Based on laws; of compensation discussions required before ‘Mutual Benefit’ into betterment of Defendant’s position, it would be assumed and understood that the agreement would
be considered ’short-term’ project based and only outlined as done so to settling complaint and dispute already placed in public record of time investment of both the 1.5 year time frame argued and entertained legally while in consideration of the 2.5 years spent in awareness of complaints internally of The Defendants procedures in which April 2021 was based upon initial aspects of complaints and proveability.
During what would have to be agreed upon during compensation and terms, a questions arise. Would that be that of respecting private property and what is not the defendant’s property?
What would be of ‘mutual benefit’ would be the interaction between either party and of arbiter decision on there where the ‘mutualness’ would be the preservation of ’non-disclosure’ of the timeframe of arbitration only and not of what came before, and could be ground rules after as Defendant has no rights to sue moving forward and definitely not of capable retaliation. There could be continued ‘mutualness’ or not from afterwards. It would denote friendly and professional countenance since while legality in place of awareness of what has occurred to some extent. However of the rights of the Plaintiff to say, ‘time is valuable.’ Of hire would be strictly to the investigations presented to public record and that is where morally it would have to be before any possible extension of ’short-term project based assignment’ which protects Plaintiff from any legal liabilities of the entity in which may and will occur.
Agreements could be met after dispute on some things, but is bound to the evidence submitted of legally binding in EEOC positions and in superior court present in backed up Amendment rights of the 7th which again would be of private entity’s violation of affording them the privilege to move to court against and not the rights provided to ’non-employee’.
To force a non-employee of known prior employment into a non-compensatory position in which was raised concern while employed and yet ‘wrongfully termination’ occurred in retaliation towards Plaintiff. In also disregard Defendant acted towards such for longer than necessary periods of time to review and mediate which denote compensation aspects prior to ‘mutual benefit’ of concern.
I am not a slave and my rights are being stripped from me since initial complaints in April 2021.
That is protected in the 13th amendment.
Defendant chose to prolong, not practice procedure nor in Employee Success Factors of considering directorship on why that would be when internally always of ‘mutual’ benefit, but once ‘wrongful terminated’, ’not of mutual benefit’ applies.
As it would stand if this case is allowed to be closed and not stayed by the court until agreement of arbitration, The Superior Court of Chatham County, would had symbolically sold off myself and stripped me of my rights of equal protection to that of a private property owner and the benefit of their land with compensation questions prior to sales of liability at reduced rates while I look to bills of rights in countenance.
It is also of note as Defendant is proven liable, they would also absorb all court costs.
The slavery would be of the non-compensation aspects in which equal protection was not provided of prior entity and would be bound only on the consideration of non-compensated arbitration for ‘their benefit’ when this is already a factually proven aspect of Plaintiff benefit within this mediation of the court. It is I of ignorance on either side to note, advantages of The Defendant have been discussed and documented.
It could be set up of while private arbitration proceeds, so too could a legal entity state or federal could also weigh based solely on the evidence submitted of EEOC, BBB, and of this court to their own moderation and observance without knowledge to either Plaintiff and Defendant of their own findings and opinions in which could be mediated and met against or with towards ‘mutualness’ of both private entity and of public law and land. That would be in fairness to both parties in procedures and of findings betterment of each other and that of what comes from findings surrounding what has already been submitted on the trail of grievance within those areas of interaction only.
It is of note, there are ‘at-will’ aspects of which the Defendant did not follow their own legal procedure on in withheld wages already of Plaintiff occurred and that of already submit to the court and in investigations.
That is a federal violation according to FLSA (Fair Labor Acts) and Defendant attempted in their legal writing of contract sign prior to paying out accrued time off at time of ‘wrongful termination’ to be indemnified for all eternity of any legal recourse or action at the payout of already earned wages in which that was not agreed upon, but responded to by Plaintiff in good faith with mark-ups, questions and comments. As it was set by Defendant 5 days to review seek council and return to be enforced. Although, I not of legal council but of law novice, read, wrote and sent back notes of open discussion with Defendant under the same 5 day rule of response.
There is evidence of confirmation of receipt by Director of Employee Success and there was no response such after the 5 days allowance nor ever since constituting failure to contest aspects on what would be the benefit of everyone of this land and not of that private governance to know that across the state of Georgia there is a no contest aspect of complaint in which precedent for everyone to consider before closing that time spent and time off earned is of importance and very healthy in any business of ‘mutualness’. It is understood that is a federal crime and that would be of a different court while awareness in this one of owed and withheld wages exist.
Instead their legal council failed to respond to the instant question regarding good-faith efforts on what was not agreed and not of confidentiality upon post ‘wrongful termination’, sets a precedent into evidence for all possibly all workers of federal jurisdiction on that aspect of consideration. Vacation days are be paid out based on accrued time invest is a requirement of any end of employment and cannot be capped off legally as it is still considered wage garnishment and need to restructure entity in order to allow affordance of time off accrued and earned. The Term ‘Use It or Lose It’ denotes subtle theft of what was earned when affordance of structure is not in place.
After any termination or change of professional entity, it is considered wage garnishment in what accrued over time and earned.
As I have already been a slave to this process and done so without compensation, the landowners of the Defendant are liable for back-pay in which was ‘at-will’ to prolong this to no remedy and compound. I am once again almost back to zero money nor of security of future which does come with questions in arbitration surrounding back story and known legal council had of the Defendant and of known liability. If liability proven and of Defendant council claim of liability on the Defendant if proven, would the failure to remedy after proven in federal investigations and state court settings, constitute FSLA in failure to remedy despite competent council?
If incorporated aspects of private property from time of ‘not mutualness’ into Defendant’s private entity ‘during’ without compensation would again be why confidentiality is required of legal proceedings and complaints internal and external. I find the ADRPA denotes the importance of confidentiality in any setting of work and place in regards to complaint and investigation. As I not of ‘mutualness’ at this point and time the process of legal dispute or ADRPA calls for and necessitates an intertwine of private business decisions or that of already moved away from as of February 10th, 2022. It is a forced action of bring back in towards private ownership of the Defendant in which slavery would be occurring and yet in other aspects of known what could be all the more towards resolution and boundaries.
This would seem to require a stay of the court until the determination of the ADRPA of private entity procedure is concluded to protect my rights against a private entity who does not afford me or any other employee legal council against during and yet has it themselves based on wording.
I know that once submitted to the court it is my gift to America and the state of Georgia as ‘Once you read this…’ becomes quite a bit to consider of weighed time and opinions towards fact on any wronged employee of ‘at-will’ in which SCAD waived their rights to argue as they did not respond to the 5 days they required I to seek council which I could not afford.I sought internally my own and find it held true.
As I was not an employee and of non-agreement when supplied of what I am legally owed of time-spent, the supplied form was of confidentiality breach on the part of The Defendant as I was no longer an employee of.
It was not of confidentiality. The hand-drawn aspects of my notes and times meets the 4 pillars of change and perspective and has been copyright protected and placed in book form. That too is once again submitted in this for consideration when the indefinite and legally binding
aspect of protection from retaliation is a move from instead of continuing in affordance of money that I have been stripped of and of life-investment attacks by others.
Under those conditions, any trial by jury of peer would unanimously vote in favor of the Plaintiff and in that a question of the court on if Default Judgement can be placed or if the STAY is the most important aspect to consider of protect of a private US citizen going into slavery conditions in which I know not and such an investment in what would be public record anyways from EEOC and this court.
It is the respect of time to consider that in all evidence, and of peer trial review, the case would already be in favor of the Plaintiff and then of time considering of importance of listening on and weighing opinion in which they are free to tell their own opinions after the fact as well.
From there of governance questions had. It is understood as judicial aspects have been removed according to Defendant’s ADRPA and contract project question would need to be resolved,
Defendant in current form of ADRPA in wording is acting in accord of country and I have 1st amendment rights within their entity while on this land in replace and rights to speak out
against or for as there is a need towards ‘mutualness’ and yet I have a mouth to feed. My own; and my little dog too.
