Friday, January 29, 2010

minister :Scott-Matthew: Burger gets ecclesiastical agreement with Manuel da Costa acting as the director of Maintenance Enforcement Alberta

Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International

Edmonton Ecclesia in the Universal State of Awareness

Local number 45 Glenwood Crescent, Stony Plain, Alberta

Telephone 1-780-717-6828

No code non commercial activity.

Psalms118:8 Ezra 7:23-26

From: :Scott-Matthew: Burger Monday, September 21, 2009 A.D.

c/o 45 Glenwood Crescent

Stony Plain, Alberta, Canada, geographical location

no code, non commercial

To: Manuel da Costa the private man acting as a de facto Executive Director of Maintenance Enforcement Program having jurisdiction over contracted legal fiction corporate entities created by Alberta Maintenance Enforcement Program under a commercial Statute applicable upon the corporate registrants of the de facto Province of Alberta.

c/o Maintenance Enforcement

Executive Director

7th Floor North

10365 97 Street

Edmonton, Alberta the geographical location.

No code non commercial


This is a Private ecclesiastical non commercial Assumptive contract/agreement/covenant and understanding between minister :scott-matthew of the burger family and Manuel da Costa the private man

Provided under protest, duress and intimidation.

Hello Manuel, I am :Scott-Matthew of the Burger family, a flesh blood and bone living man created by God and an officiating minister of the Church of the Ecumenical Redemption International, an ecclesiastical organism of other flesh blood and bone men and women. Manuel, by my sending you this good faith agreement, I do attempt to ascertain all the facts in honour. If you have any reason or proof to suggest or provide to me, God’s minister officially performing the functions of my calling, that the following statements of the facts are not true, you are being offered the opportunity to refute these offered facts so as to clear yourself of any assumptive contractual awareness of the truth of such facts. Also be aware, this communication of agreement cannot be lawfully inquired of at public or government expense as it is a provable private matter and government funding cannot support private contracts. All legal bills must and shall be paid for out of your private pocket no different than Maurice Duplessis the former Premier and Attorney General of Quebec.

Declaration of private ministry under God and his perpetual law.
I declare that I am that God created, my Christian given name Scott Matthew of the Burger family, to be a private ecclesiastic man under God as my creator and that no man or woman has a moral or a lawful right to impose anything upon me without my informed consent; and that I do hereby renounce any fraudulent corporate assumptive contract and do honour the directive obligation to respect the equal God given freedoms of other men and women under his law. To all those who set eyes on this Ecclesiastical declaration, I do hereby, officially performing the functions of my calling, serve notice to all private men and women that receive this that any offer herein, prior to, or on my part does not imply acceptance of intimidation, violence, or threats of violence against me, and that no such offer implies that I will submit to any intimidation in the future. I, as a bondservant of Christ do henceforth offer the good faith proclamation of my free born will to live in peace and declare that, by right of God, the de facto authority's edicts, codes, obligations, statutes, taxes, licenses and prohibitions of a de facto commercial entity are not binding on me, or applicable upon God’s ministers and his Children.

1. It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute to the fact that I, Minister of Christ Scott- Matthew of the Burger family was on the 16th of August, 2009 A.D., unlawfully intimidated and obstructed, by you Manuel da Costa, in your private capacity, by methods not sanctioned and as such, being a perceived and negative nuisance to my ability to perform an official function of my ministerial calling, are in violation of Sections 176, 423 and 180 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
2. It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute to the fact forthcoming from you that I am not a member of a dead legal fiction entity corporation known as Canada or Alberta and that specifically my name, being my ecclesiastical possession under the exclusive authority of God, is not allowed by my faith in God’s commands as defended by the Queen you swore an oath to be truly allegiant to, to be used, recorded, registered, altered or exchanged for a financial purpose without my permission and that it has never been offered or pledged to be for any of those reasons or to be used as a surety or as a commodity with my informed consent.

3. It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute to the fact forthcoming from you that any man or woman in office who up holds the law of the land and has taken an oath to the Christian Monarch to be truly allegiant, that if they do not know what that true allegiance is when asked, that they have provided irrefutable evidence that they lied to get their job.

