Mistakenly file contempt of court yesterday with evidence where I went into detail of Motion of Default Judgement with a letter of empathy and understanding on the matter. Resubmitted properly today, where contempt of court was considered and is there, but the draft was not complete when compiling with evidence.
As it stands of case, there is not much to say outside of life story and what is more than likely simply attached to public record for future generations to consider.
Filed on Sept. 20, 2024
M.I.A. Recognition Day, in honor of those who have yet to build a brand and simply unsung while others soar for one reason or another.
All exhibits have already been published.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CHATHAM COUNTY
PHILIP ARTHUR BONNEAU v. THE SAVANNAH COLLEGE OF ART AND DESIGN
Superior Court of Chatham County Case Number SPCV22-01289-ST
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT BASED ON TIME-BASED PROCEDURE
SCAD has failed to Aribrate according to their own procedures (Exhibit A) in over a full calendar year since ordered to do so on September, 7, 2023 and wishes the court for Default Judgement on real-world figures produced and weighed upon by Opposing Council and Judge during private mediation.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Claimant filed lawsuit with the State of Georgia against the Savannah College of Art & Design on December 27, 2022.
The State of Georgia did not dismiss the dispute, but “ordered it to arbitration.” Based on the Federal case of Citizens Bank v. Alafabco, Inc., 539 U.S. 52, 56 (2003), it was Federally ruled that when ordered to arbitration, a case must be put in Stay while arbitration proceeds.
October 13, 2023, was a 30-day deadline for SCAD to respond to the court and missed the deadline, by not filing their response until October 16, 2023. This should had been a default on the part of SCAD from that point on in time-barred document, and yet the judge continued to allow their statements. GA Code § 9-11-12 (2020)
Order to Arbitrate, is not a matter of verdict on the merit of the case one way or another, but procedural based on landscape in which self-governance has their own outlets to consider choice of fairness and law privately instead of publicly and record.
By time of order to arbitrate on Sept. 7, 2023 no witness testimony or discovery was allowed by Claimant which constitutes a non-beginning of trial settings and requirements.
Despite Claimant’s opposition on the matter, citing slavery of non-compensation in private matters procedural by citing the Constitution, Claimant went into non-compensated areas of procedurals to a private entity the best they could towards mutualness at the order of the judge.
Claimant requested arbitration to begin on September 21, 2023, and yet that did not begin until April 30, 2024.
It took months to get that going as SCAD found it allegedly, non-essential of both the court and of private resolve, despite their arbitration procedures proclaiming
The reasoning, as SCAD is required to organize and initiate dealt with the fact that they wished to utilize a State Retired Judge, Judge Wright. (also of the JAMZ community), in which they have utilized before which violates their ADRPA requirement of Federal Retired Judge mandate, as well as questions of prior interactions with and procedures of arbitations that would have been a requirement to disclose to Claimant.
Once a a judge was selected, even with Claimant’s statement that they are not a Federal Judge, SCAD council proceeded to wish to try another set of judge options outside the already agreed upon JAMS community citing costs as a reason for such. With Claimant, fully aware of how much was paid to the officially selected, Judge Johnson, in Jams, this matter of prolong was over a dispute of what became lower 5 figures in retainer fees at the end of September 17, 2024. A Retainer isn’t a bill, as hourly rates were different before any judge.
It was alleged by Claimant, this was done so to remove from electronic 3rd party website and infrastructure and proceedings began where SCAD knowingly were aware they had defaulted on timeliness in Superior Court.
What was an attempt towards Arbitration, was done so through the JAMS Network of retired State and Federal Judges of 3rd party, the Hon. Retired Federal Judge Johnson of Texas.
During proceedings, Claimant began compiling lists of witnesses to be called and mandatory discovery requests that would be essential of any trial, which never occurred or provided.
No deposition of Claimant was taken and considered as such in state. In claimant’s pro se aspects of self-offense of legal representative, they considered any and all of their testimony deposition and testimony as the only “Witness” and “Council” for Self Entity, while none existed on the SCAD side outside of legal representation and what was already of public record of Superior Court or available from the freedom of information act of the original EEOC investigation.
At no time did any representative outside of SCAD’s legal council enter in directly into what is clearly defined as “Mediation” while defining “Arbitration”.
Mediation, according to commerce.gov is “Mediation involves the intervention of a third person, or mediator, into a dispute to assist the parties in negotiating jointly acceptable resolution of issues in conflict.” Followed up with, “Matters unique to the mediation discussion have been held by Federal courts to be privileged and inadmissible in any adversarial administrative or court proceeding with the exception of certain issues such as fraud, waste and abuse, or criminal activity. If a settlement was not resolved during a mediation session, and the dispute was litigated in any administrative or judicial proceeding, neither the mediator nor his/her notes can be subpoenaed by either party.”
As no agreement was made of acceptable resolution, it understood that arbitration never took place on the part of SCAD, who continued their cames of “Dismiss” in court and defer to private arbitration to be of official final position and all throughout to “Dismiss” any and all valid claims which was noted as not a removal of liability, but a removal of rights in privacy to defend in which is now considered “Default” and non-arguable, based on failure to uphold the court’s order to arbitrate as well as not able to move forward to disprove their liability that they had their chance to privately.