As resolve is forced and time would be spent, I will await ADRPA form to fill out and placement of arbitor while salary would have to be negotiated. As court fees add up and in the areas already proven liable, I still am an individual with complaint against an entity of monetary aspects in which I am not afforded. I am afforded salary and compensation co-currently during this area of forced ‘private venture’ and my time is equally valuable to that of comparison of majority salary holder.
I legally own my position statement had with the Better Business Bureau, and that is not of ‘mutualness’ at this time, but could be the same thing of betterment from something in which
could be all the more reason why retaliation and wrongful termination never should had occurred by the Defendant as that was of decisions and actions of for others placed after wrongful termination in which I had been repeatedly attacked against and of my property and privacy.
I find in my statements more or less, it means equal rights entities are of such and if looking to mold the future from any point in or from The Savannah College of Art and Design, I find it
best to consider why they have procedures and handbooks to begin with.
We are all adults and are shaping them as well. In such, my time spent ‘out of bounds’ of the entity is of my life investment and private property as well as any investment aspect in which that could go in affordance of what isn’t royalty free of the land of indiscretion.
(Photographs taken of handwritten pages for personal documentation and filing.
(Exhibit 2 of 9/8/2023)
9/9/2023
Questions of Concern
As process would be of private entity oversight, questions of hourly wage is denoted, as I would have to be considered fixed-term project based for procedure and specifically outlined of such
of role and procedure and of the prior investigation and legal path already set and of disagreement. Plenty to move from aspects without dangers of retaliation and harm, which does weigh back towards a consideration of STAY of judgement as that lasts up to 5 years before closed and I have already documented 2.5 years of harm by Defendant actions or awareness of.
Being of fixed-term project based, a Defendant entity computer and electronic/phone would have to be provided for strictly project based only and password protected and left on site once work
hours completed with phone strictly for business purposes. I find time is valuable and when off the clock, perhaps forgo the phone or speak privately on why that would or would not be required in ‘mutualness’. Either would be of no other usage as I have my own personally owned computer, software and phone for use on my own time.
The procedure as it is spelled out in vagueness invites possibility of illegal search and seizure down the line of Defendant’s liability of ADRPA procedure, which again would be unlawful on their part as ‘At-Will’ aspects of the past denotes that at any time someone can be pulled from a project to be completed by others for any reason whatsoever, but that being impossible during an ADRPA proceeding and more so of looking at short-term ‘mutualness’.
I find SCAD is the defendant and I the plaintiff of proven of their liability. This forces worker conditions established prior and then of another handbook that would have to be outside the defendant’ handbook as it has been called into question of practicality, legality and enforceability in problematic areas within private entity of mutually not mutual in equality.
As in the handbook, the ADRPA process is at the sole expense of the Defendant, The Savannah College of Art and Design. As the plaintiff, who has become subjectability to private entity where compensatory aspects are not denoted prior and assumed not to exist for Plaintiff, and yet ‘paid-for’ aspects are implied according to handbook where it could be. This would be in violation of the 4th Amendment by private entity.
As strict aspects of hourly temporary hire aspects are present, it is required to discuss the difference of at-work/at-home work life balance and separation from and of private interest outside the scope of employment temporary or long-term. I find in what of ‘mutualness’ to be a consideration that the ADRPA is attempting to create an ‘internal’ investigation and forcing an ‘external’ counter-part back within their control and entity in which according to statements and procedure, should had already occurred within.
To bring in outside council of Plaintiff into private entity denotes an aspect of something needs fixing and privacy of such could be had and maintained while addressing concerns to better have an understanding of what is coming in, which they would already know and chose not to remedy within a system built already. Nor was that advanced towards anything but the pro-longed aspect of private personal life and investment of the Plaintiff in what is considered of passage of time, right to work, right to pursue happiness and most important maintain the American Dream and make sure that is a good investment Internationally.
As this would constitute ethical questions based on current labor laws and anti-slavery laws, as Defendant has already violated and broke contract on February 10, 2022. The ADRPA falls
under possible questions of cruel and unusual punishment under the 18th amendment of stripping my personal rights slowly and over time for their own benefit or others and I, of 7th
Amendment right, have sought the court to seek trial by my peers and not the advantage of private entity of Defendant in which they have abused Plaintiff and yet plaintiff aware of food for thought.
As slavery has already been abolished, there is what is fair of wage, labors and equal pays. With the 13th amendment, I of no crime am now bound outside of employment and of compliant against the Defendant of known cruelty and liability with compensation questions before proceeding.
As citizen rights under the 14th Amendment of Equal Protection, this case present in Superior Court of Chatham County cannot be dismissed into any arbitration/ADRPA solely established as citizen rights are stripped in the current draft of the ADRPA of the Defendant and placed in consideration of this court which has been read by the judge.
The ADRPA as it stands in translate is designed to bring advantage to the Defendant to the same proceeding without legal oversight protection of the complaining party. Stays would be required to protect that of equal rights which have been violated as I in official submit agreed with council in response that ‘of the court’ was correct and that there was further discussion to be had before moving to arbitration. Meaning The Superior Court in which we both stood in or sat at a computer and typed for and into. Actually, it is quite nice to have that affordance. It gives time to think before sending from the privacy of home.
It is in the affordance of the court in which I placed and I very much provided confidentiality.
Arbitration is no guarantee of agreements without questions of private property and bound to evidence and questions only of EEOC and of civil lawsuit which would demand of ethically multiple criminal case(s) outside the guaranteed victory of my civil case. That would be of Defendant’s internal process in which compensation would have to be considered before and remedy of the current complaint before that.
I find where I in that aspect know that in rights to work, there is rights to compensation and then there future compassion of I to not press charges criminally or do so that I can continue to move on with my life and work with those who help instead of hinder.
As defending entity is bound of no retaliation, SCAD can never bring suit against I in any capacity nor would there be a need to do so as at the end of arbitration, ‘mutualness’ and ‘boundaries would had been set’ or beginning to formulate. By their own governance and the ADRPA in which they have tried to legally bound Plaintiff to, they would have to go through that process as well with any complaint against I by their own handbook for ‘mutualness’. Any issue with Plaintiff after would be forced back to slavery aspects of ADRPA by the Defendant who of governance may find grievance and yet could not pursue in court. Grandfather status confirmed at such an early age which would still bring about anti-slavery questions and laws in which I cited the 13th amendment in which I was granted ‘Freedom’ from in America back in 1865.
I find all the best to cite Aretha Franklin and simply say ’Think Twice…’ before questioning what the word ‘Freedom’ means.
I find in much to consider to find there is a great difference where, I of 1st hand personal difference and weight of no legal council, the impossible task of knowing my life and time matters while the defendant of separate never-met council weighed while those of entity continued their life and responsibilities while I did the same in attempt. The interactions before the EEOC, BBB and this court were all carried on the other side by secondary law professionals of contract based.
The variables to consider of life story is that this was my own and from such could never be sealed as it is of autobiographic aspects of passage of time and ’non-mutualness’ in which I’ve had to weigh daily in what was so easily could be resolved by defendant internally at any time.
The case may become confidential, but life story and investment of such is important in community standards and building. I find if it may so please the court to say, I could never say never of this court as that is of their affordance and expertise to state.
There does come a point the disregard would have to come to an end and this submit basically of diary/journal aspects in which could never be taken away anyways. And yet perhaps all the same of reason why private property was attacked over and over of the Plaintiff.
(Photographs taken of handwritten pages for personal documentation and filing. Not shared.)
9/9/2023
It is a weight of morality and of considering environment in which I have been placed and about to be knowing much has happened and life has occurred and compartmentalized.
I find as I have factually proven in courts of law and of federal and state validation that the merits of my claim have been proven to be true and of Defendant liability owed in good faith acts of unknown or unprepared aspects of environment in which I stated truth and towards resolve and build.