4. It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute to the fact forthcoming from you that an oath to a Christian Monarch is an act of religious worship and all who refuse to acknowledge and submit to that fact are imposters who lied to get their job. See Westminister Confession of Faith Act of the British Parliament 1648 chapter 22.

5. It is agreed by you, the private man, with no dispute to the fact forthcoming from you, that an agent of her Majesty when failing to acknowledge they have an oath of allegiance to the defender of the faith and recognition of the supremacy of God relieves themselves from sworn duty and reverts themselves to a private man or woman with no more judicial authority than the sovereign inheritance of birth as they have by lack of recognition of those prime points of law indicated they perjured themselves when swearing their oath to God.

6. It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute to the fact forthcoming from you that a minister once notifying whoever obstructs them that he is a minister not bound by commercial law in performing the functions of his calling and that unless proof to the contrary is evident the man or woman once made aware of the ministry being performed has no sanction in law or from the Christian monarch they swore to be truly allegiant to, to obstruct intimidate or act as a nuisance to him while performing the official functions of his calling.

7. It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute to the fact forthcoming from you that no man calling himself Executive Director of Alberta Maintenance Enforcement Program has any oath bound nor civil authority to obstruct a minister from performing the functions of his calling nor to determine the functions of his calling unless damage has ensued to man, woman or property violating God’s law as complained of by an opposing man or woman.

8. It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute to the fact forthcoming from you that no oath bound sanctioned honour lies in the unlawful private action of intimidating obstructing and acting as a nuisance to a legitimate and sincere minister of Christ officially performing the noticed non commercial functions of his calling.
9. It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute to the fact forthcoming from you that any man or woman who has sworn an oath to the Christian Monarch to be truly allegiant to the “Defender of the faith”, then obstructs, intimidates or acts as a nuisance to the ability of an officiating minister of God, has acted against the Queens ability to defend the faith and is attempting to overthrow her majesty’s government, being the King James Bible, by force....and that Section 46 of the criminal code applies to all sworn allegiant officers of her majesty.
10. It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute to the fact forthcoming from you, that the “Rule of law” spoken of in the preamble to the 1982 de facto Constitution, being a rule for debtors,( that clearly only applies to all registered corporate government employee’s via section 32 of that charter), is indisputably God’s law, being the King James Bible, as defended by the Christian monarch that you the private man swore to be truly allegiant to via the Canadian oaths of Allegiance Act and Coronation Act of 1689. Any other act that dares speak contrary or may have altered the authorized form such as removing the word “do” are not withstanding or legitimate.

These are the words are in Alberta from the Oath of office Act, Indicating prima fascia an unlawful, unsanctioned, deficient form by the omission of the word “do” in the Alberta oath of Allegiance thus effectively invalidating the oath by making the oath grammatically incoherent.
I, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her heirs and successors, according to law.
These are the words from the federal Oath of allegiance Act for Canada ,..... it is very clear as to how the oath is to be worded in Canada, it is

(1) Every person who, either of his own accord or in compliance with any lawful requirement made of the person, or in obedience to the directions of any Act or law in force in Canada, except the Constitution Act, 1867 and the Citizenship Act, desires to take an oath of allegiance shall have administered and take the oath in the following form, and no other:
I, ...................., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors. So help me God.

11. It is agreed by you the private man with no dispute to the fact forthcoming from you that “Canada’s” geographical limits are delineated in the Canada Land Surveys Act Section 24 and that Canada being the land mass spoken of in that enactment, only includes the North West Territories, Nunavut and the Yukon as provinces as concurred in section 2 of the criminal code and section 30 of the de facto Charter of Rights not Freedoms.

It is very important that I show you why I can not allow any one to assume that they have any power or force over me. To be definitive you need to see the lawful definition of person and the scriptures that guide me and command me to not show respect to persons as they are fictions of law..A player on a stage wearing a mask.

PERSON. This word is applied to men, women and children, who are called natural persons. In law, man and person are not exactly synonymous terms. Any human being is a man, whether he be a member of society or not, whatever may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be his age, sex, etc. A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137..