As it stands in timeline, and of their own matter to consider of weight to prolong, Claimant Requests a Summary Judgement on all counts listed with relief and explaination of such presented and weighed upon.
Statues of limitations have noted Claimant’s claim of criminal and illegal acts against the constitution on the matter to bring to the court’s attention, and yet that would be a (USA v. SCAD) for them and not of my concern outside of witness of uphold of law and judicial.
As it stands, Claimant weighed out and provide an excessive amount of evidence of claim in which SCAD had nothing but procedurals in counterence, while going into non-factualities of case, personal comments and refusal to discuss any of the actual merits of evidence side-by-side or otherwise in which any move to jury trial would be barred from then moving past their official position to “Dismiss” and cannot be retroactively considered without examining and weighing on the waste of time in private arbitration, knowing they could not avoid that in judicial of judge and most certainly of jury.
That time frame is a full calendar year+10 days since order to arbitrate.
During that time, copyright claims during complaint and post Superior Court of the college upon Claimant are noted, and that too would be a separate trial by jury if need be.
For sake of discussion and rationale, SCAD exploited and squandered the private arbitration procedure without credibility to resolve, nor escaped any liability of present in which they can never counter of “HEY, NOW WE HAVE TIME”.
“Great, I don’t,” and statues of limitations could of ended this a long time ago, but not in criminal investigations, in which there too a need to protect victim, witness and creator on.
Claimant Submits Exhibit B, C, and D on the matter
Arbitation Definition as set by Common Definition, JAMS and SCAD ADRPA procedures
What is arbitration?
“Arbitration is a procedure in which a dispute is submitted, by agreement of the parties, to one or more arbitrators who make a binding decision on the dispute. In choosing arbitration, the parties opt for a private dispute resolution procedure instead of going to court.”[1]
Even the JAMS website quotes as saying, “Think of arbitration as a binding, adjudicatory process.” And then further goes into, “Unless otherwise agreed, the decision is legally binding and non-appealable, except in extremely limited circumstances, such as in the case of fraud or collusion on the part of the arbitrator.” In which was noted in this case of misleading the arbitrator, false claims of fact, unjust enrichment upon Claimant’s work during times of complaint and then change of Student Handbook (Student Copyright Policy) in removal, which was a protected aspect of on-going complaint resulting in a factor labor confict of human trafficking, not only through the school of student investors, but so too the the non-compensated Claimant in which SCAD benefitted and advanced their brand off of the perspective of an opposing party while leaving them in poverty and non-resolve.
That position was noted and expressed to the JAMS session at Time of Award of Mediation, which did not contain discovery or witness testimony of any claims in which are set to have never gone into the arbitration procedures according to SCAD’s ADRPA.
Exhibit A outlines the Arbitration procedure as,
Section III. Selection of Arbitators, and all aspects of (Completed)
Section IV. Scope of Arbitral Authority
Questions here that federally would had been protected by EEOC initial complaint of cease and desist all forms of damages and (retaliation) during times of procedures. As the initial Superior Court Case began to go into aspects of Copyright, BBB complaints, and the initial EEOC, there were criminal aspects of motive to consider of landscape left harmful to Claimant on multiple fronts to consider.
Claims and evidence were submitted during JAMS session in which was reviewed by the arbitrator on the matter. Those are noted in final award of being submitted and looked at, where Claimant could assume protection from in statement of both 3rd party awareness and opposing council on the matter.
Client confidentiality would apply to opposing council of already known legal liabilities before entering into private mediation towards arbitration. That would not pertain internally as it is SCAD’s policy to report all illegal activity if noted and found.
Section V. Required Conferences
Step 1 of asserting legal was met.
Step 2-6, pre-hearings was met, and concerns come in during mediation.
Section VI. Answer to a Request for Arbitration, Counterclaims, Third Party Claims, Reply to Counterclaims, and Motions
It is here SCAD faultered in their procceedings.
It is a requirement to Admit or Deny the factual allegations of the counterclaims, third-party claims,or third-party notice to arbitrate.
Procedurally wishing to “Dismiss” all claims without saying one way or another is a violation of their own policy and a compound of legality and liabilities that would not be upheld of further employment on the matter.
As that never occurred, SCAD failed to preserve themselves from any liability on this matter as they had all the affordance to confirm or deny and then go into evidenciatary aspects to support or defend which are since forfeited in 2ndattempts.
Section VII. Discovery
This process never occurred and one of the foundational requests from Claimant of discovery was the initial April 2021 Federal Compliance Investigation that occurred for about 2 months and noted psychological damage during.
As no discovery (legally or loop-hole) took place, no arbitration occurred and thus another SCAD violation of their own procedures.
No witnesses were called on either side to support or hinder discussion of claim, so liability falls on Respondant in which Claimant has started in written swore and in evidence provide what cannot be challenged in reasonable doubt during or after the final official “Dismiss” of all claims request by SCAD.
