Monday, December 31, 2007

Manitoba Notary tromps law society

Reading this whole document will give most a good fix on why utilizing a notary in a non commercial form is essential to getting recognition for your agreements.


WITH ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ( "In God's law" should be here)

: Mary-Janeth: Beehler Notary Public

201-661 Pembina Highway

Winnipeg, MB R3M 2L5

Te/Fax (204) 925-2024

* *

May 1, 2007

The Law Society of Manitoba

219 Kennedy Street

Winnipeg, MB . R3C 1S8

Attention: Ms Leah C. Kosokowsky

* *

(Complete response e-mailed May 1, 2007 w/ original
following by mail)

Dear Ms Kosokowsky:

Your continued harassment, through repetitive, already asked and
answered questions; and, your failure to respond to the questions that I
raise in my response dated February 19, 2007, is taken notice of in your
letters of February 21 and April 2, 2007. This, to my mind, moves your
correspondence from the investigation of professional actions, through an
exchange of questions and answers, into the realm of a personal attack on
the writer; particularly in light of the unwarranted tone and content of
your accusatory e-mail of April 24, 2007.

As well, your correspondence began in December 2006 with the caption
"Concerns Re: Practice without Insurance" and, in the first line of your
letter, "conduct *purportedly* as a Notary Public". With each of your
following letters, the matter seems to include an attack not only on me as a
Notary Public, but also upon the rights of Manitobans, and Canadians, to
exercise their right of private contract and resolution through the
administrative remedies available to the Free People on the Land, herein
specifically through the use of the services of a Notary Public. These
rights are guaranteed by the Constitution of Canada, with its entrenched
Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and, these charters are the Supreme Law of
the Land, with those rights also being articulated in the Canadian Bill of

* *

Ms. Kosokowsky, your letters continue to insinuate and imply that I am a
"solicitor acting without benefit of insurance". That might, *although
incorrect*, be the Law Society's eventual determination (or, is it in fact
already predetermined). However, I have stated before, and again reiterate,
that there was never any intent on my behalf to act in any capacity for the
man, : Roger-James: Gadsdon, other than that of a Notary Public in and for
the Province of Manitoba. In fact, my usual statement to anyone asking or
mentioning that I have an LL.B. is to advise them I do not practice law and
have not for several years, as I have no practicing certificate from the
LSM. I know that message was conveyed to : Roger-James: Gadsdon when we
met several years ago.

I have at all times acted strictly in the capacity of a notary public, *ex
officio*, in and for the Province of Manitoba, in regards to the third-party
witnessing, attesting, sending with a cover titled "Proof of Mailing and
Contents Mailed" witnessing the sending of : Roger-James: Gadsdon's
documents, sent registered mail via notary presentment, being the
third-party witness to the response or non-response and to, upon :
Roger-James: Gadsdon's request, send, as a courteous reminder, both a Notice
of Non-Response and an Instrument of Protest. For your information and
edification, I include, Chapter III, Functions and Duties of Canadian
Notaries in General: from *"Office and Practice of a Notary of Canada
(Exception Province of Quebec)"*by Bernard Wallace Russell, B.A., LL.B., K.C.
2 d, 1927. Specifically, and I quote:

"We call him a notary who confirms and attests the truth of any deeds or
other writings, to render the same more credible and authentic in any
country whatever. He is principally made use of in courts and in business
relating to merchants. For a notary is a witness, and ought to give
evidence touching such things as fall under his corporeal senses, and not of
such matters as fall under the judgment or understanding." (Ayliffe,
Parergon 382)

I share the fairly common belief that a lawyer is a person who is licensed
to practice law in the Province, who is insured under the Law Society, and
who, when retained by a client to represent him, is mandated to:

A. Act as an advocate on his client's behalf as a barrister and

B. Make legal determinations on his client's behalf, and,

C. Protect his client's legal interests.

Likewise, a Notary Public is a public official, whose primary functions are,
among other things, to:

A. Administer oaths and affirmations to persons making affidavits,
and solemn declarations to persons making statutory declarations;

B. To attest and certify, by his hand and official seal, certain
classes of documents, in order to give them credit and authenticity in the
Province and in foreign jurisdictions;

C. To perform certain official acts (chiefly in commercial matters),
such as the protesting of notes and bills, the noting of foreign drafts, and
marine protests in cases of loss or damage; and,

D. In jurisdictions where permitted, to undertake the conveyance of
land and valuable securities.

One must always keep in mind, that the difference when acting in either of
these two official capacities consists of the actions undertaken, and the
authority under which these actions are undertaken. Notary services are
provided where no legal advice is sought or given and the Notary Public is
acting in the capacity of an impartial, third party witness, who is
recognized in the public as such, and not as a retained, mandated advocate
on behalf of a client.