I ask the court, as I humbly calculated what my life invested was at the time of employee/student and then the fall back to teaching on the medium salary as afforded at SCAD as professor to come to the sum in which I requested of my life’s investment towards legal retirement and what was taken from I in that capacity of removed variables of being a teacher and life’s investment towards eventual relax and look back at life. I find that it is of the court’s authority to offer partial judgments and stay rest to trial which would be of fairness towards mutualness as well as await response from Defendant whom is legally bound to their ADRPA and procedure. I have in law of land and procedure provided proved at least that in what is of collective American History and towards bettering and building from.
It would afford me that I have proven to private entity over and over validity and factuality of the claims I have stated and of evidential and of de-escalation while noting environmental impact in which survive or thrive, sink or swim or Lego where you can towards something.
It would also provide a level of safe-guard while walking into slavery, where it is of their interest to find ‘Mutualness’ towards understanding and not of my accord outside my beliefs or will.
My heart is in the investment of my life and work and I understand there would be many questions of private conversation to which legally in this proceeding they are held legally to the ADRPA in which is appears unconstitutional and built upon on a land which governs such and of more affordance of every entity in which resides or visits it.
I have marked out areas of this in confidentiality. It would be of judge privy only if asked what that may be. And that is my affordance as witness, plaintiff and consoul to myself.
I can at least walk into this knowing for 2.5 years, ‘due to confidentiality aspects, we cannot disclose’ aspects of this case to you nor the public in investigation and in invest.
I could by legal standing be granted partial judgement of basement value in bargain price in which to consider while knowing exponentially of what I am owed or in consideration of such the added on legal cost of council which SCAD could supply a figure to what that would be for 1.5 years of battle on this front towards ‘mutualness’ in which I’ve held the best I could in professional discussion with those of acting council and practice.
I humbly ask the Superior Court of Chatham County to grant me that in partial request and judgement.
It is of my collective work and life investment that was attacked in areas already established in law and it is of a private entities issue that they are legally bound to an ADRPA in which constitutes slavery on a modern aspect without going into the issues of ‘mutualness’ that could come from ‘for their benefit’ and I wish not ‘at the expense of my own unless elected of interest’.
Land supersedes private entity and those laws are already established. In land discussions, I am aware the private talks in which could occur, but this was a case of ‘wrongful termination’ and from there detriment and end of my college education as a student of Masters degree seek at The Savannah College of Art and Design.
I am well aware that of Defendant’s hired position of retired judge to moderate that is of consideration as my retirement plans have been stripped of myself as well and of consideration of private conversation within arbitration of those invested in this land and of morality. Money cannot buy that thought process of life served in passions and then deferred to afterwards.
I understand based on the expedite of response of the court from my last submit, that there is awareness present.
This isn’t just a state issue and I’ve known that and displayed that in what I’ve submitted. This issue of state and civil are apparent and there is the safe guard of return to on Plaintiff protection that is of consideration while once again of good faith and yet 2.5 years of documented pattern to not be so trusting of individuals with in the entity either based on evidence as that is always of individual interaction and get to know in dynamic variables different from person to person and never the same.
I rely on the morality of the land and to once again please say, that could be of affordance while private rights and citizen rights need to be upheld while considering external investment of the land. At the very least, I am and could be afforded by the grace of the state to submit my EEOC testimony in it’s entirety along with that of the Defendant for State oversight of what is Federal. It is legally binding on both sides anyways in redundancy.
My gift of this to the court was my time and opinion of matter of fact and my testimony of truth. It was returned with time and professional opinion had on either side.
That in the understanding of the labors I’ve been through there are issues of private matter in which of ‘mutualness’ is more so ‘prevent further liability from’ and that discontinued on February 10, 2022 when I was wrongfully terminated by a private entity who has to stand against that of the land in their own precedent. To get there or resolve calls question on how that may be.
It was an honor to present and I find in any dismiss, any court fees assumed by the defendant.
I understand that copyright protected works of my own prior are of mine and completely not allowed of public discussion or disclosure in any legal matter in which SCAD is bound to by the ADRPA standards in which they have rested upon and I find unjust aspects in such in which I addressed personally with the president of the college. The same would be of consideration of understanding private property conversation will and would occur and from there respect of such is understood on both parts, or should be.
At no point in any conversation of this court or in ADRPA private proceedings are my rights of copyright ownership of public domain or interest without my expressed permission of not royalty free of outside party and of known value. It denotes conversation with the property owner prior to any action and in that I have proven that written word and time is of value and investment. That is an arbitration conversation of private concern and an awareness of what surrounds in would or could of court and systems.
At least in this presented could be of future employee protect. Current council for the defendant is not the ones had during EEOC and BBB proceedings and denotes Defendant may have acted in capacities of singular and individual criminal prosecution with no awareness of what transpired prior, was shared, nor what is bound by the sworn provisional oath of practice before becoming legal council in any capacity or entity.
As noted by citing prior council as defendant, both prior council and current defending council are bound by their professional interest and investment of sustainability of life where they are required to uphold the constitution in which I have proven to be violated by a private entity of Defend. Internally, the defendant has known of their liabilities and allowed this to occur for 2.5 years while entities within had broke confidentiality and protocol.
As I properly worked through the process in according to the private entities standards prior, those concerns were pushed to the defendant’s compliance department which too is bound by federal laws with known private entity liability.
I have spent 2.5 years speaking truthful and of merit of claims that have violated my rights as a United States Citizen, Worker Rights, Student rights and of ADA claim that became exasperated based on the negligence of the Defendant’s agents in official capacity and most importantly at the partialness of the sole affidavit of the representative you in first represent to this court, they have bared false claim and testimony to prove my claims.
As my 1.5 years of travel towards justice, resolve and truth would not had been privy to that representative, my story mattered within the context of what could had been prevented internally and was not based on private interests where allegations hold true in which would never be rectified completely and rightfully within current ADRPA model and form, which violates my constitutional rights which would only prove further my case of abuse of Defendant’s and SCAD resources while oversight noted and of protocol voided.
As the legally binding signing of the handbook by all employees denotes requirement of the ADRPA to maintain complaint internally and of privately, it strips Plaintiff’s rights to seek council and of their 7th amendment rights to trial and complaint overseen by peer. Yet, it affords Defendant the rights to seek council and the court, before or after, as proven in my individual journey of due process of EEOC investigation in which a law novice interacted with a law professional.
As a soon to be slave of forced interaction with no compensation discussion designed or the wording of the current ADRPA process, my public record of following law and procedures of the land have been noted and documented in public record which is an aspect of my life story post employment with the Defendant of handling what internally I attempted to resolve which was not done the first time. In that, there can never be a non-disclosure of what was the time of ’non-mutual’ agreement and of no compensation from the Defendant while noting there is a clear difference of life and affordance on and off the clock and of private property and interests.
I find in further questions of ADRPA, the question of balance and of privilege as I was formerly an employee of full-time status and full time student in undergrad studies at the Savannah College of Art and Design. Under current aspects of what is a changed landscape from 20 years ago, I cannot but wonder how long have I been bound to Non-Profit of careers of compensation.
Whatever could come towards ‘mutualness’, would have to come from the understanding that confidentiality was broken and known from April-July 2021 of affordance to those of known liability while withheld evidence and intentionally harm was done to I by not adhering to Federal protocol and ADA requests during employment to remove, transfer or remedy complaints and issues that are valid of danger to Plaintiff and of Campus. It would be of arbitration where those aspects could be discussed but yet outside the scope of EEOC investigation. Outside the scope of BBB investigation as that is private property conversations. And it wouldn’t be of this court either I find as the resolution of the complaint needs remedy first.
It is understood that, in chose of action, lawyers are legally bound to uphold the constitution and prevent cruel and unusual punishment, regardless the means in which it occurs in violation of or employment of. As known in current law on seeking council, the privy of disclose of information is not protected as client/lawyer privilege.
Council can be sought. Sensitive information ascertained and then legal councils right to refuse or disclose to law enforcement that which needs protecting of the constitution in rare cases.
Although, there should be confidentiality privilege in initial standing, it is not and then becomes issues of integrity and morality in which a practice is built.