Section VIII. Summary Judgement
When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this section,
an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the adverse party’s pleading, but the adverse party’s response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided by this section, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for the arbitration hearing. If the adverse partydoes not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against the adverse party. Summary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings, depositions, answers to discovery, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
As SCAD representatives already violated Section VI and VII of these mediation proceedings over a year since ordered to arbitrate, Claimant requested a Summary Judgement, as SCAD had already lost their case, any further defense and stood by “Dismiss” of which they were warned repeatedly on the matter.
Section XI. Arbitration Hearing
Does not apply on this matter as prior steps were missing, and this was considered mediation under 3rd party supervision.
Section X. Awards and Orders
Questions here as SCAD demands Arbitration and the JAMS session constitutes Mediation.
The award presented, is of it’s own question of Merit in which Legally SCAD has failed the statues of their own limitations and time-barred over and over, before going into what is a suggestion to the court in weight of evidence, but is not binding to SCAD procedure as Mediation is the SCAD’s ADRPA complete procedure. In that regard, the initial requests held in JAMS for relief should be awarded in default of SCAD and their failure of procedures throughout the length of complaint that began in April 2021.
Section XI. Appeals
Considering the constitutional rights of Claimant and that Arbitration never occurred, despite a year from being to order such, any appeal should be time-barred on the matter and would have to come from the original preferred Arbitrator of Superior Court of Chatham County based on evidence, procedure and timeliness of questions within “governance”.
As JAMS session ended on September 17, 2024 with a matter of closed, there is no digital way in order to entertain appeal on the matter on either side. Ending statement forces a discussion here in which a reach out to within 30 days is appliable on either side and then still a matter of resolving the original State of Georgia’s request to “Move to arbitrate” in which is required for any case to do so to remain in “stay” until satisfied, where in this matter never occurred in a full calendar year.
Reasonable deduction would consider of constant dismiss of Respondant, that the ADRPA procedure here is invalid and cannot go through either the selected arbitrator nor be trusted through human resources of an entity that “Dismissed” everything against procedure and non-escape of liability.
As SCAD council did not respond to the arbitrator by the 7 days of award letter, it is presumed SCAD was acceptable of no compensation of time on the matter in which they benefitted from a victim of their own institution with alleged awareness of landscape.
As SCAD ADRPA states, “The costs and expenses of the second Arbitratorshall be apportioned among all parties according to the number and breadth of the issues being
appealed by each party.”
As no arbitrator, but mediator acted privately, Claimant defers back to the first arbitrator of Superior Court of Chatham County in which Claimant paid the full filing fees of the case and own it as well, something that would be assumed of matter of conversation of ownership in Private Mediation/Arbitration proceedings.
SCAD bears the burden of court fees. “The second Arbitrator shall make this determination.” which falls back on Superior Court of Chatham to review the claim, and full case if need be for second arbitrator on the matter.
Section XII. Cost and Fees
Claimant considered a private stance in mediation on the matter, where any aspect of employee complaint leading to ADRPA is procedural of the entity in which attempts to adopt private approaches to Constitutional rights and questions.
At no time, should a valid reporting party ever have to burden the cost of factual claims against a private entity, as it promotes work environments of known abuse and damages unspoken.
“B. Any party entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and/or costs under the law governing the claim being arbitrated is entitled to such costs and/or fees upon a proper showing under the legal standards applied to award of such costs or fees.”
It is here, several claims of entitled were made and SCAD wished to attempt to “Dismiss” and not “Discount” them where in 2nd arbitrate or trial by jury denotes an entitlement of valid claim in which was revoked from further argument and sent back to court.
This would remove any chance of “Dismiss” on the matter and open the door towards mutualness moving forward in perpetual copyright claims and remedies compounded towards greater good.
Section XIII. Confidentiality
Claimant upheld their end on this all the way to time of award in which judge recommended nothing despite evidence.
As questions of copyright and electronic attacks towards claimant were had during the entire time of complaint, Claimant is unsure and unaware of that landscape outside of evidence probable and then probable cause on why that would be.
As award occurred and judge told in paraphase “An idea cannot be protected and may show up in other people’s work”, was a clear path to my personal website in which “Help, of human traffic and constitutional right violations were present in what had occurred.” As award was set, that was the ending of procedures. Claimant responded back to the JAMS session the following day with the same position of human trafficking of students and then of myself as noted since 2022 on the same website, www.philipbonneau.com
Section XIV. Service of Papers (All in reference to occurred has been served properly.)
Section XV. Filing of Papers (All in reference to occurred has been served properly.)
Section XVI. Computation of Time (Perhaps too much.)
Section XVII. Extension of Deadlines (No longer applies.)
Section XVIII. Construction
Section XIX. Severitability (This is where we are at in court to decide unenforceable)
Section XX. Revisions to the Arbitration Procedures (That comes with mutualness, and cannot be modified during this case in which began as Ordered of SCAD’s ADRPA procedures on Sept. 21, 2023.)
This would apply to fundamental aspects of the college including the publication of The Student Copyright Policy in the SCAD student handbook, which was modified and removed in the 2024—2025 Student Catalog of Sale’s Kit and present and noted as problematic in all other subsequent years towards mutual discussion.
