Archive for January, 2012

Battle of Titles

Your Majesties,

I suggest that this game is not about the house or car or me or you but titles.

It is not the weight given what you say but the weight given what the titles say.

The SOB is the best evidence of title to the name of child on it.

The BC is best evidence of title to the title:

Notice here there is no me in the equation. I said, the SOB is best evidence of title to THE name of child on it and that the BC is best evidence of title to the title. The one with colour of title has the best claim except against the one holding the true title (e.g. land patent/SOB). The exception to that of course is that the holder of a BC has the best evidence of title to that title held by the government because they say it is the intent of your folks to give you the name on the SOB.  BC is not authorized as personal id.

So it is not about me but that I hold a BC which is the best evidence of title to the title and that the government is holding the title I have best title to. This may be why a BC is a 'valuable token'.

Do your own research.

With Love


Your Majesties

These are some general thoughts.

As we know the SOB is the foundation document of the BC and the BC is an extract or colour of title. The BC is also considered as a foundation document for Canadians. This gives birth to a legal person as Canadian Citizen and denotes a legal person or legal capacity.

Firstly, it may be that by using the colour of title (BC) in the public as we have, personal id, is why we end up with colour of title to whatever we get.  Hence working from the SOB, the foundation document is likely a better choice.

Now this legal person thing. You are either in your natural estate, capacity, as a sovereign, or in that of a legal person and it is the latter that is recognized in law and that is under statutory jurisdiction and subject to statutory authorities.

For example. Our friend signed in as the alleged tenant after having got the SOB in evidence. By signing in as such he was not identifying himself as a legal person, in that case, the tenant. A government lawyer appeared and told the court it does not have jurisdiction over this man, thus we can say in that case; man maintained his natural capacity as sovereign man and the existence of the SOB in the court record and him signing in as the alleged tenant had something to do with him being taken out of the equation as man. No doubt had he signed in as the tenant he would have been recognized and treated as the tenant, a legal person, capacity.

So to be a sovereign one must act like a sovereign. If you are going to give yourself a title of some sort, if at all, make sure it is one recognized or accepted in law that is true but not one subject to statutory jurisdiction. For example, the title man should be acceptable as that is what we are as should, child of God or son of God. Those titles will likely be ignored if one says that is what he is but then acts like a legal person. If you say you are a sovereign you'd best have proof to satisfy whoever you are trying to convince but I see no need for that as a sovereign is known by his actions. I doubt that the Queen goes around saying, I am the sovereign. She knows she is and simply walks the walk as did Jesus. This is the attitude we should consider adopting.

As Lee points out, man can be many capacities in law. I have read where one man played four roles/capacities and he was the only man involved. So, in one instance you may act as a legal person but in another act as a sovereign, or king, or another legal person. This may explain why in one instance you acted as a legal person that a debt or obligation was created but then can address it in another instant as sovereign. It seems to me that is what G did when she asked the court registrar to settle a debt and the registrar did. She as a legal person incurred a debt, defaulted and the bank got the judgement. Her next move she used the SOB along with a copy of the court judgement and asked that they settle the debt. It is settled.

Another example is the word driver. When you applied for and got a D.L. did you agree to change your status from man to that of legal person driver?

I ask that because in traffic court they deal with drivers, legal persons, constructs of legislation, but what if you said, when I applied for and got a D.L. I did not agree or consent to change my status from man to driver nor was I made aware such is the case if such is the case and I did not and do not consent to be a driver. At that point you should be treated as a man competent to use a car on the roads.

This is why it is good in my view to act like a king and ask for what you need because a king does not sign anything or get involved in situations he may be perceived as a legal person; tenant, driver, tax payer, citizen, debtor, creditor, customer, client, employee, bankrupt, person, subject, seller, vendor, buyer, purchaser, owner, etc. Further, a king does not rely on or quote laws is to justify himself by the law is to subject himself to it.

The point of all this is to notice when or how you convert yourself to or allow yourself to be converted from sovereign man to legal person. If it acts like a duck and quacks like a duck it is a legal person duck. If you do not convert yourself to a legal person e.g. to purchaser, or allow it, then you retain your sovereign status. The king does not sign contracts.

So we begin as what we are, men and women. But, at any moment in time we can become a legal person. In other words, the key is not in saying I am sovereign to be sovereign, but stop doing things that make us not sovereign.

