DOCSLIB.ORG

Court of Queen=S Bench of Alberta

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Court of Queen=S Bench of Alberta Court of Queen=s Bench of Alberta Citation: Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 Date: 20120918 Docket: 4803 155609 Registry: Edmonton Between: 2012 ABQB 571 (CanLII) Crystal Lynne Meads Appellant - and - Dennis Larry Meads Respondent Editorial Notice: On behalf of the Government of Alberta personal data identifiers have been removed from this unofficial electronic version of the judgment. _______________________________________________________ Reasons for Decision of the Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke _______________________________________________________ ii Table of Contents I. Introduction to Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument [OPCA] Litigants .. 1 II. The Present Litigation ...................................................................................................... 2 A. Prior Activity ......................................................................................................... 3 B. The June 8, 2012 Hearing..................................................................................... 4 C. Subsequent Developments .................................................................................... 9 D. The Purposes of These Reasons ......................................................................... 12 1. Ms. Meads ................................................................................................. 12 2. Mr. Meads ................................................................................................. 12 3. A Broad Set of OPCA Concepts and Materials ........................................ 13 4. Mr. Meads Faces No Unexpected Sanction .............................................. 14 III. Overview of these Reasons ............................................................................................. 14 2012 ABQB 571 (CanLII) IV. The OPCA Phenomenon ................................................................................................ 15 A. Characteristics of OPCA Group Members ...................................................... 18 B. The OPCA Guru ................................................................................................. 19 1. Russell Porisky and the Paradigm Education Group ................................ 19 2. Other Canadian Gurus............................................................................... 22 a. David Kevin Lindsay ..................................................................... 22 b. John Ruiz Dempsey ....................................................................... 25 c. Robert Arthur Menard .................................................................. 29 d. Eldon Gerald Warman .................................................................. 30 e. David J. Lavigne ........................................................................... 31 f. Edward Jay Robin Belanger ......................................................... 32 g. Other Gurus .................................................................................. 34 h. Mr. Meads Guru............................................................................ 35 3. How Gurus Operate .................................................................................. 36 C. OPCA Litigants ................................................................................................... 37 D. OPCA Movements............................................................................................... 40 1. Detaxers .................................................................................................... 40 2. Freemen-on-the-Land................................................................................ 40 3. Sovereign Men or Sovereign Citizens ...................................................... 41 4. The Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International [CERI]........... 43 5. Moorish Law ............................................................................................. 44 6. Conclusion - OPCA Movements .............................................................. 45 V. Indicia of OPCA Litigants, Litigation, and Strategies ................................................ 46 A. Documentary Material ....................................................................................... 46 1. Name Motifs ............................................................................................. 47 2. Document Formalities and Markings........................................................ 48 3. Specific Phrases and Language................................................................. 50 4. Legislation and Legal Documents............................................................. 51 5. Atypical Mailing Addresses...................................................................... 53 6. Conclusion and Summary of Documentary Indicia .................................. 54 B. In Court Conduct ................................................................................................ 54 1. Demands.................................................................................................... 54 iii 2. Documentation .......................................................................................... 56 3. Names and Identification .......................................................................... 56 4. Court Authority or Jurisdiction ................................................................. 57 5. Other In-Court Motifs ............................................................................... 58 6. Summary of In-Court Indicia .................................................................... 58 C. Conclusion - OPCA Indicia ................................................................................ 59 1. Procedural Responses to Suspected OPCA Documents ........................... 59 2. Courtroom Procedure Responses to Suspected OPCA Litigants.............. 60 VI. OPCA Concepts and Arguments ................................................................................... 61 A. The Litigant is Not Subject to Court Authority ............................................... 62 1. Restricted Court Jurisdiction..................................................................... 62 a. Admiralty or Military Courts ........................................................ 62 2012 ABQB 571 (CanLII) b. Notaries are the Real Judges ........................................................ 64 c. Religion or Religious Belief Trumps the Courts ........................... 