I find of law novice, that my rights to council have been forced to be my own.
I have stated to the court and proven that I had been retaliated against multiple times over the course of 2.5 years with some background leading back to the last 5 which was patterned behavior of others reported in past EEOCs that entered into an institution of secondary education and in attacks done of I on American Soil as noted around April 2021.
That would be an arbitration discussion internally that could had happened back in 2021, 2022, and now forced to be done in 2023 as a slave of no-compensation and of 'non-mutualness’ looming over what has not been set as procedure towards a private entity advantage while I of many entity trying to protect.
I find I am taking the time to read on the decisions on which prior judges have accorded over and judged upon in merit.
They were cited as such and of legal expertise of life calling and mention in which those of scholar and professional base upon in their own fields. They are done so for a reason and that too a conversation of this court to discuss or of private arbitration if one could come to a point of ‘mutualness’ of what has occurred.
I am ignorant of the law, and find the affordance of the court to be of learned time and value. I’m long-winded as others are trained and of professional to get to the point quickly. From that I learn and am thankful for the time invested. I find outside the scope of ‘wrongful termination’ comes motive questions and scope of damage which is not of one entity or land but many in pre-established conditions and contemplations of liability within.
By presented evidence of ‘royalty-free aspects of investment’, that would be a separate court case based on evidence and awareness of damages done or could be done by single entity of private ownership and objective. ‘Once you read it…’
I find in reference to 254 Ga. 687, that in this case, a stay during judgement is of equal protection necessity as the prior procedural aspects of private entity were not followed and places Plaintiff in a disadvantage and unequal position against in affordance. Complaints were had internally, passage of time through multiple processes of legal procedure and public record were had that the introduction of the first inclination of arbitration by the Defendant, denotes procedures and paths that had already been acted upon outside the ADRPA and with Defending legal council denotes legal interest in which would had, under current ADRPA procedure of the Defendant, should had and would had been solely under the discretion of Human Resources to ascertain and decide. However, the original point of entry of knowledge of legal council and my employee/student record was done so during a federal compliance investigation and of different interaction.
By choosing to have legal council awareness as early provable to the Plaintiff as July 2021, Defendant is known, has known and has been proven of their liability to a certain degree as competent council was obtained in proceedings outside of their entity and procedure in which goes against their own handbook and procedures.
Those procedures of citizen rights and paths were entertained and of public record which could never be under the control of defending party complete through arbitration procedures designed to be discussed for entity and employee and entity success towards ‘mutualness’ early on in complaint process outside the court system.
In that aspect, the requirement of limiting liability already proven in courts of laws are set in efforts to bargain price the price tag proveable and limit scope of purview and discovery, which is called for by ADRPA protocol.
As discovery is also called for in any court proceeding, it is noted that the move to arbitration without protection denotes continued pattern of unresolve where partial judgements can be placed moving forward while staying aspects of the case once ‘mutualness’ is agreed upon, which would have to be a compensation aspect of time invested before even proceeding as it would be of Defendant’s best interest and not of the Plaintiff in 1.5 years invested in what could had been ‘mutualness’ and yet remained ’non-mutual’.
As Defendant ‘wrongfully terminated’ Plaintiff on February 10, 2022 and Plaintiff cited complaint and followed procedures before and after in good faith as early as April 2021 and as late as the submittance of this to the court, the arbitration aspect in this regard comes with an interview process and ‘hiring package’ that simply does not exist in current unconstitutional aspects of the ADRPA.
It could be considered the absorbing of a living person into a land of no-compensation and solely for the benefit of the Defending party with unknown variables to the Plaintiff that could be discussed and laid out in procedure and handbook that simply does not exist in current form and structure.
Passage of time has occurred and it has been extensive.
Those are questions and aspects of arbitration eventually, but of this court to consider of merit of factuality in which civil rights and citizen rights are needed to be of equal protection which in current form are not in defendant’s entity but is of this court system.
I find if Defendant can answer or clarify within the court system, that which doesn’t exist in current form, which is of concern of Plaintiff, then they too have learned of the value of time, words and then not of their property to translate in ’non-mutualness’ towards eventual ‘mutualness’ in which the court provides protection over in equality.
The slavery aspect would be of working with the Defending party of prior-employer, who failed during employment to advance Plaintiff, remove plaintiff upon request of work conditions and allegations, hire/transfer despite qualified for other positions and interviewed, and continued to fail to advance I towards closure with known and factual issues of confidentiality breaches in current investigations known or not violating my employee and student rights at the time.
It is of individual’s within that occurred, it is understood the scope of what 2nd hand accounts do to others towards the spread of liability and it was of 1st hand account interviewed back in April 2021 and I presented my complaint legally from 1st hand account in it’s entirety post employment and solely.
'As the ADRPA does not cover claims that do not involve a legal right', obligation or entitlement, considering the evidence the ADRPA does not apply to Plaintiff and applies to every entity of employment at The Savannah College of Art and Design of known aspects of Plaintiff’s claim and case as equal opportunity employment exists and is cited of such in Defendant’s handbook. The wording denotes and becomes biased in citation of assuming SCAD has a complaint of an employee instead of an employee having a complaint on SCAD, which is in conflict of ‘At-Will’ laws in the state of Georgia and denotes the cloaking and masking of retaliation within the confines of private arbitration.
That retaliation when Plaintiff did raise initial questions in April 2021 confirms that path to be true and factually for a 10-month period while employed with numerous points of note and documented procedure towards Defendant’s use of libel and slander towards ‘wrongful termination’. As the wording in the ‘Ordering Compelling arbitration and Dismissing Complaint’ the ADRPA is worded and designed as if employee is the issue of SCAD and not the other way around. As proven from the affidavit submitted to this court, it is proven that The Director of Employee Success very much will be bound to ADRPA aspects for themselves with SCAD and their actions are in part of complaint here while citing the collective defendant of The Savannah College of Art and Design as liable.
As the ADRPA is a condition to hire or continued employment, it does not denote the purpose of such for those post-employment and in such is of no condition to uphold post-employment.
Although it does invite an opportunity of ‘return to hire’ in that compensation of during process is to be considered towards SCAD benefit, Plaintiff finds their value was well above the $14.95/per hour of affordance while working full-time and a student working towards a Master’s Degree that was ’suspended’ concurrently with ‘wrongfully terminated’.
Plaintiff is not returning to the capacity in which they were in based on why they were there to begin with and where they could had been and what needed to be resolved. It is Plaintiff’s passage of time that is of value and story well kept in copyright protects because life outside of work does exist. It is not just of the imagination.
As Plaintiff is able to contract, I find that renegotiation towards ‘mutualness’ to be of ’settling liabilities’ of ’non-mutualness’ presented to the court before consideration of contract project based for arbration and compensation aspects of time and value with clearly defined job description.
Plaintiff, in an attempt to prevent slavery from being forced upon them by an entity who has acted in the manner in which needs resolve of liability presented to the court, finds that without remedy of what is proven liable and of affordance would be doing the same anyways as the damages are already known and would remove once again the value and freedom in which the Plaintiff is afforded based on the evidence.
To move to an ADRPA in which Plaintiff is bound to would be a continued pattern of withheld emancipation in which the Plaintiff is entitled to not knowing the full effect, but at least the baseline of rational fairness presented to the court while ‘mutualness’ of the rest of the liabilities could be worked out while moving on to other areas of interest instead of continued complaint in which could be resolved.
From such, Defendant knew of personal liability as of April 2021 and chose not to remedy and was made aware of further liability with every compliance complaint and interview in which was impeded on in privacy.
Defendant knew of their liability in compliant complaint of harming a reporting party with ‘wrongful termination’. Defendant knew factually and of evidence of their liability at the end of EEOC proceedings and investigation, knew of their liability at the end of Better Business Bureau investigation, further knew of Plaintiff’s findings of Defendant’s known provable liability in December of legal filing, received officially by Plaintiff of individual and collective liability as of second, third, and fourth service and awareness and the request to now move to ADRPA constitutes that for 2.5 years. Defendant have acted in capacity of obstruction of justice with retaliation and possible unjust enrichment.