The SOB is proof that you came into this world as a  sovereign under the control of your folks, thus, not really sovereign yet. But, at the moment you were no longer legally under the care of your folks is the instant in time you became a sovereign. What we did after that changed things but we can revert back to our true status anytime.

Lottsa love!



Hi Lovers

The government holds the SOB/COLB, our evidence of our title, highest authority, to the name on it, thus; our instructions in sovereign capacity, lord, superior, are authorized as the government being the holder of the evidence of your title, it is in capacity as trustee and trustees have that authority to do as instructed.

I mean, if you can open a bank account with an extract surely the trustee can open one with the foundation document (muniment).

In other words, a trustee is with the authority to carry out your instructions so long as they benefit or are good for or not a drain on the trust (his first duty is to the trust as yours should be), but he needs your empowerment to do it which he gets by way of your instructions. In other words, a trustee is with the authority to settle an account but, you must instruct him to do so and you must be in capacity as sovereign when giving the instructions and saying you are sovereign and acting like one is not the same. So don't say it, act it.

Do you know what it is like to be as a king, lord over a domain in common with others, a good servant? Don't say it, act it!

And to be clear, the trustees FIRST duty is to the trust not you. Your duty should also be to the trust, the one. If your instructions are not good for or beneficial to the trust, or you make this about you, the ways are many; it may very well be you'll get no performance or response.

You can see how it is set up that unless all benefit, no detriment, mutual benefit, your instructions will not likely be carried out because they will be deemed not in the best interest of the trust or not in the public interest or constitute breach of trust by trustee. This is like a fail safe in that if ones ego be in control, although he not see it or believe it, it will cloud his intent and come through in his words and actions. Love, voluntarily giving freely mentality and without consideration, voluntarily here to serve other self mentality, voluntarily sacrifice of self for other self mentality or, voluntarily me me me based you damaged me victim-hood mentality. A fine line indeed.

The war ends when two are one: A sovereign who not properly instruct his trustee/servant has an enemy. It not be the fault of the trustee for who but the sovereign is the leader and to who but the trust first and foremost is the allegiance of the trustee owed? Therefore, if the wishes of the sovereign conflict with the duties of the trustee, the trustee would assume full liability should he breach his duty to the trust and will not likely go there.

Consider that when you change... your perception of the trustee will change, but waste no energy to change or CORRECT the trustee.

On the other hand, when you give instructions that are good for or beneficial or not detrimental to the trust, your instructions as a sovereign empower and indemnify the trustee. I use words such as trust and trustee and sovereign and king and lord so the mind has something to latch onto concerning capacity. I am in no way suggesting any such words be employed beyond that.

Of course, before one would consider empowering anything he'd have to know him/herself to be empowered or as the source of empowerment.

With Love

More good reading

Hi Lovers

This is from the attachment uploaded here.

Another “ gem” that appears on page 1 of ATVLP is the cite and quote taken from Leading Fighter v. County of Gregory: “Patents are issued (and theoretically passed) between sovereigns.

That is why you cannot go out there paying for stuff but act like a sovereign.

The Final Solution to Property Tax

This information is shared to get you thinking, not doing.



A must Read

Hi Lovers

If you been doing studies on allodial title and allodial rights you may have noticed some emphasis was placed on 'registered voter' and 'citizenship'.

This attachment errant-sovereign handbook fell into my lap as a result of my studies. It seems there is more to this than we take into consideration of the overall picture. Good reason as I say not to take my word or the word of anyone sharing information but that each does his own due diligence so each knows what the heck they are talking about. An effect of doing your own due diligence is just as the author of the upload suggests people do not do and as has been suggested here the last few days, grow up, be like a king, and stop waiting for or relying on someone else to save your ass.

You are either as a leader or led.

Much emphasis has been put on the name and title, but, there may be more to it.




Maintenance and Communication of Register



44. (1) The Chief Electoral Officer shall maintain a register of Canadians who are qualified as electors, to be known as the Register of Electors.



(3) Inclusion in the Register of Electors is at the option of the elector.



52. (1) The Chief Electoral Officer shall delete from the Register of Electors the name of any person who

  • (a) is dead;
  • (b) is not an elector; or
  • (c) requests in writing to have his or her name deleted.

S. 15 Qualification of Electors

s. 17. 1 Permanent Register of Electors (see Sources of information)

Application re permanent register

17.1.2  (1)  An elector may apply to have his or her name added to or removed from the permanent register of electors in accordance with the following rules:

1. The application shall be accompanied by proof of the elector’s identity and place of residence in accordance with section 4.2.