64 2. Defective Court Authority ........................................................................ 66 a. Oaths ............................................................................................. 66 b. The Court Proves It Has Jurisdiction and Acts Fairly ................. 67 c. Court Formalities.......................................................................... 68 d. The State is Defective .................................................................... 69 e. Conclusion - Defective Court Authority ....................................... 69 3. Immune to Court Jurisdiction - Magic Hats ............................................. 69 a. I Belong to an Exempt Group ....................................................... 70 b. I Declare Myself Immune .............................................................. 73 c. I Have Been Incorrectly Identified................................................ 74 d. I Am Subject to a Different Law.................................................... 75 e. Conscientious Objector................................................................. 77 f. Tax-Related Magic Hats ............................................................... 78 g. Miscellaneous................................................................................ 80 4. The Inherent Authority of Provincial Superior Courts ............................. 81 a. Superior Courts of Inherent Jurisdiction ...................................... 81 b. Procedural Jurisdiction ................................................................ 82 c. Subject Jurisdiction....................................................................... 84 d. Inherent Jurisdiction vs. OPCA Strategies and Concepts ............ 86 B. Obligation Requires Agreement ........................................................................ 87 1. Defeating Legislation ................................................................................ 88 2. Everything is a Contract............................................................................ 89 3. Consent is Required .................................................................................. 92 4. Conclusion - Obligation Requires Agreement .......................................... 93 5. Court Misconduct by Everything is a Contract and Consent is Required Litigants .................................................................................................... 93 C. Double/Split Persons ........................................................................................... 94 1. Unshackling the Strawman ....................................................................... 96 2. Dividing Oneself ....................................................................................... 97 3. In-Court Behaviour of the Divided Person ............................................... 99 iv 4. Conclusion - Double/Split Person Schemes............................................ 101 D. Unilateral Agreements .....................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Meet Your Strawman
    Meet Your Strawman This is a picture of "The Houses of Parliament" in London, England. Let's have a little quiz: 1. Who meets there? 2. What do they do there? 3. Do they help you in any way? If your answers were: 1. "Members of the government" 2. "They represent all the people living in the country" and 3. "Yes, they create laws to protect me and my family. Then let me congratulate you on getting every one of the answers wrong. Didn't do too well on that quiz? OK, let's have another go: 4. When was slavery abolished? 5. Was slavery legal? 6. Are you in debt to a financial institution? Here are the answers: 1. The serving officers of a commercial company. 2. They think up ways to take money and goods from you. 3. No, absolutely not, they help themselves and not you. 4. Slavery has NEVER been abolished and you yourself, are considered to be a slave right now. 5. Yes, slavery is "legal" although it is not "lawful" (you need to discover the difference). 6. No. You are NOT in debt to any financial institution. 1 Does this seem a little strange to you? If it does, then read on: THOSE IN POWER HAVE A BIG SECRET Paying tax is OPTIONAL !! Registering a vehicle is OPTIONAL !! Paying a fine is OPTIONAL !! Attending a court is OPTIONAL !! YOU CAN IF YOU WANT TO, BUT YOU DON’T HAVE TO Surprised? Well – try this for size: Every Mortgage and Loan is FULLY REPAID from day one – you can pay it again if you want to, but you don’t have to !! If nobody nobody has told that you that you have a Strawman, then this could be a very interesting experience for you.
    [Show full text]
  • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta the Law Courts A1 Sir Winston Churchill Square Edmonton Alberta T5J-0R2
    Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: AVI v MHVB, 2020 ABQB 489 Date: 20200826 Docket: FL03 55142 Registry: Edmonton Between: AVI Applicant and MHVB Respondent and Jacqueline Robinson, a.k.a. Jacquie Phoenix Third Party and Unauthorized Alleged Representative _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Honourable Mr. Justice Robert A. Graesser _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction [1] Pseudolaw is a collection of spurious legally incorrect ideas that superficially sound like law, and purport to be real law. In layman’s terms, pseudolaw is pure nonsense. [2] Pseudolaw is typically employed by conspiratorial, fringe, criminal, and dissident minorities who claim pseudolaw replaces or displaces conventional law. These groups attempt to Page: 2 gain advantage, authority, and other benefits via this false law. In Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 [Meads], Associate Chief Justice Rooke reviewed many forms of and variations on pseudolaw that have been deployed in Canada. In his decision, he described populations and personalities that use these ideas, and explained how these “Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument” [“OPCA”] concepts are legally false and universally rejected by Canadian courts. Rooke ACJ concluded OPCA strategies are instead scams promoted to gullible, ill-informed, and often greedy individuals by unscrupulous “guru” personalities. Employing pseudolaw is always an abuse of court processes, and warrants immediate court response: Unrau v National Dental Examining Board, 2019 ABQB 283 at paras 180, 670-671 [Unrau #2]. [3] To date Canada has weathered two waves of pseudolaw. In the 2000 “Detaxers” held seminars and taught classes on how to supposedly avoid paying income tax, for example by claiming that ROBERT GRAESSER is a legal person and a taxpayer, while Robert-A.: Graesser is a physical human being and therefore exempt from tax: Meads at paras 87-98.