It is also used to denote a corporation which is an artificial person. 1 Bl. Com. 123; 4 Bing. 669; C. 33 Eng. C. L R. 488; Wooddes. Lect. 116; Bac. Us. 57; 1 Mod. 164.

But when the word "Persons" is spoken of in legislative acts, natural persons will be intended, unless something appears in the context to show that it applies to artificial persons. 1 Scam. R. 178.

Natural persons are divided into males, or men; and females or women. Men are capable of all kinds of engagements and functions, unless by reasons applying to particular individuals. Women cannot be appointed to any public office, nor perform any civil functions, except those which the law specially declares them capable of exercising. Civ. Code of Louis. art. 25.

They are also sometimes divided into free persons and slaves. Freemen are those who have preserved their natural liberty, that is to say, who have the right of doing what is not forbidden by the law. A slave is one who is in the power of a master to whom he belongs. Slaves are sometimes ranked not with persons but things. But sometimes they are considered as persons for example, a negro is in contemplation of law a person, so as to be capable of committing a riot in conjunction with white men. 1 Bay, 358. Vide Man.

Persons are also divided into citizens, (q. v.) and aliens, (q. v.) when viewed with regard to their political rights. When they are considered in relation to their civil rights, they are living or civilly dead; vide Civil Death; outlaws; and infamous persons.

Persons are divided into legitimates and bastards, when examined as to their rights by birth.

TO PERSONATE, crim. law. The act of assuming the character of another without lawful authority, and, in such character, doing something to his prejudice, or to the prejudice of another, without his will or consent.

The bare fact of personating another for the purpose of fraud, is no more than a cheat or misdemeanour at common law, and punishable as such. 2 East, P. C. 1010; 2 Russ. on Cr. 479.

By the act of congress of the 30th April, 1790, s. 15, 1 Story's Laws U. S. 86, it is enacted, that " if any person shall acknowledge, or procure to be acknowledged in any court of the United States, any recognizance, bail or judgement, in the name or names of any other person or persons not privy or consenting to the same, every such person or persons, on conviction thereof, shall be fined not exceeding five thousand dollars, or be imprisoned not exceeding seven years, and whipped not exceeding thirty-nine stripes, Provided nevertheless. that this act shall not extend to the acknowledgment of any judgement or judgements by any attorney or attorneys, duly admitted, for any person or persons against whom any such judgement or judgements shall be bad or given." Vide, generally, 2 John. Cas. 293; 16 Vin. Ab. 336; Com. Dig. Action on the case for a deceit, A 3.

Jam 2:9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.

Jam 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one [point], he is guilty of all.

Here is a list of more in depth definitions so no one gets lost.

I am not a Person, or an Individual, or even a human Manuel, but before you think I am crazy examine the facts.

I am not a person, or an individual, or a Human, and although some humans look similar to me, I am not a human.

Some would say that I am a 'natural' person, but as I will show you, I am not one of those either. Who then or what then am I?

To understand who I am, you must first understand the definitions which have been placed on the words I have quoted above, words that are commonly used, but do not describe me anymore. For example, the word 'person'.

Person - The Revised Code of Washington, RCW 1.16.080, (I live in Washington State) defines a person as follows: "The term 'person' may be construed to include the United States, this state, or any state or territory, or any public or private corporation, as well as an individual."

Person - Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition, pg. 791, defines 'person' as follows: "In general usage, a human being (i.e. natural person), though by statute term may include labour organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers."

Person - Oran's Dictionary of the Law, West Group 1999, defines Person as: 1. A human being (a "natural" person). 2. A corporation (an "artificial" person). Corporations are treated as persons in many legal situations. Also, the word "person" includes corporations in most definitions in this dictionary. 3. Any other "being" entitled to sue as a legal entity (a government, an association, a group of Trustees, etc.). 4.. The plural of person is persons, not people (see that word).

Person - Duhaime's Law Dictionary. An entity with legal rights and existence including the ability to sue and be sued, to sign contracts, to receive gifts, to appear in court either by themselves or by lawyer and, generally, other powers incidental to the full expression of the entity in law. Individuals are "persons" in law unless they are minors or under some kind of other incapacity such as a court finding of mental incapacity. Many laws give certain powers to "persons", which in almost all instances, includes business organizations that have been formally registered such as partnerships, corporations or associations.