2. During the period that begins with the issue of a writ for an election and ends on the day before polling day, the application may be submitted at a returning office.

3. At all other times except on polling day, the application may be,

i. submitted at the office of the clerk of any municipality with territorial jurisdiction in the electoral district, or

ii. sent to the office of the Chief Electoral Officer. 2007, c. 15, s. 8; 2010, c. 7, s. 13.


With love




Hi Lovers

As per the pdf I uploaded yesterday there are essentially two methods title can pass, by inheritance or purchase. The former is the only means by which true title passes.

God created the earth and gave man dominion over it. That is the beginning as for our inheritance and the right comes from God, not man or a civil power. This is why a civil power cannot give you allodial title for such title is our inherent right as heirs of God, as is the right to life.

So we can discern then that there are two ways to obtain title to property, by inheritance or by purchase. In other words, we have the choice to purchase property or acknowledge self as an heir of God thus bringing in the inheritance of title by descent.

What man or civil power can overrule or nullify the fact God created the earth and gave man dominion over it? If God did not give man dominion over the earth then from where did the right of inheritance come from? Dinosaurs had it then apes then the cave man who left his cave to his family and so on and so on.

As says in the pdf; "the law concerning descent and the descent of property reflects the Godly means of property ownership and is not commercial in any manner". God makes the heir not man is a law maxim.

In other words, people inherited property long before the concept of purchasing it was introduced by man, therefore, inheritance law is the oldest and must be Godly.

Allodial, an inheritance that is not held of any superior.

Anyhow, it seems that the only way to get true title is by way of inheritance, therefore, one accepts he is an heir of God or not and if so, acts on the knowingness.


Great Speech

Hi Lovers


Hi Lovers

The attachment uploaded here is something I drafted about 2 years ago. It is as relevant now as it was then.



I will say that the SOB is proof you are of God, thus an heir of God, but heirs of God cannot also serve mammon, contract, and pay a price.

Some say "they will not give you allodial title". Of course they will not; allodial title is not something that can be given any more than one can be given the right to life. It is an inherent right we each has as is the right to contract and work for money and pay for property.

I read and I agree that unless a man has allodial title to land he cannot claim successfully that he is sovereign. Sovereigns like Kings do not pay taxes. A man without sovereign land is like a King without a kingdom.

The Statement of Birth is evidence of your allodial title to the name of child on it, thus allodial title to property acquired in or to be acquired in that name may be requested. Ask and ye shall receive. What blocks us from our dominion over the earth, dominion over a homestead, is us contracting to pay for or renting property. To do such is to recognize the payee as the king is to be a tax payer.

In this day and age who holds the best title is the king over the thing and although we do not have actual possession of the SOB, evidence of allodial title to the name on it, we have constructive possession. I mean, to whom did your folks intend the name of child be given and just because the government has possession of the evidence (SOB) for safekeeping does not diminish your title one iota.

Therefore, you can be the Lord over your name if you so choose to be and subsequently property in that name because to get to the property they have to go through the name that you not THEY are Lord over.

The benefit or beneficiary aspect is that we are heirs of God but one must act like such an Heir and not like a servant of man or government. Jesus was tempted by the serpent, offered him a kingdom, but Jesus knew the serpents offer was bogus. Today people are tempted by marketing. Convincing us what we want and that to have it we must buy it or give something for it. Since when does an heir pay for his inheritance?

Free energy is a giving and receiving without stint.

With Love

The King and Legal/allodial title

Hi Lovers

I was shared some information yesterday that I do not know the accuracy of but nevertheless got me thinking. In this situation a guy asked for allodial title to a VIN # of a car.

He received the title in the mail and went to pick up the car. The car was already paid for. Say what? Let me get this right, the guy asked for allodial title to the car, got the title, but he did not pay for the car but the dealer was paid for the car. It is said the police got involved because the dealer refused to give the guy his car.  His car because he held the title to the car, not a permit like we all get. The police saw the guy had the title and told the dealer to give him his car

The guy asked the cops, so you do not have a problem if i drive this car with no license or insurance and the cops said, this is yours to do as you please with that title.

