20 May: LJ Re MLI-CM Re: LJ: S36 Admin Estates Act Ntc: Re: Dawn Meyer.

* Marais Law Inc, Charl Marais
* 20 May: LJ Re MLI-CM Re: LJ: S36 Admin Estates Act Ntc: Re: Dawn Meyer.
* 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 Neg.

From: Lara Johnson [mailto:eop-leg-sub@tygae.org.za]
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2021 2:43 PM
To: ‘Marais Law Inc: Charl Marais’
Subject: Re: 542/21: S36 Admin of Estates Act Notice.

.

TO: Marais Law Inc: Charl Marais
Ref: 19 May: MLI-CM Re: LJ: S36 Admin Estates Act Ntc: Re: Dawn Meyer.

Mr Marais:

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

I have received Marais Law Inc email sent 19 May 2021: 11:41 hrs [19 May: MLI-CM Re: LJ: S36 Admin Estates Act Ntc: Re: Dawn Meyer: 7094 PDF].

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: Any further action instituted against Dawn Meyer will be defended.

EoP-LJ: If I am accurately interpreting your statement: Your statement is an answer to my 14 May 2021: 18:28 hrs email [14 May: LJ Re: MLI-CM: 542/21: Re: opposed motion hearing: Re Dawn Meyer] question:

As of date Dawn Meyer has not clarified her affidavit response to my S36 Notice: Perjury 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; Encl: DD: PDF: pp.116].    I don’t know if you and/or the Executor requested Dawn Meyer to provide her Affidavit response to the S36 Notice: Perjury Affidavit; prior to the Executor making her S33 Rejected claims decision.     “Can you confirm that Dawn Meyer does not intend to voluntarily provide an Affidavit Reply to the S36 Notice Perjury Affidavit allegations. …. If so informed: I can draft a separate application to submit the Perjury Affidavit; to the Sheriff to be served on Dawn Meyer, to provide her with the opportunity to address the issues in dispute referenced in the Perjury Affidavit allegations; with an affidavit clarifying her alleged negligent or intentional perjury affidavit statements, and/or withdrawing and apologizing for her negligent or intentional perjury affidavit statements.”

Your answer appears to imply that:
* Dawn Meyer does not intend to voluntarily provide an Affidavit Reply to the S36 Notice Perjury Affidavit.
* Dawn Meyer will oppose a civil court application request for her to clarify her alleged negligent or intentional perjury affidavit statements, and/or withdraw and apologize for her negligent or intentional perjury affidavit statements.

Put differently: Dawn Meyer and/or her counsel would prefer the Magistrate to refer Applicants S 36 Notice: Perjury 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; Encl: DD: PDF: pp.116] to the police for investigation.

If that is an inaccurate interpretation of your reply: Kindly either (a) restate your reply statement more clearly; or (b) correct my inaccurate interpretation errors.

If accurate: Applicant does not object to the Magistrate referring Applicants S 36 Notice: Perjury 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; Encl: DD: PDF: pp.116] to the police for investigation; to enable the police to provide the magistrate with the information the first and second respondents, and/or their counsel; are withholding from the applicant and the Magistrate.

**

MLI-CM: Our clients do not agree to a postponement of the hearing.

EoP-LJ: Noted: Your clients do not agree to a postponement of the hearing.

Applicants Obervations related to Your Clients Lack of Information sharing: Your clients also do not agree to provide the Magistrate with all the evidentiary information available to them, to enable the Magistrate to make a bonafide, fair minded and objectively fair and impartial ruling.  

Applicant does not object to a postponement, if such postponement enables the Magistrate to acquire sufficient evidentiary information to enable her to make bona fide, fair minded and objectively fair and impartial ruling on the issues in dispute.  

Applicant also has no objections to voluntarily answering any question from the Magistrate; providing the Magistrate and court; with any evidentiary information that the Magistrate may consider useful to help her to make a bonafide, fair minded and objectively fair and impartial ruling; to resolve this matter.  

Applicant can confirm that she has voluntarily answered any and every question from the respondents; prior to the filing of any Rental Housing Tribunal, CCMA and/or Magistrates Courts filing, and in the proceedings of such filings; to provide the respondents with any and all evidentiary information available to the applicant to help the respondents and their counsel to make a bonafide, fair minded and objectively fair and impartial evidentiary based decision on the issues in dispute; to resolve this matter.

Applicant can confirm that the first and second respondent have objected to voluntarily answering questions from the applicant; prior to the filing of any Rental Housing Tribunal, CCMA and/or Magistrates Courts filing, and in the proceedings of such filings; to provide the applicant with any and all evidentiary information available to the first and second respondent to help the applicant to make a bonafide, fair minded and objectively fair and impartial evidentiary based decision; to resolve this matter.

If the Magistrate’s decision is that she has enough evidentiary information to enable her to make bona fide, fair minded and objectively fair and impartial ruling on the application; the Magistrate can do so.

If the Magistrate thinks a separate civil application filed by Applicant, served by the Sheriff against Dawn Meyer, to request Dawn Meyer to provide her written response to the S36 Notice Perjury Affidavit; will be helpful, applicant will file such application.

If the Magistrate’s decision is that she thinks that a S32 Disputed Claims hearing will be helpful to provide her with enough evidentiary information to enable her to make bona fide, fair minded and objectively fair and impartial ruling on the application; the Magistrate can do so.

Alternatively the Magistrate can refer the applicants S36 Notice perjury affidavit complaint to the South African Police.  

If so: Applicant does not object to the Magistrate referring Applicants S 36 Notice: Perjury 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; Encl: DD: PDF: pp.116] to the police for investigation; to enable the police to provide the magistrate with the information the respondents are withholding from the applicant and court.

**

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