    [Show full text]
  • Extremism and Victimhood in the U.S. Context
    Extremism and Victimhood in the U.S. Context R. Bennett Furlow Report No. 1204 / November 5, 2012 The CSC is a research unit of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and a strategic initiative of the Hugh Downs School of Human Communication at Arizona State University. It promotes advanced research, teaching, and public discussions of the role of communication in combating terrorism, promoting national security, and improving public diplomacy. For additional information visit our website at http://csc.asu.edu EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Political extremism is not a new phenomenon. From the Know-Nothing Party of the 1850s to the Weather Underground of the 1960s, political extremism has been a present force on both the political right and left. This study looks at four modern day extremist groups, two from the right and two from the left, and examines their use of rhetoric and narrative. A comparison is also made between these groups and the Islamist groups that the Center for Strategic Communication has been studying for the past three years. The written and visual rhetoric of these groups shows how they create an image of themselves (in a heroic light) and their opponents (in a villainous light). The idea of victimhood is central to the way these groups form their image of themselves and their enemies. They all use victimhood to justify their actions. In the end all of these groups, regardless of their political affiliation, employ the same techniques to sway their audience and more importantly, justify their own actions and beliefs. Getting someone to reject deeply held beliefs is a near impossible task.
    [Show full text]
  • A Rebellion of Furious Paper: Pseudolaw As a Revolutionary Legal System Donald J
    A Rebellion of Furious Paper: Pseudolaw as a Revolutionary Legal System Donald J. Netolitzky1 Paper delivered at the Centre d’expertise et de formation sur les intégrismes religieux et la radicalisation (CEFIR) symposium: “Sovereign Citizens in Canada”, Montreal, 3 May 2018 Abstract Pseudolaw is a collection of legal-sounding but false rules that purport to be law. Though pseudolaw is now encountered by courts and government actors in many countries world-wide, pseudolaw is remarkably constant, nation-to-nation. This observation is explained by the crystallization circa 1999-2000 of a matrix of pseudolaw concepts interwoven with a conspiratorial anti- government narrative. This Pseudolaw Memeplex was incubated in the US Sovereign Citizen community. The Memeplex then spread internationally and into additional anti-government communities. That expansion either complemented or replaced other pre-existing pseudolaw systems. The Sovereign Citizen Pseudolaw Memeplex has six core concepts: 1) everything is a contract, 2) silence means agreement, 3) legal action requires an injured party, 4) government authority is defective or limited, 5) the “Strawman” duality, and 6) monetary and banking conspiracy theories. Only the defective government authority component shows significant national- and community-based variation. This adaptation is necessary for the Memeplex to plausibly operate with a new non-Sovereign Citizen host population. The “Strawman” duality is second-order pseudolaw, in that the 1 Donald J. Netolitzky (Ph.D. Microbiology, University of Alberta, 1995, LL.B., University of Alberta, 2005) is the Complex Litigant Management Counsel for the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench. The views expressed in this paper are those of the author, and not those of any other member of the Court of Queen’s Bench, or the Court itself.