What I gleaned from this, again I do not know the truth, is that by holding the actual title the guy held priority claim to the car. In other words, with that title no other, not even the system or cops can touch that car, nor does the user need a license or insurance. We know that when we pay for a car the state gets the legal title so what we are seeing here is that whoever gets the legal title does not pay and has control.

The point here is that the holder of the legal title is the king over the thing represented by the title, paper. See, when we pay the car is registered with the state and we get a permit because the state got the legal title. Further, if we act as the purchaser we must produce government id some of which may make the king look like a debtor. So we work from our title (SOB) to make requests or via that what acknowledges the existence of our title and where the evidence is held, which the BC does since it is not personal id but is an extract of THE foundation document/SOB.

This is why they say you need a license and insurance because you are not holding the legal title, whereas, what this guy did he ended up with the title and the state paid for the car. This is backward to what we have been thinking. We are thinking the legal title holder has the liability but what I see is not so, the legal title holder does not pay because the legal title holder is the king over the thing.

The exception is that the title is held by another for another. In that case, the holder of the evidence of title has the liability because the title is not his title, he is the holder of title belonging to another.

The holder of legal title is the sovereign and does the state not claim itself to be sovereign. Perhaps the reason is because it gets the titles. Perhaps the reason we are not sovereign is because we do not get the title. This guy asked for the title and got it and the government paid for the car. So says the information i received.

Now, there was a bit of information lacking in the information I received, in particular, the guy said he wanted the title in "this name", but it did not indicate which name. This got me wondering which name he meant and after thought I think the name is the one on the SOB. Why, because that document is evidence of our title, not the governments title. Further, we keep paying which one, has us serving mammon and two, the legal title holder is not the liable party because the legal title holder is the king and no one can tell the king what to do.

If you are reading between the lines here we see why nothing we do works because we are not dealing with the legal title aspect.

Years ago my cousin made a boat trailer by hand and had it registered. There was no document of title but they registered it as 'Homemade' and said, this trailer cannot be seized and I think the reason is that because he made it by hand, there was no document of title, thus no transfer of rights; my cousin holds the legal title to the trailer.

So it seems to me it is better to be the legal title holder rather than the equitable title holder. Legal title holder has right of possession.

Legal title: Ownership of property that is cognizable or enforceable in a court of law, or one that is complete and perfect in terms of the apparent right of ownership and possession, but that, unlike equitable title, carries no beneficial interest in the property.

When the government holds legal title it has the apparent right of ownership and possession, hence can dictate to the user of property the terms of use. For example, you must license and insure this car, or, pay the taxes or you will loose the property.

But, we have the right to request the title to property because the government is holding the evidence of our title, being the SOB. In other words, if you deal specifically with the SOB, being evidence of your title, and request the title to say a car be in that name on the SOB, you have the right to request and receive the title to the car. You have the apparent right of ownership and possession but no beneficial interest. The reason for that is because the government is holder the evidence of your title, the SOB.

What i see now is we have been thinking about this incorrectly. Since the government holds the evidence of our title to the name given us, the SOB, we can do business in that name/title, but, and this seems to be the crux of the matter, we should not be paying the price and then claiming the car is our car because it is not, we do not hold the legal title in that case. The government got it when the dealer registered the car. What we can do so the car is our car, so we hold the title, is ask for the title.

We do not want equitable title we want legal title. We keep saying we are heirs of God and all is given and i believe it is, but our problem has been how we go about obtaining property. To obtain what God has given us first off we cannot pay for it for that is to recognize another as superior or the lord. Further, one has to partake in serving mammon.

The fact the government is holding evidence of our title to the name property may be acquired in, all we have to do is ask. Put it this way, if you had possession of the SOB would you not have full control over the name on it and derived of it? Of course you would but we do not hold it the government does, but it is our title or evidence of it and that is why the government has to pay.

No one can tell the holder of legal title what to do, end of story. This is why the government does not respond to you. They are holding the evidence of our legal title to the name but we have not claimed it or acknowledged it as the evidence of our title they are holding. Until we do they are filling the role of king, the sovereign. By acknowledging the title is your title, legal title, title in allodium, you go from child under control of government to child of God with control over the legal name/account and dominion.

I will say this again because it is a bit of a mind bender. The one entitled to legal title to something does not pay for it. That one is the king or lord. This is how we go from tenant to landlord. As each and everyone of us has a document held by the government that is evidence of OUR title, not the governments, we can when we so choose take control. As holder of our legal title the government recognizes we are the kings, lords, but, we have not recognized ourselves as such let alone stepped up to the plate.

