* Marais Law Inc, Charl Marais, Elizma Barnard
* 13 Apr: LJ Re MLI-CM: 542-21: Re Filing of Reply Affidavit.
* 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 Neg.
From: Lara Johnson [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2021 10:36 AM
To: ‘Marais Law Inc: Charl Marais’
Cc: ‘Marais Law Inc: Elizma Barnard’
Subject: Re MLI-CM: Ntc Re Filing of Reply Affidavit.
Attachment: 21-04-09_LJvEGME_SAPS_CnclWill.pdf; 21-04-09_LJvEGME_SAPS_Perjury.pdf
TO: Marais Law Inc: Charl Marais:
CC: Marais Law Inc: Elizma Barnard:
Re MLI-CM: Ntc Re Filing of Reply Affidavit.
I received your 12 April 2021 email [12 Apr: MLI-CM: 542-21: Re Filing of Reply Affidavit]
Thank you for informing me of (a) the Magistrates Courts Rule 55 (1) (h) (ii), which indicates that an applicant may deliver a replying affidavit within ten days of service of the opposing affidavit; (b) your calculations that filing a reply affidavit now, would be 20 days after service of respondents opposing affidavits, on 11 March 2021.
After receiving the answering affidavits: I submitted various settlement agreement offers to the respondents and their counsel, none of which were accepted after I answered all their questions, and they answered none of my questions. The first respondent did not clarify her template for a claims filing, so that I could amend my claims filing as per her claims filing template. So I resubmitted my claims on 22 March 2021: 14:24 [22 Mar: LJ Filing: GMC 542/21; MHC 4968/20; CCMA 1279-20: S29 Claim Filing: PDF: pp.43]; in response to first respondents statements in paragraph 23.4 of her opposing affidavit.
On 23 March 2021: 15:58 [23 Mar: LJ Re GMC 542/21; MHC 4968/20; CCMA 1279-20: Re S29 Claim Filing]; I suggested we simplify matters and suspend the application proceedings, to proceed with Admin of Estates Act S29, S33 and S35 claims process; with regard to my resubmitted claim filed 22 March 2021: 14:24; to enable the First Respondent to make a S32, S33 or S35 decision.
If First Respondents decision response to my 22 March 2020 resubmitted claim is:
* S32: If so these proceedings can be suspended pending the Executors S32 initiated action proceedings hearings evidentiary enquiry report. Once S32 hearing is complete: Applicant and first respondent can make more fully informed S35 and/or S33 decisions as to the evidence in support and/or against my claims.
* S35: If so these proceedings can be terminated.
* S33: If so depending on the Executors written reasons; I can (a) amend my claim to the Executors valid claim format definition requirements; and once so done; the correctly formatted claim can be resubmitted to the Executor for the Executors S32, S33, S35 decision; or (b) make a more fully informed decision as to un/lawful un/reasonableness evidentiary truthseeking or rubber stamping of the Executors written reasons and based on such conclusions proceed or withdraw the application.
The first respondent – for unknown reasons – did not inititate a S32 disputed claims enquiry; and proceeded directly to S33 rejection of my claims; with reasons massively misrepresenting my breach of barter exchange claim. Based upon the information available to me, my claims are on solid ground. If the Executor has evidence to the contrary; she has not yet informed me of it.
I have never objected to any respondents request to file a response affidavit to a reply affidavit. I have never objected to negligent late affidavits. I have never objected to receiving relevant information submitted into the court record, no matter how damaging to my case; if accurate, on a technicality. I have never objected to an opponents subjective definition of relevant; to prevent them from submitting their subjective ‘relevant’ evidence to the court record. The truth is the truth, whether its early or late, or written on toilet paper in ink made from shit, as my former husband – a member of the Black Guerrilla Family and his Aryan Brotherood fellow prisoners [07 Mar: Demian Johnson & Anders Breivik: Update Re: EoP TRC to End Cold War Neg’s] – had to do when filing complaints from Corcoran prison maximum security [Esq: The Making of Bonecrusher]. I would rather be executed by firing squad than win unfairly playing fuck honour lawyer ego-mindfuck games.
If the first respondent has no intentions of using the suspended application proceedings to initiate a S32 disputed claims enquiry; there is no point in the application proceedings remaining suspended for Admin of Estate proceedings – as suggested on 22 March; if that is what you are suggesting – as it will only be a waste of everyone’s time and resources.
I calculate ten days from 08 April 2021, to be 18 April 2021 [counting weekends] or 22 April [not counting weekends]. The hearing is set for 27 April 2021.
I will not object to you filing a Response to the Reply Affidavit, stating your Magistrates Courts Rules objections and the Magistrate can decide whether to ignore the information in my Reply affidavit, on your request if s/he wants.
The draft SAPS Complaints: Concealment of Will [PDF] and Perjury [PDF] complaints are enclosed, excluding their attachments [Incl attachments: Concealment of Will: PDF; Perjury: PDF]. You, or if first and second respondents don’t listen to you, the magistrate can ask the first and second respondents whether they would prefer a (a) civil S32 Disputed Claim or (b) criminal action proceedings enquiry.
In the absence of interruptions; I shall file the Reply Affidavit by Friday, 16 April 2021.
EoP MILED Clerk [EoP Oath PDF]
16 Taaibos Ave, Heatherpark, George, 6529
Sent per electronic notice to:
Marais Law Inc: Charl Marais:
Marais Law Inc: Charl Marais (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Marais Law Inc: Elizma Barnard:
Marais Law Inc: Elizma Barnard (email@example.com)