It is of official documentation that prior SCAD council and Director of Employee Success are the only two official of SCAD who acted in official capacity of directness of position in this case and I am unaware of internal investigations or ethics surrounding either case of directive.
In every hurdle had, the benchmarks of my life were place in pieces outside and of my own for the benefit of myself and others, if only to find a way back to where I was to where I was to go.
Thank you for your time in this matter in moving towards ‘mutualness’ or end of a long road of unnecessary roughness.
I see fairness in the original decision and ask that it be reconsidered within the context of motion. I find the new evidence to be of valid discussion of respect and of land in which is governed and of their accord. Where I am not sure if motions towards stay do go to all parties or not. I would assume so as I question and defer of partial judgements and stays.
9/10-9/11
I find as I wish not to be a slave as that could be a default judgement of arbitration beyond the private entity in which has known for 2.5 years of their liability and exasperated and continued behavior for that of shareholders which are not of their governance nor protect; but of their self-interest in which my story is laid and of factuality.
In every aspect of account and mention, Defendant and the court had been presented with fact and known liabilities had been mentioned and overheard as well as proven in evidence and of landscape in which occurred after to a certain extent. It is of my ’not mutual’ benefit for 2.5 years my life and rights apparently the forfeit, where despite all the evidence provided during and after proving Defendant’s liability, they have acted in manners of compounded exasperation of prolonged ‘mutualness’ and that of personal harm and continual damage to Plaintiff on preferential aspects of personal connection and of bias in which was showcased in evidence.
As there is disagreement and ’not mutualness’ present, I have reached, according to law and of the 7th amendment, towards closure of ’not mutualness’ and of adjunction towards remedy towards ‘mutualness'.
It is of such that I understand the importance of this case of personal Plaintiff and so does the private entity in which they entertain guests of the land from other entities of country origin under the pretense of teaching towards success within the workforce of their choice career path and allowed to do so within a safe campus setting. I find that is is fair to look at and consider at least median salary of a lawyer to combine in consideration of award package as I have fought this on my own without the benefit of a law firm for 1.5 years since ‘wrongful termination’ based on the limitations and environment of the land that occurred. It is understood in any award, law firms get a majority of the award and in this case all of the award would go to the law novice Plaintiff.
That would be within contention of being allowed as part of possible award and understanding of 2.5 years known liability of the Defendant and of lawyer sought and bought. It is understanding where there is an affordance difference and where allowance of such comes into consideration in words.
I don’t know the price tag of what I should be awarded based on the events that occurred up to end of employment on February 10, 2022, nor a comprehension of discussion what occurred post employment in seemingly related instances after which would surround this case and bring about others. That was towards the initial admittance of such to the court and understanding of the Defendant as well.
I find that there is procedural questions present and that of institution which can and should be asked. I stated post-employment and to admittance of the United Nations that The Defendant is stealing and double dipping from the investors of their institution in predatory practice and that being of the student investors of any country and aware of those of United States Federal Guaranteed Student Loans.
I have stated in the one legally allowed case aspect as it was information obtain before signing the employee handbook and I have not disclosed any information after-the-fact of such in awareness.
While I, of Café full-time employment and student part-time student investor, it is of not that I was already an alumni of The Savannah College of Art and Design as of 2005 with the degree afforded of Bachelor’s of Fine Arts in Graphic Design where I earned a degree from The Savannah College of Art and Design. That was done so with federally secured loans agreed upon with The United States of America to do so. Those have yet to be repaid in full and I have been in Chapter 13 Restructure Bankruptcy since 2020, which would constitute protection from creditors during that time, including The United States of America in unforgiveable aspects of student loans while noting the landscape in which has been presented as willful attacks towards I during and post employment.
As such as an alumni of the college, I have earned the right to mention The Savannah College of Art and Design in any capacity of association as it exists on my resume as career from.
As I have on my solo journey mentioned and occurred prior to entry of degree-seeking investment twice over it has been noted that my life experience is of my own and my story and personal investments have been protected over and over legally by The United States of America in Copyright as right to work and right to build towards sustainability in adulthood which would be none of the business to the defendant on what that may be as that is private property and ’not of mutualness’ and a built towards aspect for myself based on skillsets, personal investment and career as well as contemplation of overviews of life. That existed pre-employment and post employment as established aspects of Plaintiff and pre-school and post-school.
I have in post employment, written to the United Nations, the Attorney General and president of this country what would be considered whistleblower acts of considered protection.
I noted while in sought of better position of such, I was still of degree-seeking investment at the same time during employment. I had noted in changed landscape of 20 years to have those building towards the work force and not of knowledge and of needed protection are invited within the Defendant’s programs into a prospect of real-world application and projects with real world partners without compensation of real world entities. At the same time as that was occurring of invitation to participate in real-world projects without proper certification or awareness, they too are paying the college in that capacity as a ‘class’ as the same time as not receiving compensation benefits from the real-world project based application. Those would be of either out of pocket expenses or of guaranteed loans in which eventual repayment would be required.
I did seek and interviewed for the dual position of SCADpro Director and SCAD artsales Director position in which I did express concern and interest through email directly to the president of the college during employment. I did not receive the position and within 3 days of statement of rejection, but of only 1 day known as I had not read the rejection email on Feb. 7, 2022 but on Feb. 9, 2022, I was wrongfully termination on February 10, 2022.
It is of my legal right to disclose information pre-agreement and post-agreement. What I have stated publicly is of legal right as it is of information obtained prior to signing the employee handbook by 2 days of on-boarding. I while in working agreement did not violate confidentiality while noted within this complaint of Defendant (collectively) doing so. It is not considered a clerical error when the date occurs in more than one location and that has been cited.
That is outside the scope of my complaint, but of the awareness of what has been presented post-employment and of the handbook submitted to this court that has laid out the college’s position on many areas of conversation. Of such it was noted of their position of royalty-free rights of usage of any student work and a jump on ownership claims with the use of any SCAD equipment, software or benefit provide of the college which could be utilized by entities within at the disadvantage of those who actually own the college which would be collectively ’the student investors’.
It is of concern and conversation on personal time, investment and usage in which that may had been breached during and post. Those would not be considered arbitration questions of this case but of background before going towards ‘mutualness’ if so much as possible.
As that is an international investment in which the current make and model cannot evolve from without my ‘mutualness’ of discussion, it had been stipulated already and would be looked at accordingly on if there was any evolution of the Defendant's handbook or college make and model during this complaint. That would be a consideration of my ’non-mutualness’ interactions of complaint with the entity of defendant in which I am not employed with and considered unjust enrichment of the defendant at the expense of the plaintiff, which is spelled out in the handbook verbatim as possible harm towards any student investor of degree seeking nature for the private benefit of entity without knowledge or education of prior to enrollment and environment.
As that exists in complaint where one could or could not partner between Defendant and Plaintiff of, it would have to be of resolve. And if in capacity of understanding scope in that capacity could mean forbidden from working with until resolve and what has occurred in shut down of industries until resolve which has occurred in the Entertainment areas and which too I have in copyright protect what it means when someone says “No ’Starving Artist’s” on a campus far bigger than the Defendants. That has been shared with The Library of Congress and of United States of America Copyright. That book is not of privilege to the Defendant nor could be ordered of such at any time. That was a personal commitment post employment and education allowance to finish a thesis and that of a solely owned op-ed editorial on the way to a disseration of self guided education.
As private entity has disregarded my rights during employment and education for their benefit already, this too is why I have presented this through the court system, while finding I am not bound or compelled to the ADRPA, but I am of law state and federal in which I proceeded in law novice capacity of real world application.