I was told of a guy who came into court screaming, what are you fucks doing to my name. He screamed and yelled and had them all flustered, finally the judge said what do you want and he said, this case dismissed and bang, down came the gavel, case dismissed. This guy knew the government is holding the evidence of title to his name and acted on it taking no guff.

Now, back to our guy who allegedly got the title to the car. By obtaining that car in the manner he did he did not have to purchase insurance and was not required to hold a driver license. Such applies not to the legal title holder but the equitable title holder, in this case the government or public. This may explain why if you have a car that was registered by the dealer the government will not pay for the insurnace and will seize the car if uninsured etc. The government in that case holds the legal title you did not ask for but gave up when the dealer registered the title.

In that case the government has the legal title to the car so it may be to be free of the need for license or insurance one must obtain a car by asking for the title. That way the car if registered has the requester as the legal title holder, the king over the car and no or cop one can touch that car.

From what I am seeing now there are two ways we can interface with the system. The way we have and we pay, or ask for the title and the government pays. Hard to fathom I know but based on what this guy did to get the car, true or not, the fact is he who holds legal title is in control and is it not said, own nothing but control everything?

So, the government holds the evidence of our title to the name property can be obtained in. That is our title not the governments therefore although we do not hold the SOB, we are the legal title holder or owner of the name property can be obtained in. That puts one in control of the holder of the SOB. If we held the SOB  we would have to pay but we would also have absolute ownership of the property and no other could take it. But as the title to our name is our title we have full right to request the title to this and that, house, car, etc. Since the government holds the SOB the public, Ontario, Canada, would be the beneficiary.

Big thing as I see it is we must claim the SOB as evidence of our title which would make us as the legal title holder and no one can tell the legal title holder what to do. They can tell the legal title holder what to do but the legal title holder does not have to listen. We must request title to property and that it be in the name on the SOB, the evidence of our title.

Now some of us made the claim to our title but all we did was tell them how it is, we never gave them the servants something to do like the guy who requested title to the VIN #. In other words, it is one thing to indicate to the government that you know it is holding the evidence of your title but if you not give them something to do there is no point to the communication is what I am saying.

Bottom line is everything stems from the SOB, the evidence of our title to the name. If we not act like that title is our title, and we have not, then the government uses that title to acquire control over us and our silence or ignorance is allowing it to continue. Like the guy in the court story above, obviously he came to know they were messing with his name he has legal title to and he said enough is enough and took charge.

This is a reason i say, time to start acting like a king because a king who knows he is a king, your majesty, does not take orders from servants.

A king does not require a bank account he has servants that take care of that stuff. He does not go out and purchase a car, he tells his servants he wants one and which one. A king does not sign anything binding on his, he has servants to take care of business. The king does not receive bills and then send them to government and the king does not enter into contracts unless he consents.

The BC is evidence that the government holds the evidence of your title, nothing more. SOB is the foundation document of the BC. Who owns or has the rights in the a basement (foundation document) controls whatever is built on it.

So, we each is a king/queen, your majesty, and the government our servants. Servants because they hold the evidence of our title making us the legal title holder and king.

So we are on the similar page here, we can obtain property and necessities by buying them or by asking for them. Ask and it is given. Ask and you shall receive as it seems our friend did who asked for title to a VIN#. Again, I do not know the truth of that story but neither here no there. What matters is, who has legal title is the one in charge, in control. The SOB is evidence of such title but our title not the governments. The government is holding it is all and so long as it does, it has the responsibility to pay because the public not you is the beneficiary. The government is entrusted with the evidence of your title it does not own it. As it is evidence of your title, you are or can be in charge whenever you wish to grow up and take charge of your life.

So we are clear, being in charge does not mean the king goes out and contracts for a car or hydro and then asks his servants to pay for it. He goes to his servants to do that and this is what we have failed to do and why in my view, actions we have taken to date failed.

So what makes you the king, highest authority over your name and names derived of the title, is the fact the government is holding the evidence of your title to the name given you. Therefore, you are with full authority to be in control. Not own, control. Legal title holder has control but you have to exercise that control. No need to tell the gov you have control unless you are going to give them something to do. If they fail to do as you ask then you may determine that by holding the SOB the government is NOT holding evidence of your title because if they do not do as you request, they are saying we do not have to, and only the legal title holder of his own title can do that.

