This is a factual filing to The Superior Court of Chatham Country on February 9, 2024.
It is of truth and of written record of submit of public record in which others could in accordance to the law, look up and write their own narrative and books from based on finding an interesting angle or approach of how to find narratives based on true life story and then those make sure to say “Based off nothing of reality, and any coincidence is surely such and not of our responsibility or say or allowance.”
Based on the factuality of I being the original Plaintiff and the one who paid the legal filing fees of complaint outside of private entity, it would be noted in anything retrieved in Freedom of Information Act pertaining to this case is noted that the case is closed.
It is noted on the Georgia Odyssey System of Legal case, that when failure to complete one thing or another during trial leads to opinions, facts and judgements. In all cases of what has been recorded of American History, it is known by rule of law that The Savannah College of Art and Design defaulted on the discussion based on time limits as well as The State of Georgia in casting matters of the heart and life’s investment.
As that is proven in fact and in a response on the 91st day of chance of Georgia to respond to a 69 page entry of complaint of I not wishing to be a slave of this country and protecting my Constitutional rights, the State of Georgia deferred Federally in which federal oversight was already present from the entry of EEOC proceedings of rights and into legality of my citizen rights on American Soil and Georgia’s land towards conversations of community and commonality and individuality.
It is noted as SCAD waived their rights towards default of discussion or of control of my life narrative, they too lost all rights to any aspect of my life or life’s work being translated. Especially in anything of legality of submit of public record in which the entire trace of EEOC, BBB (of the copyright protected side) and Superior Court was submitted to record in retainment and of awardance no matter the circumstance to the Plaintiff in which is 100% their property and right to translate how they feel fit with anything from SCAD without my compensation, permission and multiple authentication to be illegal, prosecutable and most certain of compounded problem for SCAD and their partners in any capacity of prior power of the subjectry of slavery for which I was forced into.
As I have found that I own the rights to my story and the information provided to the court, there is nothing I have to submit in any arbitration proceedings in which will never be transferred to SCAD is of my property and the end of their make and model as legally they cannot advance or grow their entity in any capacity without resolving matters in which they have defaulted in contempt and of finding what it means to to your money where your mouth went.
As I am a community builder and most certainly understand the importance of global investment and most certainly of “right out the nest” and “pre-industry awareness.” SCAD has made their decision since the wrongful termination of I on Feb. 10, 2022 and has perpetuated non-closure in prior partnership where morality will and always win in partnership with morality and brands that believe in investment and early adoption.
Whatever story spun on the otherside, there is so much of it done without I and as things produced everyday without knowledge or consent. SCAD and it’s entity has no rights whatsoever to any aspect of my life’s work in any capacity and would be found Federally Liable to compensate so that future generations can actually have the chance while others know how many I have given SCAD internally before writing and copyright protecting my own narrative while fighting for those who have yet to write theirs and then those who had theirs written by others.
No SCAD power here over constant attacks on I, Be gone…before someone else drops a hotel on you too in privilege power.
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CHATHAM COUNTY
STATE OF GEORGIA
)
)
PHILIP ARTHUR BONNEAU
)
Petitioner/Plaintiff,
)
)
)
NO.
SPCV22-01289-ST
Vs.
)
)
THE SAVANNAH COLLEGE OF ART AND DESIGN
)
Respondent/Defendant
)
)
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT AGAINST THE SAVANNAH COLLEGE OF ART AND DESIGN GA Code § 15-1-4 (2020)[1]
The last time I, the plaintiff, addressed the court, there was the citation of GA CODE § 15-6-21 (2020), stating that it is a requirement of the State of Georgia to respond either today or tomorrow as any later than December 11, 2023 would be a failure of state and breach of contract which becomes Federal Oversight to consider.