Is your correspondence intended to be or, might it be construed as, an
attempt to persuade and deter me from providing Notary services with
impartiality to all members of the public who would approach me for such
services, as

: Roger-James: Gadsdon did in this instance?

Throughout our correspondence, it occurs to me that your letters
*may* have been originally predicated by your complainant, on the basis of
an inquiry by a member of the public, who is seeking to acquire an unequal
advantage in a civil matter by depriving an adversary of Notary services
through the misuse of the Law Society of Manitoba. I raise the question
only, and make no explicit accusation, as I have no evidence at this time to
support the possibility that this is in fact a vexatious and malicious
complaint. I believe that we should always be cognizant of the underlying
intentions of the Complainant and or client who seek our professional

Would not, at a minimum, legal etiquette and decorum dictate
that especially you, as the Director of the Discipline Council, on behalf of
The Law Society of Manitoba, not name the complainant directly in these
letters, and in the quoted portions from : Roger-James: Gadsdon's documents?
I have been surprised throughout, that you have neither blacked-out nor
blanked-out the name of the complainant *and* : Roger-James: Gadsdon. This
would be courteous of their privacy and achieve your same objectives in
questioning the attestation of the documentation.**

I further suggest that it might appear to a reasonable man that,
since you mention Angie Rodrigues and : Roger-James: Gadsdon so openly and
freely in your correspondence, that perhaps you are vicariously implicating
The Law Society of Manitoba, by extension, as acting on a personal basis for
the complainant. You, individually and/or collectively as agent for the
LSM, without knowledge of the complainant's possible motivation, have placed
yourselves in the potential position of acting for Angie Rodrigues - quite a
different capacity than is purported in your continuing correspondence, sent
under the pen of The Law Society of Manitoba, specifically, since you, as a
lawyer, knew or ought to have known.

Since you have continued to draw the complainant personally into
these matters, in three separate letters, I believe that we should now
recognize that Ms. Rodrigues is a senior level Credit Union loans manager.
As such, I suggest that a reasonable man would infer that Ms. Rodrigues is
not an unsophisticated person respecting Notary attestations and commercial

As an aside, the method of respectful, written address for "Mr.
Gadsdon" (as you continually refer to him, along with variants of name and
misspellings, in your correspondence), by all public servants and those in
public roles, is, as set out in the documentation attested to by me and, in
particular in the original "Proof of Mailing and Contents Mailed", is *:
Roger-James: Gadsdon*. I simply caution you, as I have now been cautioned
myself, of the correct means of address.

: Roger-James: Gadsdon is a particular man. You will note that if you are
not in alignment with the " *propria persona"* protocol of the punctuation
format required and stated explicitly, in the "Proof of Mailing and Contents
Mailed", you would be viewed as disrespecting this man. In your written
correspondence, I note that you, or your staff typist, appear not to have
checked the spelling and method of referral in the documents; or may, as he
would view it, intentionally choose to incorrectly and differently type this
man's name, with errors in his given name and his family clan name and,
confuse this Sovereign competent man upon the Land with someone volunteering
to act in the office of a "person". He has asked me to request that you
use the correct form of address for him in any further correspondence. I
also provide you with his common law Copyright Notice, inclusive of his fee
schedule for unauthorized use of his property, as evidenced on all his
documents, "WITH THE COPY-CLAIM ROGER GADSDON(c)" complete with his seal.

In addition, the tone of your letters, and because of your direct reference
to the parties, might suggest the question, to a reasonable man, just who or
whom are you acting for in your correspondence: the Public (Society),
Roger-James: Gadsdon, or Ms. Rodrigues? Your letters are increasingly more
accusing and adversarial; you persist in repeating the same questions,
although already asked and answered, as if trying to confuse and entrap me,
even when I have several times given the same truthful responses to those
repetitive queries. I do not believe that I have any lawful obligation to
answer your queries respecting my actions as a Notary Public. Will it take
an action on my part for quo warranto to have the Law Society of Manitoba,
and yourself, prove by what authority the Society and you continue to
persecute me, simply for my actions as a Notary Public?