I find as the ADRPA is designed to focus solely on ‘up to the date of wrongful termination’, it is determined that any of the above is not for discussion as that would be a different project based contract assignment in which ‘mutualness’ would have to resolve ’non-mutualness’ before so much as proceeding towards ‘mutualness’ or continued ’separate but equal’ with an understanding ’shared universes’ exist and then very much ’not shared’ do as well. That is the difference between understanding reality and then that of private entity and business and what the ADRPA infers of towards or continued employment and not of those wishing not to continue towards such afterwards. That would constitute negotiation of ‘mutualness’ and business practices best for everyone and I find as that experience was not of ‘mutualness’ prior, the court system is. It would be a determination of both the judge on if Stay or Default Judgement could be had in this capacity as private entity Defendant of apparent ’not-mutualness’ while in ‘mutualness agreements’ failed to ‘Mutualize’ this while in ‘Mutualness’. It is in response of requirement to resolve ’non-mutualness’ in part before proceeding towards scope of ’non mutualness’ and liability of defendant(s) within the Defendant’s entity.
I find there would need to be an acceptance of liability to a certain degree of this court while finding the STAY aspect could be a return to ‘mutual’ awareness of ‘best practice’.
Ethically considering of 3rd party judicial review, a report at the end would more than likely be required for review and statement. I am not going into slavery without the value of my time protected and my rights never waived under accordance of the constitution and amendments. Entity has known their liability, has been present facts of reality and anything out of my mouth during a private ADRPA investigation would constitute unjust enrichment of Defendant in which I have filed complaint against while still in poverty conditions to consider. That would be considered of partnership and of motive to continue based on naive aspect of position in consideration of the Plaintiff whom seems very set on upholding The American Dream for one reason or another.
I ask the court in this capacity the same I requested in initial disregard from the Defendant.
Default Judgement based on non-affordance and the privilege of peers to determine the worth of what was lost and that of at least 100+ lands of investment in sovereignty in which I tried to protect one way or another and then tried to fundamentally bring about in position I was capable of internally and yet very much respect that I at least got to interview for the position in consideration.
I am not a slave of The United States of America and I definitely am not of a private entity in which to enslave who cannot change one bit of their process of my fight or struggle for their benefit co-currently without addressing that which has already occurred.
That would be of advancement of innovation of thinking in which in brand standards. I have stated to The United Nations an issue and that more than likely has been looked at and in discovery of any sovereignty already occurred of secured loan and of factuality.
The Defendant made their choice and failed their own procedures, which is when that goes to other places outside of entity as ADRPA is designed in current form to go through Human Resources and that has been stated. I find Human Resources of the United States to be why that is established in EEOC aspects of employment which is legally and federally backed. As the one in Georgia is located specifically at "Uncle ’Sam Nunn’ of your business", it is of 3rd party oversight and a process of arbitration required federally in which has already been processed and reviewed to have merit in ‘right to sue’.
As defendant went through that process with legal council, it was also of the complete oversight and awareness of The President of The Savannah College of Art and Design in availability of all facts and of weight. As Federally of 3rd party review granted ‘right to sue’, defendant would had known of liability at that point entirely and from there obstruction of justice towards ‘mutualness’ occurred in ’non-mutual complaint’ of entity in which the president of the college waived the rights of Human Resources ADRPA purview as they were found to be of liability and of confidentiality breach. To return back to an ADRPA process after an arbitration of facts and discovery has already occurred would be redundant in process and considered prolonging of payment of damages owed to Plaintiff. How that could look internally is of The Defendant’s business and not The Plaintiff during times of ’not mutualness’.
This is Plaintiff’s right to say you have wronged Plaintiff and entities within of named course had violated both the handbook in which they govern as well as state and federal rights. This is of this land and of this Plaintiff's affordance and right by 7th Amendment to tell you I am not bound to your ADRPA in any aspect and your bosses known it. They failed me in good faith as an employer, they would more than likely do so as I of slave in this system in return to a process in which I do not have to go through as I am not seeking employment by the Defendant at this time.
It has been 2.5 years of liability. It would be a requirement of this 3rd party arbitration and mediation in which defendant would be required to make a statement as Plaintiff’s rights have been violated and more than likely would continued at a disadvantage that need not continue. As internal reviews would had already occurred and of assessment of liability, that report and investigation can be submitted to the court or required, as from the date of EEOC investigation end, the penalty compounds exponentially. That was the time of ’towards mutualness’. Once December 27, 2022 hit, it really was of ’not mutualness’.
I am afforded at this point swift justice and of consideration of their own procedure as it as has already been proven outside their jurisdiction with my right to proceed with criminal against anyone of price tag within the Defendant in that capacity who has a problem with morality and rule of law of other entities and investment of private property.
That is a conversation that could be in a series of documented 'not taken seriously' and ‘dismiss’ statements of the Defendant. That has happened throughout in not taking something for serious and in brevity the investor rights were won in new make and models not of the the defendant's affordance. I find there is that of thought of others, 'we have the money, we can do this.’ in seemingly approach where from there even when not of money, ‘I have an idea and I can build from this’ occurred and it happened on this land and soil who also had ideas and then shared other ideas and then built upon those ideas and it came from many places and many lands and changes in other lands and continues to do so constantly every-day.
The question is not one change to protocol or procedure based on complaint in which I have raised through legally had to procedure of equal protection of the law. If there was any change or advance from such towards innovation it denotes exactly what I have stated of absorption of time and not paid for nor compensated while knowing there is structure required to reformat to protect who keeps an institution’s lights on and paid-for salaries, including that of Defendant’s council. As such, it would be looked back as mismanagement to some degree of student investor funds, as more than likely they too would side with the Plaintiff in which is in ’non-mutual agreement’ at this time with ideas and dreams of current make and models of The Defendant. But that is outside the scope of this case, but awareness it had been discussed with Defendant’s prior legal council in Better Business Bureau efforts of again remedy, resolve and refund.
The current structure of the college cannot change without my involvement as it would prove liability and unjust enrichment and I am trying to remedy and resolve what has been unjust prior.
In doing so, that is a decision of the Defendant on where that goes where legally I am not bound to say a single word more during any other redundant ADRPA procedure and would be bound to the evidence of this court and that of the EEOC only where ADRPA is specific on the up to ‘wrongful termination’ aspects of complaint. Not on your money aspect of knowing where that comes from will that entity ever disregard invested interest in ever again in what they cannot change of current procedure from in any regard without resolution of very much public interest at this point.
“Start somewhere as a public school teacher…might as well be of public forum and yet all the same of eventually private talks and private entity of privilege.
I respect the houses from which the Defendant is built from and upon. All of them.”
It is of understanding, Student Investors are of the protect and educational aspect from in which to grow. There are benefits of being an alumni and from such a protection of the alma mater where the institution stands and yet entities within the halls come and go all the time and it is of questions contained already that becomes of the Better Business Bureau side of secretly fighting for the rights of any project of students as theirs in ownership and not the institutions, in case an institution ever gets attacked so that no one could ever just walk away with the intellectual property contained as it is of the investors property and in officialness of the BBB there was conceding of The Defendant as not a service industry as degree seeking nature denotes product towards and that is not of judicial contain. That would not be a discussion of private arbitration in ‘non-mutualness’ towards ‘mutualness’.
Respect is earned or forgotten along the way in non-forgiveable aspects of loans and of soil or land. As proven beyond a doubt liability of fact presented to the EEOC, I can say that I have been continued attacked by the Defendant in which my Federally Backed Student Loans have been affected and from such again cited Chapter 13 Restructure protection.
I am aware of land owners of Savannah and that of Lacoste where collectively that is of the institution. There is a difference of justification and the foreseen aspect of advance of family and not of collective in questions of ‘mutualness'.
That is their choice to uphold and find all the same of internal saying, resources are resources and property is property.
By default consideration, that could be looked at as all of SCAD property is of international investment as they have failed international interest of which work-place conditions and models would need repairing while looking at mileage.
From there international takes over in conversation of federally backed American loans towards security and sustainability of what would be an advancement of a family entity while knowing it was banked upon by the families that invested upon.
From such, the current heads are building towards an international sovereignty in which wrongs have occurred and which they could stand trial for in any land. Steal from youth and investment of unforgiveable and find that is exactly why I of ’Non-mutual’ find that I am not your friend and you needed to fix things 2.5 years ago.