Ga. Code § 15-6-21
Current through 2023-2024 Legislative Session Chapter 356
Section 15-6-21 - Time for deciding motions; filing and notification; noncompliance as ground for impeachment
(a) In a county with less than 100,000 inhabitants, it shall be the duty of the judge of the superior, state, or city court, unless providentially hindered or unless counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant agree in writing to extend the time, to decide promptly, within 30 days after the same have been argued before him or submitted to him without argument, all motions for new trials, injunctions, demurrers, and all other motions of any nature.
(b) In all counties with more than 100,000 inhabitants, it shall be the duty of the judge of the superior, state, or city court, unless providentially hindered or unless counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant agree in writing to extend the time, to decide promptly, within 90 days after the same have been argued before him or submitted to him without argument, all motions for new trials, injunctions, demurrers, and all other motions of any nature.
(c) When he or she has so decided, it shall be the duty of the judge to file his or her decision with the clerk of the court in which the cases are pending and to notify the attorney or attorneys of the losing party of his or her decision. Said notice shall not be required if such notice has been waived pursuant to subsection (a) of Code Section 9-11-5.
(d) If any judge fails or refuses, unless providentially hindered or unless counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant agree in writing to extend the time, to obey the provisions of subsections (a) through (c) of this Code section, or if any judge repeatedly or persistently fails or refuses to decide the various motions, demurrers, and injunctions coming before him in the manner provided by such subsections, such conduct shall be grounds for impeachment and the penalty therefor shall be his removal from office.
OCGA § 15-6-21
According to the law, it is illegal in the state of Georgia to close a case in which present to the court before arbitration and that has occurred which is a violation of my citizen’s rights. Prior, I have discussed and claimed violations of human rights and federal citizen rights into the slavery aspects of arbitration procedures and how that could be unconstitutional based on evidence.
It is of date, February 9, 2024, that the defendant, The Savannah College of Art and Design has yet to begin any aspects of arbitration proceedings without the instigation of I writing about such on my private computer. At the time, there has been dispute aspect of timeliness of process and even to the point of payment and responsibility in which SCAD and their legal council fail to follow their own arbitration procedures in which they have presented to the court as due process of their self governance in which is always in addition to the laws of land both state and then federal in which to follow. It is considered of Plaintiff that any personal policy of brand entity is in addition to those laws and designed for further protection of a private entity in which could be incorporated into law of land for the same protection and benefit. As those laws are for private entity stability, they are always of interest of lawmakers in to have the possibility of looking at smaller scale business in order to better operate law of land in communal business interest and for benefit of business in the land collectively to drive revenue in the state or country in which they help mold and shape themselves legislation after legislation.
(In context narratively, SCAD wanted me to pay some aspect of the arbitration process as they most certainly know my financial aspects and what I can and cannot survive on. Good thing there are 30 day, 45 days and 90 days of legal set put in position exactly for the reason. A matter there in which well beyond time limits anyways, SCAD forfeited their rights and by such have no business ever attacking me in any capacity as they submitted to the rule of law factually, and yet somehow I am still waiting for a response from the State of Georgia, who too may have submitted which becomes of Federal question with awareness this is a global issue and major infrastructure issue here, so I am not entirely sure the dominance factor here, but it is quite intimate and I am making the best of this adulting of pack mentality the best I can. I am sure this can be translated at a later date to simply say for now, “I’ll tell you when you are older”.)
The fact of continuance, is a complete misappropriation of SCAD resources and funds of global investment in which as much as Human Resources may be a top priority of protection for heads of entity, we can probably discuss the value of the law degree and hourly rates and understand second priorities. The investment of comprehension of written works is amazingly incentivized here at a per hour rate. I imagine something there. I imagine something very important there of time spent and confidentiality. This goes against SCAD policy and is wasteful to the investment of the institution, paid for by over 100+1 countries.
In the complete disregard of my time, rule of law and despite evidence, my property has been attacked during time of legal complaint and of federal protect against retaliation according to EEOC law and most certainly of Superior Court.
In the squandering of the World’s Investment for private name recognition and name build, in which they have received based on the actions presented of Plaintiff’s case and from April 2021, and most certainly the benchmark of wrongful termination on Feb. 10, 2022 is criminal motive present at the institution and I have suffered from such.