I hold neither a practicing nor a non-practicing legal certificate from the
Law Society of Manitoba. I have, until this time, tolerated and
entertained, specifically without contract and with All Rights Reserved,
your specious and increasingly more hostile accusations and, your repetitive
and pernicious line of questioning, as I have (or at least have had) a level
of respect for the *stated* objectives and mandate of The Law Society of
Manitoba. If you disagree that your correspondence is "over the top", for a
small example, simply read your e-mail of April 24, 2007 which was entirely
un warranted, as I have been nothing but *voluntarily* co-operative in
responding to your correspondence.

So, once again, as a free woman upon the Land, and in response to your
repetitive, already asked and answered "shotgun approach" queries:

1. Not that I see it pertinent to this situation, : Roger-James:
Gadsdon was introduced to me several years ago by another friend. When he
required the services of a Notary he asked if I would oblige him in that
capacity. : Roger-James: Gadsdon presents as a competent, free man upon the
Land, a flesh and blood Sovereign Canadian citizen, under Claim of Right,
who reserves all Rights and freedoms under the Constitution, the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights. These rights include
the unlimited right to contract as stated in the Constitution and, I sign as
a third party witness in the public.

2. I would suggest that you have received copies of all documents
attested to by me, on behalf of : Roger-James: Gadsdon, from your
complainant Ms. Rodrigues. If not, you would have to provide me with the
signed consent of : Roger-James: Gadsdon to release any further
documentation (the particulars as to how to reach him by registered mail is
noted in the aforesaid "Proof of Mailing and Contents Mailed"). I respect
the confidentiality of all documents I attest to on behalf of "people" and
the "persons" who seek my services as a Notary Public. In that regard, I
respect and do my utmost to abide by the Constitution, Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, Canadian Bill of Rights, and both the federal and provincial
privacy laws.

3. The documentation that I have attested to as Notary Public for

: Roger-James: Gadsdon was prepared and provided by : Roger-James: Gadsdon.
Any discussions I have had with : Roger-James: Gadsdon specific to the
documentation, would arguably be confidential. Actually, one comment of his
that I will share with you is that **he remains puzzled as to why you are in
possession of his private copy-written material and questioning the Notary
Public about its purpose and content.

4. All requests mentioned in the Notice of Non-Response and Instrument
of Protest were made by : Roger-James: Gadsdon. The purpose for sending
the Instrument of Protest was for : Roger-James: Gadsdon to exercise his
Constitutional right to, have a third-party witness to the execution of his
commercial documents and, to the sending and receiving of any response(s):
that is, an independent, third-party witness in the Public. As Notary, I
agreed to note, whether or not there was any response to his "Letter" dated
October 16, 2006 within ten days and he requested that since it was
initially forwarded via Notary presentment that, as a courtesy the Notice of
Non-Response and the Instrument of Protest were, in his view, second and
third reminders for the addressee, and to extend the time for the addressee
to provide a response to his original presentment.

5. To reiterate, all documentation was prepared and provided by :
Roger-James: Gadsdon and all requests were by : Roger-James: Gadsdon. I
did not discuss the content of the documentation with him, before or after
my attestation, save to "read and examine" the documentation to ensure the
statements with regard to me acknowledging whether or not, as the
third-party witness, I did receive any response to his documents.

I did not, as you appear to be attempting to establish, prepare or aid in
the drafting of the documentation. The content of the letter, specific to
: Roger-James Gadsdon and Ms. Rodrigues was not reviewed by me, as it was
their private correspondence and content, shared by one party to another. In
a similar regard, if you, Ms. Kosokowsky, are to at least give an appearance
of neutrality and impartiality in your investigation, would you not be
expected to focus your queries regarding the documents, to their attestation
by the Notary Public and the Notary's witnessing, sending and receiving
correspondence as being within the scope and capacity of a Notary? Your
generalized, "shotgun approach" questions are asking for : Roger-James:
Gadsdon's private, personal intent and, question his genuineness, as well as
asking me to disclose our conversations regarding his copy-written property,
without his written consent.

