law Inc: Elizma Barnard (elizma@marais-law.com)

Marais Law Inc: Charl Marais:
Marais Law Inc: Charl Marais (charl@marais-law.com)

The One Financial Solution: Marlise Steenekamp:
Marlise Steenekamp (marlise@theonefs.co.za);

Dawn Meyer:
Dawn Meyer: 072 569 5555.

The One Financial Solution: Isobel Rohwer:
The One Financial Solution: Isobel Rohwer (isobel@theonefs.co.za);


Leave a Comment