As the case has been proven of SCAD liability in 3rd party mediations of EEOC, BBB, and this court, the lack of reasoning and continuance on the part of SCAD denote abuse of the college’s finances and resources in matters of question outside of criminal motive on which this has yet to be resolved by parties in arbitration and of the courts, it is understood the only reason to prolong and fail to begin proceedings is because of the known criminal liabilities and the attack on my private intellectual property during and after in provability
SCAD has already been submitted to the court based on handbook of being constituted an unequal employer in the state of Georgia due to their own handbook and selectiveness. With such, it constitutes areas of the handbook in which does not apply to others within and give carte blanche to do whatever outside of rules and regulations. Of such, it is to be understood that in those scenarios, any individual in that capacity is not protected entirely by the college as they chose their own morals and standards in which to act and from such, face personal liabilities of at-will choice. “With great power, comes great financial responsibility.”
From there the setting and based on rule of law, operating outside of handbook established denotes the college cannot support in matters of arbitration and of suit, as guidelines and governance is provided for those to adhere to and denotes personal responsibility as well as college responsibility as they act in official capacity and have the afford (or had) of handbook and training of application of position. As it is written in the handbook of those outside the handbook, such as the president of the college, they assume personal liability on top of that of the college collectively.
It is of known to Plaintiff that defendant has been aware and of all the affordance of evidence from the end of EEOC investigations, but most certainly of time of Court Submit on December 27, 2022 of the position of factuality and provability of the complaint, originally sought in good faith to resolve and then met with non-resolve. In respect of the court, I asked for the bare minimum at first towards resolve of what I was owed and met with problem after problem of factuality and evidence in which includes stretching of time on defendant’s part and I stretching of dollar to do what I’ve been forced to do on my own and without help outside of internal and intuition.
Considering what I have addressed the court prior and of fact, The Defendant has advanced their property off of MY United States, Library of Congress protected Intellectual property in the same manner of what has been presented to the court as landscape.
What has occurred and created is a landscape of I of danger and most certainly of my private property which is of legal protect 95 years after my death and has been reported as stolen to the FBI with exact pages of infringement publicly stated by Paula Wallace and from my prior protected property of Library of Congress submit, before ever enter in to market of student catalogue in which my ideals and works were invested on.
In prior stances and position of the court considering the now over a year in which Defendant has had all the affordance to resolve, I request a payout and temporary resolve of the highest stakeholder of The Savannah College of Art and Design in backpay for the waste of the year in which I have had to address the governance within an entity in which plaintiff is no longer associated with. As I am sure defendant can look up the importance of copyright protect and the lifetime of such on their own time and dime, it is understood that Plaintiff has been wronged and absorbed into a college institution in which Plaintiff’s protective thoughts and works have allowed for the sustain of an institution in which there is complaint and damage brought to the court and prior of private governance to resolve which has not occurred. That would be of president Wallace’s salary within there annual of 120 million plus a year.
It is understood as nothing legal leaves SCAD walls without her purview and permission, in proven frivolous or resolve despite evidence is of personal responsibility of the president to repay and any all costs of legal fees accrued by the college, as despite all the evidence is a waste of global student degree seeking resources and should be returned to the college based on poor judgement of prolonged exposure.
It is understood to the Plaintiff, that despite all evidence submitted privately and most certainly to the court, that the squandering of world’s generational investment denotes thefrutality wastefulness of affordance of legal council during these proceedings in which the defendant. The Savannah College of Art and Design, has leadership who did not invest in the world’s investment of which they are afforded properly and wastefully. That attorney’s fee on the other side is of note and should be considered of value to my complaint in equal match and award as Philip Arthur Bonneau have survived in the landscape in which they have thrived within at the detriment of future generations in which Plaintiff has attempted to protect, secure and allow to thrive and grow.