Your second last paragraph of the April 2, 2007 correspondence now accuses
me of 'circumventing the usual process of court proceedings with the *tone*of
*my* letters and documents'? Just how do you see this when I did not draft,
nor do I otherwise have any ownership of, the content of the
documents: "They"
are, in fact, not *my letter(s) and document(s). *For further
clarification, : Roger-James: Gadsdon was merely quoting what was in the
original presentment; in fact, have you not done the same in your question
#5 in regards to the last four paragraphs of the Instrument of Protest? Does
this mean you should be held accountable for the content and purport of
those words that you quoted? After all, you did sign (attest to) the letter
wherein the quotes appear.

*I now have some questions respecting your correspondence, for your response
*. Your letter of April 2, 2007 is now the third letter in regards to this
same issue. Out of respect for the Law Society of Manitoba, I have
voluntarily responded, repetitively to each of your bombastic queries, with
specificity, truthfulness and, particularity.

It now comes to mind that there have been several questions that I have
asked of you, in my previous correspondence, that have, to this date, not
been addressed, or even acknowledged by you. I will presume that this is
merely an oversight on your part and require your responses to those
questions and queries, as well as the additional ones listed throughout this
letter and the ones listed immediately below, for your attention and prompt

Please respond with specificity and particularity, supported by fact,
evidence, and or law to my former and current questions and queries, which
have been raised from my reading and reflecting upon your letters:

1) In the opening paragraph of your letter of April 2, 2007, you state,
"I have considered further the captioned matter along with your
correspondence of February 19, 2007." Please clarify this statement. What
does "considered" mean to you and your disciplinary council, as used in this
statement made by you? What have you, and or your staff (please specify
whom), and fellow members of The Law Society of Manitoba researched,
discussed, and or ,"considered" with regard to the captioned matter? When
you state "I", does this mean that your "considerations" did not include the
input of your fellow members or staffers?

2) With regard to your complainant, Ms. Rodrigues;

a) How did she come to contact you with respect to this matter? I
believe I am entitled to a copy of any letter of complaint by her and here
and now formally request a copy of same.

b) Was this complaint verbally made in person; made orally or
telephonically, e-mailed or mailed to The Law Society of Manitoba, via
registered Canada Post mail, regular mail, delivered in person, or by
courier, or forwarded by another party on her behalf? How was it addressed
to the Law Society of Manitoba: please provide a copy of the envelope or
other covering.

c) If in written format, was the complaint signed and attested
to? By whom?

d) Specifically was Ms. Rodrigues referred to the Society
through or upon the recommendation of a lawyer and/or law firm?

3) Please provide copies of all documents exchanged between you and Ms.
Rodrigues, in this matter and advise as well if you have been forwarding
copies of my responses to her for her knowledge and or comment. If that is
the case, what was her input, response or other acknowledgement?

4) Please advise who prepared, approved or assisted in the preparation
of (in any degree of input), your various letters addressed to me in this
matter. Please inform me as to any direct or indirect discussions
(written, oral or electronic) you had with Ms. Rodrigues concerning these

5) Please advise as to any discussions and other correspondence
(written, oral, or electronic) that you have had with any third parties in
relation to this matter; and, please identify these persons and their reason
for input?

6) Please provide any correspondence provided to you by Ms. Rodrigues
and or those who may represent her in relation to this matter.

7) Is it your position that, it is the Law Society of Manitoba's
custom, policy, and usual business practice, to selectively choose to ignore
many of the long time-honored traditions, duties and obligations of a

8) I have seen no evidence that any of the activities performed by
myself in regards to the documents of : Roger-James: Gadsdon are contrary to
the duties and obligations of a Notary Public, and believe no such evidence
exists. Do you have any evidence, and if so, state it with specificity and

9) Did you consider the intent of the Complainant, at all?

10) I command you to provide full disclosure by providing
*all*documentation as per:
*R. v. Stinchcombe*, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326. In the same regard, I reserve all
my rights under the Canadian Constitution, Charter of Rights and Freedoms,
and Canadian Bill of Rights and furthermore restate this demand that you
provide such *full disclosure*, via registered mail, with itemized cover
letter of such full and complete disclosure of all file contents and other
media formats, including but not limited to any and all documents, and or
written documents, e-mails, phone messages, memos, post-it notes, which are
held by the LSM under my file.