FINAL OFFICIAL POSITION FROM SCAD
SCAD submitted their final position to mediation on 8/23/2024, again reiterating their stance of complete dismissal of all allegations, potential discussions, and any good-faith efforts in counterance to timely resolve. (Exhibit D)
Claimant browsed through the response quickly to see the pre-disposition did not change in any aspect and the cite of other people’s time and effort was done so to procedurally reject and future conversation of good-faith towards remedy.
Claimant responded they got 2-paragraphs in and then didn’t read the rest.
Claimant was already aware, SCAD failed their own procedures on borrowed time of others and was perfectly fine in what they wrote of dismissal requests prior to their final response, that wish to dismiss does not escape liability of what has already been presented which must be investigated and proven by Respondant of “NOT EXISTING" to avoid damages.
Claimant “Dismissed the Dismissals” while browsing through it anyways noting they had heard this since 2022 and yet it is 2024.
That was official stance prior warned and Claimant moved into “Summary Judgement” knowing it was futile to continue on based on SCAD’s own arbitration procedures and all facts afforded of discussion.
Considering the landscape, most notable on 8/27/2024 of the release of the SCAD student Catalog, SCAD had once again changed their procedures, approach or forthcomings based of Claimant’s position and copyright protected property legally wrapped in connection with the college and located in the BBB, Superior Court of Chatham County and the JAMS session.
The move to Summary Judgement procedural of “not of good faith” while the noted questions of longevity of complaint in points of areas of hard personally, privately and of intellectual property not available on the open market, or never legally purchased as alleged an showcased.
During the case, Claimant was called a waste of time, so here Claimant becomes a time saver and cost saver as well, so that can never be said of me again on that matter, especially when legal loopholes of impede on Georgia citizen rights were violated by SCAD, The State of Georgia and SCAD’s legal council by failing to respond in the required timeframes of Oct. 16th, 2023.
Seems according to judge award, she agreed and did the same in perceived to dismiss the Claimant and reiterated mostly what she already wrote prior so I didn’t have to read it until the case was closed.
It is noted next, where questions of if the Judge read enough to have their opinion stand or would court appointed review of the entire case be necessary on questions of arbitration in general.
Retired Judges Ruling claims during Mediation of JAMS Session.
(Exhibit E of professional stance.)
Judge ruled, despite SCAD’s issue to Time-Bar valid claims, that everything was procedurally submitted at the correct timeframe of Federal and State Law, which went to no advancement of conversation moving forward on reposition of stance of “Confirm” or “Deny” in which Respondant chose to retain “Dismiss” in private arbitration motions towards, but never got past mediation purposes.
It was noted that Judge’s final award noted contained heavily of their original position before Claimant was afforded a chance to reformulate their stance clearly on discrimination side and then onto the copyright side, separately, and with overlap within to resolve Respondant’s continued positions moving forward.
Judge noted lack of contract and found that fatal to Claimant’s position, while Claimant stated in second attempt that the contract was the federal student loan started in 2001 along with the student and employee handbooks of the Institution, signed relatively in the beginning of employment which is enforceable on either side.
If no contract present between employee/employer, then the handbook is inadmissible and unenforceable as it would not be considered “Contractual” in this matter of enforce and thus SCAD would fail in enforcing arbitration over constitutional rights to remedy.
The Judge goes into arbitration law, which claimant did so prior to entry within stating claim of private benefit without compensation in which both judge and council received and direct opposing council never entered.
There is an interesting legal challenge and question here attached to copyright claims as well as legality of structure and replacement of to override and consume market which could be quantified of number of private arbitration cases vs. legitimate and important legal case.
A Fun legal question in which was presented in private arbitration.
Considering the ruling, especially when judge could not weigh in on a required jury trial of copyright claims, what happens when United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U.S. 131 (1948 is now focused on private arbitrations? When it came to student rights and basically considered Cartels, which would be an insult as well as they are like Mafia and of family mentality.
It would be here that lawyers and retired judges cannot own and operate their own make-shift substitute for the judicial system nor profiteer or create a system in which over-rights or negates the prior established of land and of the protection of few within.
The same case was mentioned in arbitration to SCAD owning their own movie studio in a realm of “Student Royalty-Free Copyright Waiver" to the college with global rights involved, while Claimant cited the profitability vs. budget of The Blair Witch Project, originally a student film in counterance and point of SCAD policy of any of their student’s works copyrightable able to be seized without compensation and what constitutes massive damages of creative integrity and profitability to the student body.
As SCAD’s position of that position of policy has been challenged by Claimant since 2022 through originally the Better Business Bureau and then introducted in Superior Court of Chatham county, it is noted that they have discovered a liability during complaint and tried to adjust to it which would be a violation of their ADRPA procedures and ethics.
During that time, trial had not begun, discovery was not authorized and witness testimony was also not allowed before ordred into “Arbitration” by the Judge on September 7, 2023.
It is now September 19th, 2024 and the arbitration process remained in mediation only to the time of it’s closing on September 17, 2024.