They have put the plaintiff in constant harm’s way or have factual awareness of such.
The Defendant was aware of the value of my works and works within a landscape in which value and importance of protection would be understand as they operate and train within future markets and partnerships with the top corporations of the globe. It has since been aware of Plaintiff’s value to the point of infringing upon their intellectual property post employment and most likely a problem or motive of wrongful termination anyways of past works while those of conditions of supply of ADA requests and removals already had federal liability upon themselves. With my work, according to law is protected in The United States of America 95 years after death in which they have impeded on in provability within their lifetime and of their willful choice within and of affordance of global invest towards affordance.
Plaintiff has addressed to the court hesitation and of fact of not wanting to go through traditional structure provided in procedure present of the court as it appeared to constitute aiding and abetting with known illegality within.
As it goes towards criminal motive, the landscape of beyond a reasonable doubt is set. In non-mock trial settings of a law novice, I submit to the court an Apply Note from my privately owned computer in which has been attacked and impeded upon. As the constant attack and of infrastructure could had been resolved at this point, Plaintiff has no reason to do anything but protect their property of intellect within The Library of Congress and of public record in an attempt to protect and resolve that which hold power wish to leave open for their own personal leverage and advantage at the expense of this generation and future generations in continual patterns towards wage gap and collapse or close of loopholes. It began being typeset on February 1st and is of modification of time variance from then to the time of submit to the court.
It is noted and would come up in private arbitration, allegations and yet more evidence to denote copyright infringement upon plaintiff post employment and during complaint. It is noted that is beyond the scope of original complaint and case and comes with causation of question of motive of actions that have been submitted to the court outlining timeline of events from April 2021 towards the date of wrongful termination on Feb. 10, 2022 and then beyond such in attempt to remedy and then the failure of such by defending party.
Not that it matters here, but I own copyrights twice over of “Chasing Jabberwocks” Incomplete 1 and 2, and the 4 other copyrights of books of what I consider “My Star Series”, protected before Paula Wallace willing-fully impeded in verifiable evidence of “After Jellyfish” of my works for her student catalog of entice to further rip off generations while prolonging complaint and compounding issues. It is amazing to consider a landscape in which I am and did try to protect the college and students collectively, that repeat injury would continue in compound of affordance of position and then questions of rationality and morality within. I actually own a great deal of copyrights, and all of my literature in book form is most certainly protected and verified by The United States and Library of Congress.
It is of note of above mention of liabilities of unfair business practice and repeat injury that I have requested to Defendant’s council of “Cease and Desist” of access to my personal electronics and of infringement upon I without resolving initial complaints of which there are those above the handbook of rule and then those who have to abide by it or face termination.
It is understood the entity of SCAD has advance on my property for their benefit without compensation, rights and of issue of understanding obstruction of justice in this matter of continued complaint in which has been factually proven of liability of the entity of SCAD since the end of EEOC proceedings and most certainly of this court as of December 27, 2022.
As my star series and books were copyright protected prior to the release of the SCAD student handbook, it is of note that The Library of Congress can pinpoint that I came before the production of the catalog, and note of this court and of legal council on the other side that at no point in any of the proceedings did Discovery become available to private entity, but most assured it was present Federally in both compliance and in EEOC proceedings. It would and is problematic of the catastrophic damage done to Plaintiff already of complaint to the court and of years not necessary to continue. As the landscape of continuance has occurred and damage compounded, it is the duty of the law of land to act upon and remedy.
Whether of this court or private arbitration proceedings, federal oversight would be mandatory and could be present knowingly or not of either party, while the assurance of testimony of Paula Wallace is present in any regard on the matter.
As my works predate in several areas, motive does collect and build in other investigations, as provided by the Constitution and the additional aspects of foundation growth, action is necessary and required to prevent further liability of The Savannah College of Art and Design, and questions of personal liabilities to those not bound to the Employee handbook in which most certainly are bound to rule of law, regardless of affordance gained on World’s Generational Investment.