In summary, I have no monetary client(s) in this matter. No fees have been
charged by me and, or paid to me for my services as a Notary Public. The
Law Society should have no issue with a Notary fulfilling the role of
witness in the public, or as an acceptor of mail. Regarding the concerns
related in your letters, I believe that the documents are clear in
identifying that I am the third party witness and Notary Acceptor and mail
was to be addressed and sent by registered mail to the man, : Roger-James:
Gadsdon c/o myself, in my capacity as notary acceptor; once again, "see
original Proof of Mailing and Contents Mailed".

Finally, as stated in my response to your e-mail of April 24, 2007 I do not
appreciate your threat of disciplinary action for an "overdue response". Your
threat is argumentative, hostile and not warranted in this matter. I have
been nothing but co-operative in this matter: if you want to refer this for
disciplinary action I cannot stop you ... however, I will fight any such
action with all the legal and other rights I can bring to the matter. It
seems incongruous that you have as much time as you want to reply to my
responses and yet, by your antagonistic actions, I am feeling continually
threatened and increasingly positioned into a "tortuous place" by your
repeated and escalating attempts and demands to apply the rules that govern
your members (both practicing and non-practicing) of The Law Society of
Manitoba (of which I am neither), and, most specifically, demanding that I
respond in 14 days. You might in your capacity and office as Director of
the Discipline Council have placed The Law Society of Manitoba in a position
of accountability for undue stress, which may well see a tort or other
action brought forward.

I anticipate a prompt response to my request for particulars and the
questions noted above. Should I now exact a reply by you within the 14
days required by Law Society Rule 5-64(4), which is applicable to you, a
practicing lawyer?

Of all these eventualities, please take due heed and notice and govern
yourselves accordingly.

Yours truly,


: Mary-Janeth: Beehler

Notary Public

In and for the Province of Manitoba


*OF A*


*(Excepting Province of Quebec)*


*B.A. LL.B., K.C.*

*Of the Bar of Nova Scotia; Formerly Lecture on Office Practice in the
Faculty of Dalhousie University,*

*Halifax**, N.S.** *

* *




Ayliffe defines a notary in the following manner: "We call him a
notary who confirms and attests the truth of any deeds or other writings, to
render the same more credible and authentic in any country whatever. He is
principally made use of in courts and in business relating to merchants. For
a notary is a witness, and ought to give evidence touching such things as
fall under his corporeal senses, and not of such matters as fall under the
judgment or understanding." 1 (Ayliffe, Parergon 382)

While it is true that a notary public is really only a
ministerial officer whose main function is the authentication of documents,
the duties of notaries in England have widely extended since the time of
Ayliffe's writing. As is said in Brooke's Notary:2 (Ed. 8th p.18) "An
English notary with a foreign practice must not only be proficient in one or
two foreign languages, but he must be familiar with the principles and
practice of foreign law. He has to prepare important documents, such as
contracts, leases, powers of attorney, articles of partnership, wills and
other instruments, that are intended to be used in the colonies and abroad."

In most of the continental countries of Europe and in the
Province of Quebec, by reason of its retention of French law and customs,
notaries are even more important officers than they are in England and
elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Their practice more nearly corresponds with
that of an English solicitor carrying on a non-litigious business than with
the practice of the English notary. They make practically all conveyances
and keep in their custody all instruments which it is necessary to make
authentic. In France, protests of negotiable instruments are not made by
notaries but by officers called *hussiers *. This, however, is not true of
the Province of Quebec, where the whole subject of negotiable instruments is
governed by Dominion legislation.

The office of notary public in Canada is neither so important
nor as profitable as the same office in England, except in the Province of
Quebec, where an entirely different system of law prevails from that of the
other Provinces of the Dominion. Elsewhere than Quebec, in Canada, there are
very few duties of a notary that cannot be performed by commissioners,
justices of the peace or other functionaries.

In England, notaries are trained men. As has been seen, they are
called upon frequently to draw difficult conveyances and other instruments.
Whether in Canada the requirements for admission are not so great because,
the bulk of the work of drafting documents, is done by solicitors, or
whether the case is reversed, is difficult to say. The fact, however, is
that here, notwithstanding that a notary by his commission is authorized and
empowered to draft documents, he seldom has the opportunity of exercising
this power, and the work he is called upon to do is largely that of
authentication under various Dominion and Provincial statutes.

