12 May: LJ Re MLI-CM Re: LJ: S36 Admin Estates Act Ntc.

* Marais Law Inc, Charl Marais
* 12 May: LJ Re MLI-CM Re: LJ: S36 Admin Estates Act Ntc.
* Tygae: EoP Leg Sub: LJ v GME / EoP NWO SCO: 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 [mailto:eop-leg-sub@tygae.org.za]
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2021 10:02 PM
To: ‘Marais Law Inc: Charl Marais’
Subject: Re: 542/21: S36 Admin of Estates Act Notice

.

TO: Marais Law Inc: Charl Marais
Ref: 12 May: LJ Re MLI-CM Re 542/21: opposed motion hearing

Mr Marais:

Re: 542/21: S36 Admin of Estates Act Notice.

I received Marais Law Inc correspondence sent 12 May 2021: 15:05 hrs [12 May: MLI-CM Re: LJ: S36 Admin Estates Act Ntc: Re: GMC 542-21 / MHC 4968-20 / CCMA: 1279-20].

EoP active listening [Edwin Rutsch: Empathy aka Active Listening Circle] response.
MLI-CM: Marais Law Inc: Charl Marais
EoP-LJ: Ecology of Peace: Lara Johnson

**

MLI-CM 01: The executrix has considered your claim for payment of R225 660.00, being in respect of what you refer to as “Outstanding Tenant Labour Services Provided”.

EoP-LJ 01: In the absence of the executrix changing her S33 Rejected Claims decision mind prior to the magistrates ruling: the magistrate will have to decide whether the Executrix ‘consideration’ of my claim was bona fide, fair minded and objective and justified a S33 Rejected claims decision; or not.

**

MLI-CM 02: The executrix has considered that, on your own version, an agreement existed between yourself and late Ms Elliott in terms of which you provided what you refer to as “labour services” to Ms Elliott in return for which Ms Elliott allowed you to use a portion of her property for the operation of your worm farm. This means, on your own version of the alleged agreement, you received everything you were entitled to in terms of that agreement.

EoP-LJ 02: If I thought I was not entitled to anything in terms of the Executor and Heirs breach of my barter exchange agreement with Ms Elliott; I would not have filed the Rental Housing Tribunal, CCMA and Magistrates Court applications. Please clarify where exactly, I stated that I had received everything I was entitled to in terms of the Executor and Heirs breach of my barter exchange agreement?

**

MLI-CM 03: The executrix takes cognisance of the fact that you do not claim to ever have demanded or received financial compensation from Ms Elliott during her lifetime for these alleged “labour services” – which makes sense in view of your stated terms of the alleged agreement.

EoP-LJ 03: As I have repeatedly stated: Gill never breached our agreement, being a flexible agreement it was amended and changed by either of us, with the other consent. Sometimes she consented to my requests; and sometimes I consented to her requests. If Gill had breached our agreement; I would have filed a claim to withdraw the financial equivalent of my labour investments – that exceeded her rental property value of our agreement at that time – from her estate. Unlike Gill; Gill’s heir David Crawley breached the barter exchange agreement. I notified Mr Crawley of the breach, he mala fide vigorously ignored the breach, and consequently I am withdrawing the financial equivalent of my labour investments; into the Elliott Estate.

As noted in the 23 Apr: LJ: S36 Admin Estates Act Ntc: Re: GMC 542-21 / MHC 4968-20 / CCMA: 1279-20: [AA] Amended S29 Claims: Unpaid Labour; Roy Adoption [PDF: pp.13] para 7-10 and 14.

**

MLI-CM 04: The executrix has further taken account of the fact that, again on your own version, there was no agreement between yourself and late Ms Elliott that you would receive financial compensation from her.

EoP-LJ 04: See EoP-LJ 03.

**

MLI-CM 05: Under these circumstances the executrix rejects this claim.

EoP-LJ 05: Under these – Executrix and/or her counsel engaged in vigorous mala fide lawfare – circumstances?

**

MLI-CM 06: The executrix has considered your claim that an agreement existed between yourself and late GM Elliott in terms of which you are entitled to receive the Alsation dog, Roy.

EoP-LJ 06: I have never claimed to be entitled to receive Alsation Roy. I claimed that Gill Elliott requested the Johnstone family’s consent to adopt Roy; the Johnstone family consented; and based upon that agreement; Gill’s Roy adoption request / instructions were that she wanted Roy to be adopted by the Johnstone family.

**

MLI-CM 05: The executrix notes that the very person (Dawn Meyer) through whom you claim such an agreement was reached, denies the existence of such an agreement.

EoP-LJ 05A: As of date; the Executor and her counsel have provided no affidavit response from Dawn Meyer, with regard to Perjury Complaint affidavit [23 Apr: LJ: S36 Admin Estates Act Ntc: Re: GMC 542-21 / MHC 4968-20 / CCMA: 1279-20: Annex BB: Criminal Perjury Complaint: Dawn Meyer: PDF: pp.09].

EoP-LJ 05B: Applicants efforts to request Gill Roy Adoption instructions witness information from Gills carer who was present at the time [Annex DD: PDF: pp.116; Doc: M: 136a; Doc: J: 124b; Doc K: 130a].

EoP-LJ 05C: Executor and/or Executor’s counsel and/or The One Financial Solution: Isobel Rohwer’s response to Applicants efforts to request Gill Roy Adoption instructions witness information from Gills carer who was present at the time [Annex DD: PDF: pp.116; Doc R: 140d].

**

MLI-CM 06: You are unable to provide any proof that such an agreement exists and, under the circumstances, the executrix must give effect to late Ms Elliott’s will.

EoP-LJ 06: See EoP-LJ 05A, B & C.

**

MLI-CM 07: Under these circumstances the executrix rejects this claim.

EoP-LJ 07: Under these – Executrix and/or her counsel engaged in vigorous mala fide lawfare – circumstances?

**

MLI-CM 08: The executrix denies that she has failed to fulfill her duties as alleged in your notice in terms of Section 36 of the Act, or at all.

EoP-LJ 08: In the absence of the Executor changing her mind, prior to the Magistrates’s ruling: we shall have to wait and see what the Magistrate’s response is to the S36 Notice and the Executors response thereto.

**

MLI-CM 09: Any application brought against our client will be vigorously opposed.

EoP-LJ 09: I hope for your clients sake that they sincerely believe that is what Gill Elliott – their client [FB: TOFS: 05 Mar 2020] – would have wanted them to do in this matter. [If not: Reminder: See paragraphs at: 19 Mar: LJ Re TOFS-IR Re: Barter Exchange Agreement with GM Elliott: All EoP MILED Clerk verbal / written correspondence taped by FSB / NSA]

Perhaps – unlike the Executor and/or her counsel – the Magistrate will think a S32 Disputed Claims enquiry will be helpful to ask those who considered themselves Gill Elliott’s friends; what they think? [Annex DD: PDF: pp.116: Doc S: 142b: Section 32 of Admin of Estates Act Questions: Request for Information: Q’s for Gill Elliotts Friends]

**

MLI-CM 10: We trust that you will be guided accordingly.

EoP-LJ 10: In the absence of the executrix changing her S33 Rejected Claims decision mind prior to the magistrates ruling: the magistrate will have to decide whether the Executrix ‘consideration’ of my claim was guided by bona fide, fair minded and objective values; and justified a S33 Rejected claims decision; or not.

**

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]

Respectfully,

Lara Johnson,
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 (charl@marais-law.com).

.

Leave a Comment