I learned from my first job post college, never put all your eggs in one basket and most certainly what hatches from them wouldn’t stay put anyways so might as well start learning diversity. And when it comes to nest eggs, that is different as those most certainly are a sit on and protect of home and nature before determining what to do when they are ready to begin learning to fly and building their own nests in the world.
I asked for bare minimum of the court toward retirement in fairness.
Whatever others did was on their accord and now I seek fairness of practice, advancement and of equality. Where of highest stakeholder salary, comparable legal costs and all damages to be look at in consideration of April 2021 to now and then an attack on my property as of today with deletion of it from a fully privately owned Apple computer that was purchased outright by myself and protected as factual in Copyright protected works along with the receipt for such.
I most certainly through passage of time added in consideration of legal council pay to my time’s investment of fair market value in which SCAD and Paula Wallace of personal and professional admittance proclaimed and proved copyright infringement on “After Jellyfish” with questions remaining of what was a continued pattern of behavior and a system that would eventually do what time and history has already done before in consideration and whittling JEMs. All the same, I agreed to the non-federal judge of Wright who is aware of the movie business who bills themselves at 600 dollars an hour plus 13%. I most certainly will look at fair market value in that aspect of what I am entitled in that capacity while being a beacon for what the college should be and of proper invest while those within still make this a problem after provable 2 years later.
I’m pretty sure Plaintiff has out value the Wallace’s of SCAD position in any position statement they could make on secondary education and value and that being a global effort of “please stop attacking me” and then they did or partners of in a world of proven well beyond a reasonable doubt of problem areas of United States major art theft of mine.
I’ve done enough and I stand strong. It’s going to stick. Even on the little side because all sticks are created equal from the same system of core.
Plaintiff is aware that I have forced hands on any movement towards arbitration and have been met with the same continued dismissal in which has occurred through all of complaint. As a judge has been selected after a process of 4 provided originally, it was later suggested by SCAD council to go a cheaper route with another judge, where only of conjecture, I find that it might had been to avoid the 3rd party oversight of system, while not being able to touch and advance any more on my private property or make any further modifications of their entity based on my federally protected works that survive long after my death and anyone who currently works at SCAD or in partnership of SCAD in this manner negatively towards I in repeat injury.
I can go federal and say Judge Wright has already unlawfully looked at cases for SCAD as she is a state judge and was not applicable to oversee prior cases for The Savannah College of Art and Design as it goes against the policy of arbitration written and submitted to the court. I have agreed to such as they have a background on the movie side of career investment towards retirement and find that landscape is of note based on major copyright claims, added injury and compounds towards maximizing penalty or rationale of agreement of equality and rights for the stability and structure of the college, while removing or addressing criminal activity of aiding and abetting and obstruction of justice.
On the movie side, I have no problem of retired and pick and choose adventures knowing opposing council of a law novice seems to be globally connected on what matters.
It is understood as my work is of autobiographical nature, that according to federal law the protection is set of 95 years after my death. I imagine there are not many people at SCAD that are going to live to be 113 in which that would be the age minimum of affordance of my work in public domain, and find if any year earlier than that would denote liabilities of minors in which their parents would be held responsible to the full extent of the law. Noted of Guinness, the oldest living person in the world was 122 years, 164 days of a woman from France named Jeanne Calment. According to Wiki, they don’t have a bracket available of the counts of 113, but when it comes to 114, there are only 19 in the entire world known.
I chose rule of law and court for arbitration, considering the last 5.5 years. I’m pretty sure there is going to be an example here of this generation that isn’t even agist, as it is a matter of whomever is living and of affordance, but if one were to say such, I have respect in that department of longest living human in citation and of noted rarity and respect.
It is understood of attacks on I electronically, that even today there was willful intention of deleted Apple notes on my computer of my intellectual property value, considering the landscape of forfeit in which SCAD most certainly has impeded on my work, I would like to request lawful search and seizure to retain my property and move towards criminal trial and trial by peer while resolving this matter of default judgement in this matter so I can proceed to a safe and secure environment and retain my property which is required by law to be returned to I.