As discovery and witness testimony never accorded in this matter, the arbitration at best stayed in mediation and is a failure and direct violation of SCAD’s own ADRPA in which discovery and testimony is essential of process.
That was requested in writing in the beginning of arbitration and discovery requests were peppered throughout the proceedings held by the JAMS system to no mutualness or provide.
Considering over a calendar year since order to arbitrate of either side has been done in Superior Court of Chatham county, SCAD has failed in that regard beyond excessive timelines and patience to do so.
The Judge goes into their position of Title VII and ADA with my claim.
The honorable judge found that within the same time frame of a known investigation upon a supervisor who went to points of commenting on their penis and “Not getting fired for this sorry person” were considered non-discriminatory, despite what occurred under their supervision and SCAD’s liability of mental health aspects of detriment to 3 males and one of incarceration who too is entitled to damages of years lost to his life and the negligence of SCAD of disregard then and then failure to adapt from there.
That comes with all the respect of someone I know unbiased of 20 years in intial complaint in which is a major factor of outside opinion.
I have documented their statement and seen their lawful appeal.
I validate and would cooberate their story in same-stance situation.
The Hostile Work Environments were discussed along with gender biased in EEOC with complaints of hersay or fact in which SCAD can state or others can testify on the matter of gender biased and also problematics when going through a divorce which concerns no one of employment on the matter towards future employment opportunities.
The judge found these claims fail, and rationale does not.
ADA on matters of Retaliation.
“It is known history of Paula Wallace Retaliation” is and would have been recorded testimony of employees within their circle. Including in paraphrase, “They will let them have a short win, but will continually go after them.”
The aspects of disability here is Institution fired on the exasperation of disability in which they had full awareness of and then wished to exasperate and leave in an environment towards suicide attempt again while they reserved and retained intellectual property not their own.
That is not even alleged as SCAD acted on property ver baitum in which they didn’t even pay for and apparently had access to without discovery privileges or legal outlets of permission or documentation.
Arbitrator found that they did the best with failure of citizen procedure of witness and testimony beyond initial complaint as afforded of jury or arbitration to note that anything they say they didn’t find was outlined accordingly read or not or which they were hourly anyways.
Judge’s opinion was Claimaint “Failed to allege facts to sta a claim that he was terminated “Because of” a disability.”
Claimant stated and recorded they disregarded one over and over and knew about it from multiple places who could testify of detriment and awareness of based on what seems in part for some as awareness in partnership and ignorance of human life and compassion in others.
Reasonable Accomodation.
Claimant supplied their resume.
Applied for several positions, including top tier of SCAD of awareness of president of the college.
Claimant is pretty well aware they were more than qualified for outside café management of the college and that was entertained.
Judges opinion doesn’t apply in factually documented positions of evidence interviewed.
Claimant is aware of plaintiff’s position on gender in the workplace and “Someone’s penis” entered into the workplace of supervisor purview of discussion in the workplace at the exact time of Federal Compliance Investigations.
Claimant still does not weigh much merit to Supervisor’s claim of telling Claimant to treat his new (African American Counterparts of Equal Employment like his students.)
That came discriminatory from the same penis questions that could have been resolved at this point as well of the confidentiality question of “Which president she talked too after confidential meetings in which Claimant was not the problem.”
That still proves gender biased of female and goes into racial unnecessary and without fact to warrant.
ADA claims come from multiple sources to remove Claimant while noting modification of procedure, singling out and their supervisor singling in on something has mentally and fundamentally affected claimant to warrant documentation in full awareness of supervisor liability and federal compliance investigations during to compile evidence.
Copyright Claims.
Anything the judge wrote on the matter of dismiss is horrific to a college to present and then for a federal United States Judge to permit despite side-by-side comparisons that actually did have conversations, citations and notes as Claimant does not waste their time.
SCAD is a conduit globally of investment of creative and if it was both SCAD’s position and of the Number 1 protector of Copyright being United States on ideas and claims, then that is an absolute no vote of confidence in any capacity of nest egg at SCAD of creative investment.
Valid claims were stated, witness and discovery would have assurtained and stopped and that was never allowed.
As it stands of Claimant’s counterance of dismiss, I find that a disgrace of the The American legal investment and globally would not uphold of any further investment in American Education. “Can’t protect an Idea, don’t run a college.”
“They are full of them of which to nurture.”
All the more reason why not to entertain an environment ripe for exploitation in which they proved by advancing on in hiding Student Royalty Free Policy and creating more liability while doing so.
GA Code § 9-9-5. Section 9-9-5 - Limitation of time as bar to arbitration (a) If a claim sought to be arbitrated would be barred by limitation of time had the claim sought to be arbitrated been asserted in court, a party may apply to the court to stay arbitration or to vacate the award, as provided in this part.
As SCAD had over a full calendar year to begin arbitration and did not get any far as mediation of judge professional opinion, can there be a vacate of award based on “failure to arbitrate” and “Dismiss during attempts” towards in support of Citizens Bank v. Alafabco, Inc., 539 U.S. 52, 56 (2003
It could be weighed on if the judge’s award and opinion would matter here in the absence of witness testimony and discovery to assurtain and resolve questions raised in which SCAD officially “Dismissed” and did so with prejudice.