It could be of ‘mutualness’ but that is discussion down the line after ’non-mutualness’ in this landscape.
I am a friend to the idea and I know front-facing upon front facing to say, “Not on your life do you poach in this capacity nor do you ever think you financial benefit is anything but a potential front of grab all or any at bargain prices.” It is a changed landscape approaching and 20 years full circle was an eye opener in which of second invest and that of protect.’ The dream changes over time and most certainly my employee/student right were violated.
‘You are only as good as your last catering service.’ and I have been forced to comprehend what others could do within what has been done. Under no circumstance would I ever be a part of the current make or model of SCAD in any capacity nor would I dare to even play in that capacity.
It denotes 100%, not your right of ownership and 100% questions on partnership which is not of my accord but very much against in self-serving aspects comparable to the ruling of this court and of instant ruling to denote a major difference of morality standing on long-term investment.
That was an individual entry choice. At any time there could had reached out.
In the state of Georgia and in regard to ‘At-Will’ aspects in which they cannot contest which requires aspects to be looked at again or placed back into the court system properly and with far better support systems in place.
I find they have acted in self-centered capacity for their benefit in what is only my singular perspective and never of the whole story as it does open up unknown variables of consideration positive and negative or in whom things wished to gloss over.
As I have not been made remedy yet, based on the conditions of which were placed of prior behavior, I am still very much alive and of value in life. I can and have very much would like to move on from the ‘complaints’ of capable remedy this entire time by The Defendant towards areas of interest and of time choice and not time forced.
The swiftness of verdict would be looked at and I find in wording all the respect of judge in council free to interpretate as they wish.
There are stories known of land. I find no fault in original proceeding outside of I agreed of public court proceeding and that being of what defendant liability already played with in evidence. I understand how anything on the restructure aspect would be outside of discussion of remedy towards the actions while of ‘mutual benefit’ when I was employed and up to the wrongful termination while others can look at the factual evidence of what would be separate of occurring positive or negatively towards today.
In that regard, I don’t play with of any countries affordance of purview when knowing in some capacity saying enough. Not of on this land and of understanding the representation that any entity which accounts for international investment and preparation towards the workforce, could find what has become of the technological world of instant gratification and then the impatience of when something gets grabbed onto and taken without even knowing the laws or what that is a changed landscapes of after ‘not mutualness’ as surely I can find ‘mutualness’ elsewhere in resolve as much as ‘mutualness’ could be contained and selected on preference of interests.
Of such, defendant has entities whom completely disregarded human life at the cost of influence and affordance in which they were grown accustomed to and yet are aware of far more than I would be in consideration. It is the perspective of the plaintiff in which that needed remedy and to stop as I cited enough and pointed in enough directions of infrastructure issues. Others very much upheld them I imagine. It is the 2.5 years that was laid out in discuss from the EEOC to here in that is a separate contained aspect of life story while any of my private property is that of my private protect and of this land required once copyright comes into play.
I whistle-blew them in a capacity that is absolutely outside of The United State of America and it is documented in The United States of America how that entity stripped me of my rights within this country in which they wish to uphold morality in when they have lost such in 2.5 years of liability known. I did so legally within the 2 days not signed on towards and had 1.5 years of reprieve on torture and known tactics on American soil where strength enough is present within the walls of international investment against what did come into The Savannah College of Art and Design that followed me.
I understand current council is of many lands and that in which I respect in what could be of compliance or making sure this never happens again in ethical aspect of practice and upheld.
The same behavior existed and it would always come from those of control and of paycheck knowing the meaning and respect of practice.
I find in this case, SCAD as a private entity showcased themselves and that within the purview of this court and of those who uphold the constitution of this land.
In that regard early on I have stated my citizen rights of country have been violated and proven.
I find continual questions of the ADRPA as it denotes those who already know they were liable to stop in which could be internationally known and that of 1.5, 2.5 years accordance of me saying, ‘not in this capacity and not of that role if ever a question’.
It is a fear of the continued slavery in which questions of the court remain on compensation and remedy.
In that regard, as the ADRPA brings me to slavery based on American Law, I ask the court for default judgement and the affordance of damage in which the ADRPA tries to curtail at this stage and find that not a single country of investment would have a problem with this request outside of private monetary investment when morally it is of institution invest in which my heart protects those of the degree-seeking nature.
It is of morality, my case is done and my case in the state of Georgia set, where I don’t care one bit how much money a private family has. They are afforded that from international investment and international or national attack occurred.
That private entity violated my human rights and citizen rights and I don’t care what dollar sign they have attached to such. My morality and rule of law and procedure will be held against.
This is not just of Chatham County Land and well outside their monetary value. It was of future conversations of moving towards ‘mutualness’ that becomes required but that is an at-will choice to consider original ‘non-mutualness’.
I find as I am not bound to prior employment in which failed me while of, that the ADRPA in legal standing constitutes slavery in which always a turn to or resort back of.
From such, I am not a slave of a ‘wrongful termination’ and never of a jurisdiction of a private entity after-the-fact as no hiring aspect is for consideration and I never of that make and model to denote the liability in which I would never lay claim to nor be responsible for.
There is not of the moment welcome back aspect to consider in ADRPA in which remedy required first. There is a ‘fix your ship and not on your life would I…’ aspect that is contained within anything past resolving the liability issue in which has been proven.
That happens in outside look and not of Defendant’s leverage in what has transpired since ‘wrongful termination’ while looking at what happened to get there.
I find all the same of a public school teacher and banking on their parents to have a dream realize is to understand in reality that occurred in partnership on multiple levels and the loan process of education very much a determination of banking on an investor’s parents or that of privately secured federal loans towards eventual repayment. Dreams and build come from everywhere when working towards something.
I find in evidence of the EEOC, how the skew and slant aspect of The Defendant and how that was approached in both EEOC proceedings, BBB proceeding and of was starting to in this proceeding to be of consideration on countered with evidence on the other side in provability against slander, liable or any game of optics in the negative front against what I of student, employee and alumni status never should had been subjected to. Not playing the Hearsay game in this capacity as there is of personal interest of whom screwed over whom on personal opinion after the fact and where that is not personal but institutional.
Should be private and at the same time city talks…
If Defendant so much as slanders or libels me in any capacity further, I guarantee I that is a necessity of the institution to learn collectively of word of mouth.
Not of anyone’s issue but I know flat out I’ve always protected the Wallace’s in that capacity. and know that the name is married into and before that another and then of prior another. I cannot help in factuality my family biologically and I, on my mother’s side, is also of the Wallace and clan and why I can most certainly use the Wallace name connection at any point of time in what is not an issue as many a Wallie’s present for clean-up and find they are quite silent about what their passions are in strangeness and unknown variables.
I find it best if anyone of name recognition that anyone of investment would had wanted or be so as well.
Enjoy that defiance as federally backed loans leans ‘do not exceed on property not your own’ while in training at institution towards workforce conditional standards.
That is never yours but internationally owned and of entity to protect.
Internationally, that is investment and of ways towards forgiveness and sustainability.
I find this all the more reason to say default judgement and allow move on from as per court of law and opinion as I see a requirement of STAY and then not knowing what to do but work towards ‘mutualness’ and know ‘silence is golden’. There is evidence which is not even one bit of my time nor desire to attend to in other people’s adult choices of contention.
After 1.5 years from wrongfully terminated, I am well aware of others wanting to own my property and of self-interest at-will in what has occurred the last 5 years. I have no desire to participate in the current make and model of The Savannah College of Art and Design and they are legally bound to not advance in any capacity in procedure from that which of questions had wished me dead for their own benefit or broke to the point of giving up my autobiographical property.
From that the ‘mutualness’ of I towards SCAD is resolve and reconcile Defendant’s liability before consideration. It has been years and questions of private partnership in which I am not a partner of nor do I agree with current make or model.