Do you get what I am saying. If you instruct the government as holder of the evidence of your title to do something and they do not then that evidence cannot be evidence of your title but the governments title because the legal title holder is subject to no one, or as some would say, is the soveriegn.

Again, if in fact the SOB is evidence of your title to the title, then when asked to do something the government must do it because it is holding your evidence. But if it not do as you ask then it must be because the SOB is not evidence of your title to the title/name. If such was to go that way, at that point you may wish to give back all government documentation and if not, you do so knowing you will be its subject/child til death.

I love you

Keep yourself out of the equation

Hi Lovers

Hopefully you have read and understand the content and intent and purpose of the 'doc' attached with the previous post.

You notice I said I do not know for whose benefit the name was secured by registration. There is a reason for that. All names recognized in law, on and of the BC, are founded on the SOB. The SOB is the foundational document of the BC and the BC the foundation document of all names recognized in law, the public. The government does not register people but events and a SOB is evidence of title to the names recognized in law, not you.

Now, since it is the name recognized in law not you, and the government holds title to the names, if you claim to be the beneficiary are you not then making yourself as the name or recognizable in law when in fact they only see the name, titles?

I mean, how can you be recognized as the beneficiary unless it be via the name recognized in law that the government holds title to and that you say is not your name? In other words, in my case BVR is the beneficiary on paper and the government holds the evidence of title to that name and so long as I do not claim to be a or the beneficiary then it cannot be said i benefit or that i own anything. You see, there is much talk of beneficiary, but of what?

Beneficiary can imply of a trust in which case you have to produce the trust document that shows you are a beneficiary which no one has shown me to exist, or it can imply beneficiary of a contract or law. Since there is no trust document the application of the meaning of the word beneficiary then can only mean of a contract or government benefits etc. To be such a beneficiary means, who receives the benefit ought also bear the burden.

Further, as Gods/creators, does it make sense to cry - "I am a beneficiary".

So it may be that the SOB is proof of the intent of your folks to give you that name but what proof have you it was given to you when you do not have possession of the SOB? This is why I said in that letter to the County, I honesty do not know who the donee is of that name because to say I am i would have to have the SOB but I do  not. Therefore the donee is whoever holds the SOB. No one can point to the name on the SOB and prove that name was given to me is ridiculous.

I also said, I do not know for whose benefit the name was secured by registration. If it was secured for my benefit I would have documentation in my possession to prove it but I do not. So based on calling it as i see it, the government is the donee of the name and secured the name not for my benefit but it does not excuse the holder of title from liability.

How can it be for my benefit when I have no documentation whatsoever that proves that I am the donee of the name or that full legal title was transferred or assigned to me?

As I see it this all comes down to who has the liability for the name. If you say or do anything that requires the attachment of a name/title to you in order to recognize you as what you say you are e.g. executor or beneficiary or owner, or tenant, it will be by the very name you are trying to free yourself of liability from. They recognize the name of the SOB in law not a name of your head.

As much as I cannot prove I hold title to any name recognized in law nor can any of them prove I do. I know there is no evidence in existence that proves I hold title to a name recognized in law and is why I told the debt collector for the County of Hastings back in 2009; if anything he does affects me one iota criminal charges will be filed.

There is no way he or anyone can prove that I am the source of origin of the name recognized in law or that I hold title to it. It does not exist, therefore, best keep myself out of the equation.

I love you


Hi Lovers

The attachment is shared as a gift.  The registration (paper trail) mentioned is of a birth and the document the SOB/COLB.


PIF #1

I do not include a copy of the SOB/COLB or BC. I said what I said and steered the County to seek the truth. I know they cannot trace the name to me, but even if they did, for whose benefit was it secured by registration? If mine, they know they will have to pay me what they expect to gain from me, or, if not secured for my benefit, to stick the liability to me is fraud.

The debts are based on court ordered fines and by going to the CAO of the corporation I am going to the source. Dealing with debt collectors is easy but they just pass the account to another collector. This method goes to the source, the actual claimant.

If you choose to use the letter you do so at your own risk.

I love you!


Happy New Life

Hi Lovers

This is to let you know that I was away for a few days. I am back now and thank very much those of you who made donations so we can keep posting here and stay in communication. Thank you very much. I really appreciate your help. I also thank those who would have helped but are not in a position to do so.

Thank you much

I love you.............

SEO Powered by Platinum SEO from Techblissonline