    [Show full text]
  • From Paper Terrorists to Cop Killers: the Sovereign Citizen Threat Charles E
    NORTH CAROLINA LAW REVIEW Volume 93 | Number 4 Article 4 5-1-2015 From Paper Terrorists to Cop Killers: The Sovereign Citizen Threat Charles E. Loeser Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Charles E. Loeser, From Paper Terrorists to Cop Killers: The Sovereign Citizen Threat, 93 N.C. L. Rev. 1106 (2015). Available at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr/vol93/iss4/4 This Comments is brought to you for free and open access by Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Carolina Law Review by an authorized administrator of Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 93 N.C. L. REV. 1106 (2015) From Paper Terrorists to Cop Killers: The Sovereign Citizen Threat* INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 1106 I. FROM THE POSSE TO RUBY RIDGE –THE BEGINNINGS OF A FAR-RIGHT MOVEMENT ....................................................... 1111 A. The Posse Comitatus ........................................................... 1111 B. Tax Protestors ...................................................................... 1112 C. The Militia Movement ......................................................... 1113 II. SOVEREIGN CITIZENS................................................................ 1118 A. Beliefs .................................................................................... 1120 B. Tactics ..................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Archived Content Contenu Archivé
    ARCHIVED - Archiving Content ARCHIVÉE - Contenu archivé Archived Content Contenu archivé Information identified as archived is provided for L’information dont il est indiqué qu’elle est archivée reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It est fournie à des fins de référence, de recherche is not subject to the Government of Canada Web ou de tenue de documents. Elle n’est pas Standards and has not been altered or updated assujettie aux normes Web du gouvernement du since it was archived. Please contact us to request Canada et elle n’a pas été modifiée ou mise à jour a format other than those available. depuis son archivage. Pour obtenir cette information dans un autre format, veuillez communiquer avec nous. This document is archival in nature and is intended Le présent document a une valeur archivistique et for those who wish to consult archival documents fait partie des documents d’archives rendus made available from the collection of Public Safety disponibles par Sécurité publique Canada à ceux Canada. qui souhaitent consulter ces documents issus de sa collection. Some of these documents are available in only one official language. Translation, to be provided Certains de ces documents ne sont disponibles by Public Safety Canada, is available upon que dans une langue officielle. Sécurité publique request. Canada fournira une traduction sur demande. COUNTERING THE TERRORIST THREAT IN CANADA: AN INTERIM REPORT Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence The Honourable Daniel Lang Chair The Honourable Grant Mitchell Deputy
    [Show full text]
  • 609 the History of the Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument Phenomenon in Canada I. Introduction
    THE ORGANIZED PSEUDOLEGAL COMMERCIAL ARGUMENT PHENOMENON 609 THE HISTORY OF THE ORGANIZED PSEUDOLEGAL COMMERCIAL ARGUMENT PHENOMENON IN CANADA DONALD J. NETOLITZKY* This article discusses the history of the poorly understood Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments (OPCA) phenomena. Drawing from various reported and unreported sources, the author begins his review in the 1950s with two distinct pseudolegal traditions that evolved separately in both the United States and Canada. Focusing on the prominent members of each era of the OPCA movement, the author explains in depth the concepts behind the movement and what it means for the legal system in Canada today. The article culminates with an analysis of the current OPCA groups and how Canadian courts should respond to future OPCA litigants, while also giving reasons as to why it is important for Canadians to take notice of this movement due to potential security risks. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ............................................. 610 II. TWO SEPARATE PSEUDOLEGAL TRADITIONS ...................... 613 III. THE PRE-DETAXERS ......................................... 613 IV. THE DETAXER MOVEMENT ................................... 616 A. THE US INFLUENCE: WARMAN, KYBURZ, MULJIANI ............ 617 B. THE PRE-DETAXERS’ SUCCESSORS: BUTTERFIELD, WATSON, MCMORDIE, CANADIAN DETAX GROUP ............. 618 C. THE DETAXER SCHOLAR: DAVID KEVIN LINDSAY .............. 620 D. ONTARIO GURUS: KENNEDY, LAVIGNE ...................... 621 E. ABORIGINAL DETAXER: AGECOUTAY, A.K.A. KING KANEEKANEET