The reading goes on to awareness of fact there is zero reason the president of SCAD doesn’t know what is going on, as it is legally of their procedure for them to sign off on anything.
Judge acknowledges the new student catalog and claim of un-just of what was fundamental of BBB aspects and of moral procedure to do correctly in this manner.
Judge found it fails to meet relieve in which that becomes a problematic aspect of structure between judicial and private matters in which globally that is of concern.
That is without a doubt in evidence of fundamentally applied before and then in the same way as legal and procedure an attempt to hide and create more damage to consider.
It is here Claimant is remorseful of Judge in their statement and raises question of their morality despite facts read or not on the matter.
When it comes to global investment, they made a stance on the Number 1 of copyright standard which has failed in their own structure and globally or anyone’s privilege and of the utmost of college to protect in which they do not and find privilege in arrogance of.
As it stands, the judge’s opinion is of mediation without witness or discovery and is of professional of opinion to consider in public court.
As it stands my Claimants comment in judicial of private mediator’s opinion of sifting through facts and evidence.
It is you job to do so.
You are paid so accordingly and you spent your life upholding the law until you hit a point where you had validity of statement and still not of cohersion or payment of opinion of waste of time in which this factors to the common folk on the matter.
As it stands, you are paid hour by hour for your judgement and you applied about 38-40 hours total on the matter in which is your right of normal or of statement piece
It is noted the judge did not read everything of fact of this case nor consider it the same of what a legal trial would be in which the opinion of the judge is not the same as arbitration which never occurred and their opinion does not uphold SCAD standards of ADRPA in which they too have failed on the matter.
I respect a life time opinion, but it is not without scrutiny and of full evidence to be legally setting nor or any professional standing based on evidence in credibility.
Based on evidence, I site the same Anti-Laws of “United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U.S. 131 (1948 is now focused on private arbitration of what is a desired need for second glance of credibility and noted already of judicial oversight over all cases.
The judge’s opinion matters, but it defies what was already presented as fact to warrant a ration al decision easily paid off in an environment of private of which is under discrepancy.
As it stands, Claimant has the right to produce everything of Private Mediation if of further question outside the fact SCAD failed to arbitrate within a year and hoping that is the end of such.
The same questions are present anyways of SCAD prior arbitration council of State Retired that fails to uphold their own ADRPA.
The opinion is respected, but it was not of legal bounds in which SCAD can stand on.
(I rest on Exhibit B and C of what is presented and withheld of private arbitration and of legal rights nots not disclose of public record.)
COST of Damages Outlined and Submitted in JAMS SESSION
All of this is expressed within and summed up here
Backpay from Date of Wrongful Termination to Time of Submit to JAMS
By being a valid reporting party and allowed compensation return based on SCAD handbook.
$82,393
Claimant’s Breach of (Education Investment).
$34,855.45
Loss of Income from what would had been a Master’s Degree and lifetime of average market value.
$14, 815,564.20, done so of a 5x multiplier of the bare minimum of retirement of
$2, 963, 112.84
Copyright Claims and Damages
Reserved for future discussion of mutualness of future litigation on repeat offenders.
As it states in claim.
$6,750,000
(Based on Found SCAD Student Royalty-Free Policy,
Refund wad Requested of Undergrad/Masters study of SCAD 2001—2005, 2019—2022
$119,475
Response to Claim for Failure to Pay Accrued Vacation Time Should be Dismissed because Claimant Cannot Establish Legal Entitlement to Such Pay
$1131.13 + Interest + Any Applicable Damages
G. Calculations of Pro Se Legal Fees and 24/7 constrain based on Averages
Standard Legal
$7,636,992 (21,696 hours since date of “wrongful termination”.)
Copyright Lawyer Fees, $8,005,824.
CONCLUSION
Complete Total of Spelled out Damages of Failure to Arbitrate or Challenge Validity of Claim is $37,446,234.78 was accounted for in the Jams Mediation session.
That is neither a innocent of guilty outside of damage of time-barred and failure to arbitrate within a year, of which guilt was already proven within of what SCAD failed their own ADRPA by choosing to “Dismiss” everything which would not hold up in court based on their own procedures.
According to even the mutually agreed upon JAMS system, it is a requirement to have arbitration be completed within a year or else it is defaulted.
As SCAD and Claimant was ordered into Arbitration on Sept. 7, 2024, that timeline has expired and this figure does not take into consideration the emotional damage that has occurred before going into what The World thought of Not being able to protect Copyright material.
As that is something the State of Georgia can award without prejudice, that is a request of Claimant who has for the rest of their life, a story of what became of 1 year of slavery and able to tell a story about it moving forward.
As private arbitration is private business, As it stands, the mediation of Philip Arthur Bonneau v. SCAD is confidential and proprietarty of Philip Arthur Bonneau and under copyright protect in sole ownership.
Not a single SCAD representative participated in mediation of testimony or otherwise, and attorney of opposing council and Judge of Jams are considered Contract to Hire, Per Case basis legally, in which they have no claim on per assignment based.