That would be an after arbitration aspect and still of my affordance of saying, ’Thanks but no thanks’ just as much as it could be ‘We never asked you to attend and move onto other areas of interest’. It would be the same in reverse of not of employee and never will under current make and model and not without question of what has already occurred which is preserved in this life story.
I will never join forces with SCAD under their current make and model and I will not under any circumstance be bound to slavery in this country.
They are well aware of their liability and I ask the court of full liability and judgement in which could be partial granting towards discussions of actual good faith and production.
That is my right of not of bread and forced into that area of ‘for their benefit’ knowing ‘I could had died’ and that not one care and also consideration of investment of studentship as it would had been picked up after-the-fact anyways if I did.
That was glossed over in my complaints of worker rights.
In such, not one bit of my pre-established property is of SCAD property and I don’t care one bit one battle in which they fought in that capacity during, they did no share with me and if one was fought it would still be of Plaintiff saying, ‘you do not own my property’ and that is factual.
From the employee side and student side,
Not for 14.95 an hour and of accord to my preservation of sustainable living and building a life.
And definitely not from complaint. There are questions of partnership, but in this regard and of legal court, they can say enough and build from there towards continual liability or finding prevention measures in which to build from.
College is an investment; it isn’t an ant farm in which to draw from privately of public build. And any usage of anything from the creation of an investor within, would need to be notified prior in all capacity towards agreement and rights of usage understood. Never ever is that royalty free as that denotes value in which could go against the debt of student loans in counter worth and claim.
All the more reason why I do think I should be extradited at times. This has continually happened on this soil of my life story and in this capacity if that of this land sought after.
There is of private interest capacity who exerted control and awareness on the highest grade of collegiate and still against I. Their value and family contribution understood as much as extended family in consideration.
In that aspect, I have deferred to Canada and of Vatican prior, even it was in tweet form and that was most certain recognized and seen nevertheless. I am sure there are many a resolution to be had, but off conflict of trust based on actions to account for and questions to be had of Defendant where still of accordance knowing what I own and what has been attacked. I’ve asked internally on American soil repeatedly to stop and have fought to remedy..
I find of challenges in this capacity to continue and please of what I did write fully of the United Nations, please place me somewhere of what I haven’t said and yet have been through already.
I cannot do this alone and I have done what I can.
Internally I am attacked and I’ve am very sound of mind. What has occurred should never be a consideration of political term against as laws of land last far longer than term limits.
I am afforded a life and I need help.
I don’t exactly care the paycheck of president or vice-president of a college I used to invest in.
I speak no quarrel or conflict of the job in which I have currently nor have I spoken ill of either president. Which one is going to matter in questioning.
I am being attacked in a way that enough is enough and others got their money from one way or another. Not an American ownership of property is becoming an issue here. Pretty much seem destined to perpetual rentals as others have collected all the other ownership issues.
I protected on American soil.
The United States validated and still from there, awareness and not of ownership. I find saying ‘Enough of what that the prior generations didn’t tell you. And yet, they never tell you everything anyways. You learn about it as you go through life.’
Anywhere matters.
I’ve been attacked on American soil and that has been continual.
Those of structure won’t let that continue forever.
That I know.
Wish me luck in slave trade. Although I know the judge couldn’t if they wanted to though.
Impartialness is very important.
-Philip Arthur Bonneau
Plaintiff cites Exhibit 1 of 9/12/2023 (Linkedin Professional Stance and Front-Facting)
Posts by Paula S.
·
Paula S. WallaceView Paula S. Wallace’s profile
• 1st
President and Founder of Savannah College of Art and Design
5d •
Research drives everything at SCAD, especially our ongoing effort to understand the beliefs, motivations, and dreams of current and future SCAD students soon to be strolling through our happy halls.
Right now, Gen Z rules the SCAD universe. This TikTok- and Taylor Swift-loving generation spans from their tweens to their twenties—nearly all 17,500+ of our Bees belong to Gen Z. But this statistical reality will change in a few short years when SCAD welcomes Generation Alpha (Gen A), born after 2010. The first Alphas will be arriving at SCAD as soon as 2028.
So…who are they?
We know that fewer members of Gen Z held jobs in high school and college than previous generations, which means that while they're the most-educated generation in history, they also often enter the workforce with little experience navigating relationships with supervisors and colleagues. This need for enhanced preparation is why SCAD launched SCADamp, a professional studio where students learn to present, pitch, and network with colleagues and clients.
We also know that Gen Z loves a good mentor, actively seeking mentors and learning experiences to show them the ropes—a quality likely shared with members of Gen A. SCADpro solves that challenge with the finest of points, providing the current and future generations with elite work experience and mentors before graduation.
Gen A is also likely to extend the altruism of Gen Z, seeking careers and professions that will make the world better for all—a quality enhanced through the applied research of SCAD SERVE, addressing very real hometown challenges in food, shelter, clothing, and the environment.
Some differences between Gen Z and Gen A are emerging, however. The oldest members of Generation Alpha were among the youngest elementary students during the pandemic and thus are much more comfortable with remote learning and hybrid environments. I expect SCADnow (SCAD’s online asychronous undergrad and grad degree program) enrollment will continue to expand and serve this new generation, given Gen A's digital fluidity.
A recent study showed that while Gen Z and Gen A are often on the same gaming platforms, they experience them in different ways. Gen Z likes to game for escape and relaxation, while Gen A tends to use games to express creativity in the creation of new worlds. I expect we'll see even more future collaboration between the SCAD School of Creative Technology and the SCAD School of Design, where Gen A students will double major in game design and disciplines like immersive reality, UX design, or UX research.
Just as SCAD professors adapt to new classes of students every quarter, so the university as a whole continues to evolve and prepare for whole new generations of students. We’re more than ready to prepare Gen A for their own futures. I can't wait to meet them!
Here are the key differences between Gen Z and Gen Alpha that brands and agencies need to understand
digiday.com • 5 min read
I find as such to the judge to consider that it is impossible for the entity to expand and evolve Defendant’s Make/Model without resolve of what has been known fact presented to the court. It is an impossibility of unjust enrichment on the part of Defendant to enact any pattern change of entity without resolve of influence from and of compensation of this matter before the court.
Plaintiff finds of such as private entity agreed to arbitration of their structure and procedure in which to enforce as legally binding. Defendant stated to the court rules in which they hold of value that at any point and time anyone of complaint could and should legally obtain and be given an ADRPA form upon request without prejudice. As that has not happened once done of factuality and upheld weight of complaint. With Non-response, that constitutes a violation of terms and conditions in which they govern and violates the 6th amendment in guarantee of speedy remedy in which the court provides as rule of law against private entity.
In that Plaintiff wishs the judge to consider the initial request of default judgement and of proven Defendant’s total liability while there being partial verdict possible in what the defendant would be legally bound to of damages had in consideration of willful intention. Of this court’s affordance of justice, Defendant can report back to the court for further review of liability at the cost of the defendant which could be determined 100% in jury aspect.
It was the willful intention of the private entity prior to impede on justice and of procedure which has been broken. As ADRPA of their standing cannot proceed without the process of reporting to HR, the initial complaint has merit and they cannot move from in capacity of procedure from while noting that they cannot benefit in any capacity structurally at the same time.
In that regard, the court could be granted outside oversight in which private entity would be forced into to adhere to discover scope of damage in which they already were privy to and continued in operations nevertheless while in question.
I defer to the court of equal opportunity and representation as Generation(s) Omega attempts to Protect Generation Alpha and beyond in what would be guaranteed future ‘non-mutualness’ in future proceedings until resolve of personal complaint of damage towards Plaintiff.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated:
Submitted to the court 9/14/2023
Name: Philip Arthur Bonneau
Title:
Self-Represented, Former Student, Former Employee, Alumni
City, State, Zip: Savannah, GA 31404
E-Mail: philip@philipbonneau.com
Attorney No.: Self-Represented
[1] https://www.eeoc.gov/youth/retaliation-faqs#:~:text=An%20employer%20may%20not%20retaliate,the%20EEOC%20after%20you%20resign.