    [Show full text]
  • Argument from Illusions Into Reality
    ARGUMENT FROM ILLUSIONILLUSIONSSSS into I have unwittingly ruined my country. President Wilson, upon passage of the Federal Reserve Act, 1913 REALITY Website under construction E-mail Alec for regular updates [email protected] 1 My views without prejudice, all rights reserved Alec McGregor of the family Cairns Through my research, all Information, is in the Public domain. Well it will be after you have read it. As Gandhi reminded us, ‘The Earth has enough for everyone’s needs, but not for some people’s greed.’ 2 CONTENTS Introduction 4 Bank of England 8 Democratic Societies 11 Certificate of Birth 15 Your Strawman is being traded 20 Housing 27 Why Bankers get billions and people get debt 31 Ownership of the Federal Reserve 40 IMF 60 How to curb the population 67 League of Nations / United Nations 77 In the year 2525 79 One World Order 81 Conclusion 88 3 Introduction Born on the 2 nd February 1948 AD, Flesh and Blood, pure, innocent, and without any foresight into the journey I was about to embark on throughout the remainder of my un-natural life, due to the fact that what should have been was not. Neither did my Mom and Dad for that matter have any inclination on what was evolving, I do not believe they had the slightest idea of how they had been manipulated, into a system of entrapment. And in an era with nearly zero inflation, why should they, the standard of living was acceptable, even with all the screws being tightened by the progressive few, “You know who.” I remember whilst growing up, my mom used to send me to the corner café for ticky soup greens, yes we were still on Pounds Shillings and Pence then, Decimal Dan only came at a later stage, that was the changing from the Imperial to the Metric system.
    [Show full text]
  • Unrau V National Dental Examining Board, 2019 ABQB 283
    Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Unrau v National Dental Examining Board, 2019 ABQB 283 Date: 20190425 Docket: 1801 12350 Registry: Calgary Between: Bernie Unrau Plaintiff - and - National Dental Examining Board - Jack Gerrow, Canadian Dental Association, Ethics Board, Attn: Alberta Dental Association, re: death threat by Brian Ruddy etc., AB Health c/o Foothills Hosp., Rockyview Hosp. Ethics and Complaints Officer, CND Human Rights Commission, Office of Ethics Commissioner of Canada, NSDT c/o Gov’t of Canada, NAIT, City of Calgary - Legal and Corporate Security et al, US Dep’t of Justice/FBI re Amblin, Amazon et al, copyright infringements, lawyers misbehaviour, political prejudice judge, theft of IP Defendants _______________________________________________________ Reasons for Decision of the Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke _______________________________________________________ Summary: Unrau filed a Statement of Claim that made bald allegations which did not reference any of the eleven named Defendants specifically, but, nevertheless, sought $5 million and impossible remedies. The Court, on its own motion, initiated a Rule 3.68 “show cause” procedure that required Unrau to identify a valid basis for his action. Unrau made no reply. His lawsuit was struck out as an abusive and vexatious proceeding. The remaining issue is whether Unrau should immediately be subject to ongoing court access restrictions by a vexatious litigant order. This requires that the Court evaluate Unrau’s litigation conduct, and determine whether Lymer v Jonsson, 2016 ABCA 32 is a Page: ii binding authority that requires an additional court process prior to imposing indefinite court access restrictions. Held: Unrau is, and should be, immediately subject to court access restrictions by a vexatious litigant order, that declares him to be a vexatious litigant.