As I was forced into this pro se, and stripped of my Constitutional rights on the matter, it is my choice to preserve and protect or showcase of my position into this case and claim on what is considered of SCAD’s ADRPA as a separate entity.
Anything of that private session of mediate cannot be utilized by The Savannah College of Art & Design for private gain or purposes without my expressed permission in which is not granted at this time.
There can be no challenge to that as they did not invest anything directly outside cost, except what is written of official position by their contract attorneys, whom would be aware of public record anyways and of professional stances of legality. Claimant is not an employee and in procedurals, bear all cost, especially when not followed. This is stated in their Arbitration procedures as, “A party proceeding without anattorney is considered to be a separately represented party.”Where in this case successfully upholds the argument based on SCAD’s own ADRPA procedures that claimant is not considered an “employee”.
It is understood no party would have the rights to the mediator’s notes during this and official position was done by all in fear of perjury or other crimes. Any idea or procedural change from private mediation matters is timestamped by a major 3rd party of history.
Claimant and SCAD officially went to “Dismiss” everything which is a relinquish of any future rights and default judgement according to their own ADRPA procedures of any and claims in which they had the chance to property defend and did not for over a year since ordered to do so.
Claimant notified Lead Attorney for Littlier, Aaron Saltzman on September 18, 2024 via email of valid copyright claim at 10:08AM EST with the message.
"Thank you for your time in litigation
Please let your client know all aspects of complaint and court has been completely copyright protected by myself and they cannot in any way impede on my property or life story without compensation, agreements and respect as no non-confidentiality was signed, anything of lawyer or judge is per contract employment and used to public record anyways.
There was zero testimony by any scad representative on defense side during arbitration and they have no legal rights to anything of the case from april 2021 to present.
It was a pleasure working this out and making something out of zero.
Philip Arthur Bonneau”
“When you lose a great deal of things, you always have a story to fall back on.”
Claimant wrote this to resolve an issue of vulnerability of their own legal council, as well as the JAMS community based on the allowance of SCAD’s financial resources during time of complaint in which defaulted argument and discussion on failure to respond in time by Friday, October 13, 2023 to a 30 day time limit of window to legal do so.
By Claimant, copyright protecting the entire case from start to finish, they are noting there are proprietary aspects of this case that could be utilized elsewhere without the advantage to Claimant in which was showcased in copyright upon copyright violations noted during complaint.
As SCAD proeeeded to use contract/fixed-assignment contractors and no official representative on the matter, the same rules apply in which they have done so to the students of SCAD in the SCADpro position in which SCAD has no legal rights to anything in this case presented at this point.
They can not screw out the law firm they hired by the vulnerability discovered by the Claimant too wished they wished to screw out of rights, and they cannot utilize anything of the private mediation in defense as they legally do not own any of it at this point and have their own debts to settle or conversations to be had.
In that regard, SCAD cannot perpetuate what they already took of granted of other people’s time and relied on other people’s time legal to defend “No looking here”, which seems to be fundamental of my original case and now moreso globally to award “Default Judgement” on a year’s worth of could have and yet did not.
Integrity there that Defending parties time is saved in cost as well as JAMS, and then all the more reason for The State of Georgia to go Default on this and have SCAD actually begin good-faith efforts or let them go (USA v.) and allow me to live my life a someone freed slave while trying not to think of the damage of copyright infringement upon myself globally and of difference before taking for granted public record, which still comes from copyright protected asepcts and need for Respect, that was mentioned before going into the past year in uphill.
The factual decision of copyrighting everything of my time of complaint is to make sure that if I am not respected in life while I was placed in poverty and danger along with my entire family, you are not playing with my life rights and property in my death and public record will account for that landscape accordingly in which is laid out of fact of this American Choice.
That is a guaranteed 75-90 years after my death before people can touch my property in the disrespect I have been treated in life and all the more public display of affection then globally if it got that far.
All of my books have gone through Library of Congress.
That is not a poor man’s copyright, that is valid of claim and if that of attack of American Dream, I know where life stories of the past lay when lost everything and lose teeth of value.
That was worth it uncompensated at this time.
Considering the impediment upon my first novel, “Curated Jellyfish” and what is protected there and could had been a conversation of arbitration of SCAD that only stayed in mediation, it begs the question, “Who are you to judge outside of wanted to be the name attached when many and all are.”
As it stands, the loophole change of protection of IDEAs are amazing to consider, and it was noted in private arbitration that if electronic ideas cannot be protected, namesake can and life story as well in which SCAD officially never entered outside of perjury in Superior State Court and cast no representative in Private Mediation in the year of their already known legal awareness and continuance of.
Whatever was assurtained and alleged in private mediatation and beginning to be addressed in Superior Court of Georgia and EEOC before going back to 2019-2018 is perhaps all the more reason why I was left out of many things of fact and all the sadness of attack during to consider of an Idea going out the window and needing protection.
That would be of statement of fact in which SCAD has and didn’t provide despite testimony during time of incident and of mediation of 3rd party of the value of mental health in resolve of partners and liabilities of what came before.