Of the statutes which require acts of notaries, the most
important is the Bills of Exchange Act, which is legislation of the Dominion
Parliament and applicable to all parts of Canada. As in England, and almost
all other countries, the noting and protesting of bills of exchange and
other negotiable instruments is done almost entirely by notaries. Only in
the one exceptional case, when the services of a notary cannot be obtained
at the place where the instrument is dishonored, may any other functionary
act. In such a case, the protest may be made by a justice of the peace. 3 (
R.S.C. 1906 c. 119 s. 123)

Next to the noting and protesting of negotiable instruments, the
work which a notary is most frequently called upon to do, in Canada, is the
proving by his certificate and seal the execution of conveyances and powers
of attorney. This is a matter regulated by statutes of the Provinces or
States in which the lands affected by the conveyances are situated. In
Canada each Province has its own legislation concerning the execution of
conveyances. A notary residing in one of the eastern Provinces is frequently
called upon to authenticate the signatures of parties to a deed of land in
one of the western Provinces, according to the requirements of the
legislation of that Province and *vice versa*. It is therefore convenient
that notaries should be familiar wit the mode of execution of instruments in
all the Provinces of the Dominion, though this knowledge is seldom necessary
as in most cases when a conveyance is forwarded from one Province to another
for signature, it is accompanied by instruction in detail as to the
requirements upon execution. Canadian notaries are also frequently called
upon to authenticate conveyances and other documents for use in the United
States and occasionally those for use in England or in fact in any civilized
country of the world. A notary can scarcely be presumed to know the
requirements in the case of foreign documents and when they are not
accompanied by instructions he should procure them before attempting to act,
as an improperly executed document is more often the cause of loss to the
client than the delay in waiting until the proper mode is ascertained.

Conveyances for execution in Provinces in which the land
affected lies are not so frequently proved before notaries. The conveyancing
acts of all the Provinces of the Dominion provide for the execution of
conveyances by any one of several functionaries. Among the officers who may
act in Canada in addition to notaries are justices of the peace, barristers,
attorneys and commissioners of the courts. It is only when the document is
for use abroad that the services of a notary become really necessary, and
that of course is because the other officers named are not recognized beyond
the limits of the Province in which they have jurisdiction to act, whereas
the office of notary public has, practically speaking, an international
character and by the law of nations has credit in foreign countries. 4
(Hutcheon v. Mannington, 6 Ves. Jr. 823.)

In all things a notary must act in the best interests of his
client consistently with the governing laws. If he prepares a document he
should be sure that the client fully understands the rights and liabilities
created by it. It is even said that it is the duty of a notary proving a
conveyance not prepared by him to explain to an illiterate grantor the legal
and equitable obligations imposed by the conveyance and consequent on its
execution. 5 (Ayotte v. Boucher, 9 s.c.r. 460 *per Ritchie, *C.J. And a
notary public may be made liable in damages for negligence in the exercise
of powers conferred on him by his commission.

A notary public who is one of the endorsers on a promissory note
is not entitles to act as notary to make the protest. 6 (Pelletier v.
Brosseau. 6 M.L.R.S.C. 231 Broadly stated it may be taken as a rule that a
notary who is a party to, or whose personal affairs are directly affected or
concerned by any transaction, is precluded from acting in that particular
matter. 7 (Ayliffe, 382. Relationship is not of itself a disqualification.



Benny Jeebes said...

I just finished reading the article titled "Manitoba tromps law society" and I think it is briliant. I've been using a similar process in Ontario using an international Notary.

Personally, I give everyone the benefit of the doubt by starting with the assumption that most flesh and blood and bone men and women are good. Unfortunately, the corallary means that some men or women are not good, and I believe that it is about time that all the corrupt, illegitimate, usurped, de facto government mindless bureaucrats are exposed to the fraud they are commiting. These not so good people must not believe in the golden rule and we should not have to tolerate their abuse.

workhard said...

This article is really good.


AMIT said...

That is really a nice post to read.

Legal forum

Diego Ruff said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Diego Ruff said...

Thanks for sharing Blog.I am really very glad by visiting your site. Your post is very informative. Its all about Notary Services.

Afzal khan said...

I have bookmarked your blog, the articles are way better than other similar blogs.. thanks for a great blog! burbank notary