    [Show full text]
  • Manifiesto Para Una Vida Libre De Dinero
    MANIFIESTO PARA UNA VIDA LIBRE DE DINERO Mark Boyle DE LA TRADUCTORA He traducido este libro de forma desinteresada porque la propuesta de Mark resonó muy profundamente en mí y sentí que su experiencia y su mensaje son vvvaliosovaliosoaliosossss,, necesarionecesariossss e inspiradorinspiradoreseseses.. Si al leerlo experimentas esa resonancia, hazlo llegar a otras personas con la misma incondicionalidad que perfuma sus líneas. Gracias. Un abrazo desde el corazón A Para más información sobre el autor y el libro puedes visitar: http://www.moneylessmanifesto.org/ 2 AGRADECIMIENTOS Y CONTRIBUCIONES DEDICATORIA Al día que la Humanidad vuelva a caminar con humildad, conexión y gran corazón en lo Salvaje y a esa pequeña parte de cada uno y cada una que sabe que hay una historia más sublime, más digna, más gloriosa que los números. AGRADECIMIENTOS El reconocimiento y la celebración de la interconexión y de la interdependencia con toda la vida es un tema predominante en este libro, así que debo comenzar diciendo gracias a algunos de aquellos que no tienen mucho reconocimiento en la Era de Las Máquinas. A las algas y a los árboles por llenar mis pulmones con aire fresco, al suelo por el alimento que me da cada día, al Sol tanto por su calor como por sus reflejos en los cuerpos de agua de nuestro planeta, quienes merecen el agradecimiento por hidratarme tan generosamente y por regalarme incontables baños. A las lombrices por cavar, a las abejas por polinizar y a las campánulas por repicar ♥. En lugar de escribir palabras que nunca leerán y que serán inútiles para ellos si no se actúa, el mejor modo de agradecer su incalificable contribución a mi vida y a este trabajo es defender y proteger su salud al máximo de mis posibilidades a partir de este momento, algo que no he hecho demasiado bien hasta ahora.
    [Show full text]
  • After the Hammer: Five Years of Meads V Meads
    See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325190780 After the Hammer: Five Years of Meads v Meads Preprint · January 2019 DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19916.31367 CITATIONS READS 0 530 1 author: Donald Netolitzky Alberta Court of Queen's Bench 15 PUBLICATIONS 62 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: Pseudolaw View project All content following this page was uploaded by Donald Netolitzky on 17 May 2018. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. This paper has been accepted for publication in a forthcoming issue of the Alberta Law Review After the Hammer: Five Years of Meads v Meads Donald J. Netolitzky1 I. Introduction On September 19, 2012, Associate Chief Justice Rooke of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench issued Meads v Meads [Meads],2 a very unusual, and arguably unprecedented, 736 paragraph decision in response to, of all things, an application to move a contentious divorce matter into case management. Case management was, in fact, granted, but, more importantly, Meads also responded to a collection of unorthodox documents and arguments advanced by the husband, Dennis Larry Meads. He purported to name the case management justice his fiduciary, unilaterally imposed a scheme of fines on anyone who would interact with him or use his name, and detailed a contract between himself (DENNIS LARRY MEADS) and himself (::Dennis-Larry: Meads::) which said Mr. “Meads” could pay his spousal and child support obligations from Mr. “MEADS”’ $100 billion dollar public treasury bank account.
    [Show full text]
  • We the Undersigned- 2019 Survey: Comments and Findings 1
    We The Undersigned- 2019 Survey: comments and findings 1 We The Undersigned- 2019 Survey: comments and findings 2 We The Undersigned- 2019 Survey: comments and findings 3 We The Undersigned- 2019 Survey: comments and findings Employment History Carer Yes Chef 30 years in IT currently a director of N/A an IT company Electrician Senior management. Self employed. None Parent. Various 3 years volunteer youth worker, 5 Coach driver years kitchen porter/chef Photographer Retail sales Professional Arborist Self employed Prefer not to say Employed Lorry driver Director Administration Education School bus driver Secretary Self Employed since school in 96' Factory worker Fine finisher and French polisher. Working Shop owner/retail Childcare Health care assistant 9 yrs, retail 1 yr Construction NHS Employed Employed since leaving college in security 2011 Specialist spinal care assistant Driver currently Senior Care Officer Social worker before medical Plasterer retirement Engineering Bilingual carpenter Writer/Proofreader/Editor/Translator Artist and Writing Tutor Writer for Mechanic advertising agencies Strategic writer/planner/supervisor for none advertising agencies Owner of Direct Retail Marketing Consultancy in Puerto Rico Domestic Senior Marketing, PR and Events Carer Planner Marketing Director Counselor Manager after finishing my third BA in Electrician Psychology No Had many business and also worked Vehicle technician as a support worker now training to Social worker be a counsellor
    [Show full text]