In light of evidence and alligations, I would like to submit to the court based on GA Code § 15-1-4 (2020), to file contempt of court against Plaintiff and find that where one door closes, another chapter can open in the land of the free and those that paid their dues already in establishing motive, evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated:
February 9, 2024
Electronic Sign – Philip Arthur Bonneau
Name:
Philip Arthur Bonneau
Title:
Self-Represented, Student, Employee, Alumni
Address:
2309 New York Ave.
Address:
City, State, Zip:
Savannah, GA 31404
Phone:
404-786-6261
Fax:
E-Mail:
Attorney No.:
Self-Represented
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Philip Arthur Bonneau, do hereby certify that I have this day mailed, U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing to __________________________________, at the following address; ___________________________________________________________________
THIS the ____ day of _____________, 20____.
_________________________________
Current through 2023-2024 Legislative Session Chapter 356
Section 15-1-4 - Extent of contempt power
(a) The powers of the several courts to issue attachments and inflict summary punishment for contempt of court shall extend only to cases of:
(1) Misbehavior of any person or persons in the presence of such courts or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice;
(2) Misbehavior of any of the officers of the courts in their official transactions;
(3) Disobedience or resistance by any officer of the courts, party, juror, witness, or other person or persons to any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command of the courts;
(4) Violation of subsection (a) of Code Section 34-1-3, relating to prohibited conduct of employers with respect to employees who are required to attend judicial proceedings; and
(5) Violation of a court order relating to the televising, videotaping, or motion picture filming of judicial proceedings.
(b) No person shall be imprisoned for contempt for failing or refusing to pay over money under any order, decree, or judgment of any court of law or any other court of this state when he denies that the money ordered or decreed to be paid over is in his power, custody, or control until he has a trial by jury in accordance with the following provisions:
(1) The allegation of the plaintiff, receiver, referee, or any other person or persons that the defendant accused of contempt has a certain sum of money within his power, custody, or control, which he is withholding or refuses or fails to pay over, and the denial of the defendant that he has the power, custody, or control of the money shall form the issue to be tried by the jury, and the jury shall decide the issue of fact;
(2) The issue being made, a bond may be required in the discretion of the court for the appearance of the defendant for trial, which bond shall be of sufficient size to ensure the attendance of the defendant to appear and answer the final judgment or decree in the case and shall be approved by the judge. On failure of the defendant to appear, the bond shall be forfeited as in criminal cases. If bond is required but not posted the defendant may be committed to jail for safekeeping until trial; and
(3) The judge presiding shall cause questions to be propounded in writing to the jury and every question propounded shall be answered by the jury in its verdict. Upon the answers made, the judge shall adjudge or decree whether the defendant is in contempt. Either party shall have the right to move for a new trial and to appeal as in other civil cases.
(c) When a person who is gainfully employed violates an order of the court granting temporary or permanent alimony or child support and the judge finds the person in contempt of court, the sentencing judge may sentence the respondent to a term of confinement in a diversion center and participation in a diversion program if such a program has been established by a county pursuant to the provisions of Article 5 of Chapter 3 of Title 42.
OCGA § 15-1-4
Amended by 2015 Ga. Laws 73,§ 5-1, eff. 7/1/2015.
___________________
I was attacked digitally yet again 2/9 and a great deal of content intellectual was deleted from my private computer in what has been 5.5 years direct attacks with no excuse from this perspective in what I have protected of boundaries, space and intellectual property.
Whatever the collective narrative, I am sure I am the same of one day knowing some and then put a very strong foot forward while respecting the back one.
In context, would someone really say, “I have murdered my chances” after what I lost today?
I imagine not in making college worth a damn and going from there in pre-industry standards of what others did with global nest eggs and what I protect of those yet to even be sat on.
5.5 years, who tried to murder me knowing my value and wanted to play group mentality?