Person, noun. person. - Webster's 1828 Dictionary. Defines person as: [Latin persona; said to be compounded of per, through or by, and sonus, sound; a Latin word signifying primarily a mask used by actors on the stage.]

legal person - Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law 1996, defines a legal person as : a body of persons or an entity (as a corporation) considered as having many of the rights and responsibilities of a natural person and esp. the capacity to sue and be sued.

A person according to these definitions, is basically an entity - legal fiction - of some kind that has been legally created and has the legal capacity to be sued. Isn't it odd that the word lawful is not used within these definitions?

Well then….. I am not "the United States, this state, or any territory, or any public or private corporation". I am not "labour organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers." So, I cannot be a 'person' under this part of the definition.

The RCW quoted above also states that a person could also be an "individual". Black's Law Dictionary also defines a person as a "human being," which they define by stating "(i.e. natural person)". So let's first check to see if I am an "individual".

Individual - Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition, pg. 533, defines "individual" as follows: "As a noun, this term denotes a single person as distinguished from a group or class, and also, very commonly, a private or natural person as distinguished from a partnership, corporation, or association; but it is said that this restrictive signification is not necessarily inherent in the word, and that it may, in proper cases, include artificial persons."

Well now, I have already been shown that I am not a 'person', and since 'individual' denotes a single 'person' as distinguished from a group or class, I can't be an 'individual' under this definition either. But I see the term 'natural person' used in the definition of the RCW, and also in the definition of some of the Law Dictionaries. Maybe I am a 'natural' person, since I know I am not an 'artificial' one.

I could not find the term 'Natural person' defined anywhere, so I had to look up the word 'natural' for a definition to see if that word would fit with the word person...

Natural - Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition, pg. 712, defines 'Natural' as follows: "Untouched by man or by influences of civilization; wild; untutored, and is the opposite of the word "artificial". The juristic meaning of this term does not differ from the vernacular, except in the cases where it is used in opposition to the term "legal"; and then it means proceeding from or determined by physical causes or conditions, as distinguished from positive enactments of law, or attributable to the nature of man rather than the commands of law, or based upon moral rather than legal considerations or sanctions."

Hmmm, what do they mean by this definition? Am I untouched by man (depends on what the word 'man' means), or by influences of civilization? I don't think so. Am I 'wild', or 'untutored'? (buzzer sound), not me. Even though the definition states that this word is the opposite of the word 'artificial', it still does not describe who I believe I am. So I must conclude that I am not a 'natural' person, under this definition of the word 'natural'. So the term 'natural person' cannot apply to me.

Black's Law Dictionary also used the term 'human being', and although Black's defined it as a 'natural person', maybe they made a mistake, maybe I am a 'human being'. 'Human' or 'human being' does not appear to have a 'legal' definition, so I went to my old standby 1888 Noah Webster's Dictionary for a vernacular definition of this word. Maybe Noah would know who I am.

Human - Webster's 1888 Dictionary defines 'human' as follows: n. A human being; one of the race of man. [Rare and inelegant.] "Sprung of humans that inhabit earth." ...To me, the etymology of the word Hu-man, suggests that it is a marriage of two separate words 'Hue' (defined as the property of color), and man. But this cannot of course be correct, at least not politically correct, so I can't go there, because the word would then mean 'coloured man'!

Am I of the race of man? Rare and inelegant? Sprung of humans that inhabit earth (ground)? (I'm not coloured either). Well, it looks like I have to define the word 'man' through Webster's because there appears to be no legal definition for 'man'.

Man - Webster's 1888 Dictionary defines 'man' as follows: An individual of the human race; a human being; a person.

Great news!!, it looks like we are back to the beginning of our study of definitions, yup, back to the start, completed the circle. I am not an 'individual', so I cannot be considered 'of the human race'; and since I'm not of the human race, I can't be 'a human being', and I've also been shown that I'm not 'a person' either.

Now let us see what the word Human really means......I am going into detail so you can see we have been deceived by the misuse of our own language.