That never came to fruition, and so that respect of mental health is understood as discounted and something they don’t wish to entertain personally, professionally or if it happened to anyone else of a 2-month (outside) report of 2021 which would prove liability, crimes in which were preventable and something I have accepted they have and wish not to divulge, which is fine of self-protect as they respect my own on the matter of what was factually laid out and not allegated, either in legal of my ownership or books impeded on in which I did not gain the profit or recognition I should have while others blatently took.
Within the legal case was the submit of evidence of “No ‘Starving Artist’s” in which was prior copyright protected 3-times over and created and produced post education and employment, where it is noted there would be legally bound to question if infringed upon and, if prior rights were a question before, they absolutely are definitive of source on this matter and of their partners of which neither have my permission of Philip Arthur Bonneau’s time in Slavery and complaint within this country.
“No ‘Starving Artist’s” is readily available for sale since December 24, 2023.No copies to date have ever been purchased legally on that matter and legally that is tracked while knowing the full book was submitted in faith towards conversation of 10 years od damage and escalation that occurred while at SCAD as employee/student that never occurred and went into “DISMISS”.
There is no “Dismiss” a book is legally available and valid of no liability within.
Claimant was told in the beginning of mediation that “Can’t protect an idea” But you can protect a source and CDC it.
All the more reason to copyright protect for corporate of political purposes moving forward of source and timeframe, something I had to do with my work very drastically in an infringed market of fact and check of timeframe.
SCAD cannot do anything legally or creatively outside of entities within process their own morality and what they can and cannot translate from that time with either that work, any of my works or of legal complaint without conversation of RESPECT with I and of agreement, and that is the way it should be of protecting any idea and making sure a college does it as well. Globally that matters and rule of law is sound before going into other countries of consideration of such.
Anything of court on the matter would be what their ADRPA required of statement of Affirm or Deny in which they did not and cannot moving forward in this matter as they abused the everyday person who meant well and tried to protect.
As any default judgement goes, I cannot elaborate further towards that judge decision who knew my initial concerns of slavery and abuse prior and then saw them come to fruition in which could be of testimony outside of this.
The matter is it has been a year since ordered to arbitrate and that did not occur and what did during times of isolation are aspects of the law that would not put up with continued abuse, exploit and strip of citizen rights.
Claimant comes back to judicial, in the state of Georgia in which default already occurred, after going federal on the matter privately to get to points of self-governance on either side under the affordance of The Constitution in which none of us can escape from in protect.
There should be no appeal as arbitration did not occur.
Based on behavior the prolonged pattern of detriment towards I would of continued in non-resolve in which anything official of the court from SCAD would be an attempt to “DISMISS” valid claims that must be heard and accounted for or else find that no evidence of investigation or debunk proves liability in what occurred here,
There is a year lost personally to get to arbitration and they have all the global nest egg of affordance on the matter of wasted time to afford what is minimal of damages in which they chose to “Dismiss” without reason outside of other people’s time in litegation that they did not earn.
SCAD asked for arbitration and then wished to dismiss and discount all claims privately without investigation or evidence to dis-prove.
In that regard, I ask for default judgement on the valid request in which SCAD could no longer argue anyways so that I can move on from my life and finally be free of whatever copyright hell and workplace criminal motive caused me to blip this many years of my life and cost me more yet to be had.
SCAD disrespected timelines and of saving face by going into private arbitration.
During that time they still harmed the claimant and did not uphold their own policies in which have been a year past and still no resolve and constant damage.
Under their own procedures and of § 9-11-55.
Claimant would like to wish default judgment in the state of Georgia, where their non-discussion is truth of one thing and never a resolve on the other, so they can at least alieviate the bare minimum and we can all move on separately of not a waste of time.
Anything else from here would be a cease and desist along with restraining orders of executive of the college based on their life time and rape of human life contribution.
According to GA Code § 9-11-55 (2021), SCAD had no intention of resolving this privately and have forfeited any position of defense moving forward.
At best all claims were presented factual and not even a fraction of a presidential salary to consider of compensation of non-mutualness and disrespect of time.
I have laid out the grounds of contempt of court which comes with criminal aspects in this matter and wish to proceed with this first before doing so in matters of good faith and done with as wel
SCAD failed to uphold the motion to arbitrate under GA Code § 15-1-4 (2020).
Any aspect of self-government review is excessive in human rights and court consideration against their affordance.
Claimant owns all of mediation at this point and can present any evidence outside of what is of rationale of law of default in which human life was exploited beyond the awareness of The State of Georgia the First time and now with mor with more global nest egg protection to weigh in on and hopefully resolve the timeliness aspect without here or there on the matter.
Thank you for your time in consideration of default Judgement.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated:
SEPTEMBER 19, 2024
Electronic Sign – Philip Arthur Bonneau
Name:
Philip Arthur Bonneau
Title:
Self-Represented, Former Student, Former Employee, Alumni
Address:
Address:
City, State, Zip:
Phone:
Fax:
E-Mail:
philip@philipbonneau.com
Attorney No.:
Self-Represented
[1] https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/arbitration/what-is-arb.html#:~:text=Arbitration%20is%20a%20procedure%20in,instead%20of%20going%20to%20court.