Definition of Human Being

Are you a 'person', an 'individual', or a 'human being'? These words, at law, define you as being spiritually 'dead.' This is how the world makes its attachment to you. The terms, 'person', 'individual', 'human being', etc., are not in Christ. Words like "individual," and "human being" do not even appear in Scripture! These are 'created' terms by the natural man (1 Cor 2:14). These words describe the 'old man', but not the 'new man' in Christ (Col 3:9-10).

In Balantine's Self Pronouncing Law Dictionary, 1948, page 389, Human Being is defined as "See Monster." On page 540 of this same Law Dictionary, Monster is defined as "a human being by birth, but in some part resembling a lower animal."

In Webster's New World Dictionary , Third College Edition, 1988, pages 879-880, a Monster is defined as "a person so cruel, wicked, depraved, etc., as to horrify others."

From the Random House Dictionary of the English Language, 2nd Edition, page 901, Human Being is defined as a "Natural man: unenlightened or unregenerate," and on page 1461, Unregenerate means "not regenerate; unrepentant; an unregenerate sinner; not convinced by or unconverted to a particular religion; wicked, sinful, dissolute."

In Webster's New World Dictionary , Third College Edition, 1988, page 657, Humanitarianism is defined as "the doctrine that humankind may become perfect without divine aid."

In Colliers New Dictionary of the English Language, 1928, Humanitarian is defined as "a philanthropist; an anti-Trinitarian who rejects the doctrine of Christ's divinity; a perfectionist."

And in the Random House Webster's College Dictionary, 1990, page 653, Humanism is defined as "any system or mode of thought or action in which human interests, values and dignity predominate, especially an ethical theory that often rejects the importance of a belief in God."

Therefore, when anyone calls himself or herself a 'human being', or a 'humanitarian,' they are saying (according to every definition of these words, and according to the law), "I'm an animal; I'm a monster; I'm not saved; I'm unrepentant; I'm an unregenerate sinner; I'm not converted; I'm wicked, sinful, and dissolute; I'm cruel, depraved, unenlightened; and I reject Christ's divinity and the importance of a belief in God."

12. "Men [Bondman] rely for protection of their right on God's law, and not upon regulations and proclamations of departments of government, or officers who have been designated to carry laws into effect." Baty v. Sale, 43 Ill. 351." [Codes, edicts, proclamations, and decisions are not Law, which define or regulate the Good and Lawful Bondman. Therefore, "law" suits are ungodly, and are the redress for and of human beings, i.e., non-believers.]

The Septuagint uses the term "human beings" only one time, and its meaning is identical to the above definitions. Let's look at the last verse of the book of Jonah, where Nineva was full of men who were unrepentant, unregenerate, unconverted, wicked, sinful, dissolute, cruel, depraved, unenlightened, rejected the importance of a belief in God. Or, in other words, "human beings."

"and shall not I spare Nineve, the great city, in which dwell more than twelve myriads of human beings, who do not know their right hand or their left hand...?" [Jonah 4:11 (Septuagint)]

The "human beings" of Nineve did not know their right hand from their left because they did not know the Truth and were lost. They did not know God, they were separated from God. However, those human beings were willing to turn from their ways and learn the things of God, so He spared that city from destruction.

13. The term "human being" is also synonymous with the term 'natural man.'
14. "The natural man is a spiritual monster. His heart is where his feet should be, fixed upon the earth; his heels are lifted up against heaven, which his heart should be set on. His face is towards hell; his back towards heaven. He loves what he should hate, and hates what he should love; joys in what he ought to mourn for, and mourns for what he ought to rejoice in; glories in his shame, and is ashamed of his glory; abhors what he should desire, and desires what he should abhor." [Thomas Boston, quoted in Augustus Toplady, Complete Works (1794, reprinted by Sprinkle Publications 1987), page 584].

And the Word confirms: "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." [1 Corinthians 2:14,]

The above verse witnesses to us that the natural man is spiritually dead. The 'natural man' in Scripture is synonymous with the 'natural person' as defined in man's laws.

"Natural Person means human being, and not an artificial or juristic person." Shawmut Bank, N.A.. v. Valley Farms, 610 A. 2d. 652, 654; 222 Conn. 361.

"Natural Person: Any human being who as such is a legal entity as distinguished from an artificial person, like a corporation, which derives its status as a legal entity from being recognized so in law. Natural Child: The ordinary euphemism for 'bastard' or illegitimate." [Amon v. Moreschi, 296 N.Y . 395, 73 N.E.2d 716." Max Radin, Radin's Law Dictionary (1955), p. 216.]

Those that are spiritually dead belong to the prince of this world because he's dead himself. Satan has dominion over the natural man, for he is the prince of this world [John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11]; and, as a consequence of this, he has dominion over those of the world, i.e., human beings, the natural man – those who receive not the things of the Spirit of God and reject Christ. Because the bondman in Christ is sanctified from the world, he is separated from the adversary's dominion over him–sin [John 8:34].. This is the cause for Christ having sanctified Himself in the Truth of the Word of God – to provide the entrance to the refuge in and through Himself for us.

I could provide you more, Manuel, and I do sincerely thank you for your focused attention to this, my honest effort at officially performing the function of my calling in establishing this agreement with you as per Matthew 5:25 and 18:15-20, but I think you are already overwhelmed as I have, upon presentation of facts, destroyed your belief system and now you are aware you are working for a massive criminal organization founded upon a false oath. Can you now see why I must not allow my name to be altered? Remember, every one of the officers of Alberta has a false oath....What kind of authority swears an oath that is bogus??? A false authority!

15. It is agreed with no dispute to the fact by you forthcoming that you are aware that I reserve my right under God’s law not to be compelled to perform under any fraudulently obtained contract or commercial agreement that I did not enter knowingly, with informed consent, voluntarily and intentionally.

16. It is agreed by you with no dispute to the fact forthcoming from you, that you are aware that I do not accept the liability of the compelled benefit of any unrevealed de facto contract or unlawful commercial agreement, which is my ministerial duty pursuant to God’s law to divide myself from.

CONVERSION.Torts.The unlawful turning or applying the personal goods of another to the use of the taker, or of some other person than the owner; or the unlawful destroying or altering their nature.

When a party takes away or wrongfully assumes the right to goods which belong to another, it will in general be sufficient evidence of a conversion but when the original taking was lawful, as when the party found the goods, and the detention only is illegal, it is absolutely necessary to make a demand of the goods, and there must be a refusal to deliver them before the conversion will be complete. The refusal by a servant to deliver the goods entrusted to him by his master is not evidence of a conversion by his master. Leviticus 6:2-5

The tortious taking of property is, of itself, a conversion and any intermeddling with it, or any exercise of dominion over it, subversive of the dominion of the owner or the nature of the bailment if it be bailed, is evidence of a conversion.

In Equity.

The considering of one thing as changed into another; for example, land will be considered as converted into money and treated as such by a court of equity, when the owner has contracted to sell his estate, in which case, if he die before the conveyance, his executors and not his heirs will be entitled to the money. On the other hand, money is converted into land in a variety of ways as for example, when a man agrees to buy land and dies before he has received the conveyance, the money he was to pay for it will be considered as converted into lands, and descend to the heir.

17. It is agreed upon by you, having no dispute to the following fact forthcoming from you; that you the private man are aware that I am a flesh bone blood living man, being God’s minister, and that I cannot possibly on the 16th day of August, 2009, have been in a dead legal corporate fiction called the Province of Alberta as the Province of Alberta is not a place but a dead corporate fiction of law on paper created for the purpose of extracting money from me in fraud as it is totally against my will, a violation of my faith to submit to and is being done without my informed consent or cognisant permission for a financial purpose.

18. It is agreed by you with full understanding that failure to refute or disprove the facts provided above as agreed upon by you will be witnessed in 20 days time. Mathew 18;15-20

Ecclesiastically Autographed non commercial as :Scott-Matthew of the Burger family, a minister of Christ, officially performing a function of my calling.



1 comment:

scsiscott said...

Thank you, my friend....May they wake and reveal...

Real criminal invesitgation and professionalism regarding the Medpharmfraud of 2019