It is naturally suggested that I had nothing of my own and relied on other people’s property with an attitude. It is utter nonsense naturally as I did set out to work in that manner, considering I was handling a series of decisions that required urgent but clear answers. If I pursued it on the money basis people tended to be dishonest, if I did not, I would only involve myself with people who wanted to get involved, besides those who showed up when they did not want to be immediately standing out as troublemakers. It is not a bad way to work, and I am not addressing the concerns of important persons either.

I have consistently complained about their need to build up media bubble for public work social problems and they have continued to suggest it was a matter of making me do something violent enough to entitle me to my career while they clung to my earnings, so five years having gone down the drain, it is now time for the famous to pay. They do claim it was a matter of what they lost because of me but that would have been a concern if what they lost belonged to them in the first place, when it gets involved with all of my concerns to deploy the processes for something else, it will not work on its business since it set eyes on my Bookshop because it wants the market - eventually the behaviour was important because they were involved with patriarchy gimmicks where I picked up my career and the problem was that their stupidities could not continue with the career they had and I think I am going to screw it up for them properly as well.

I work so hard to prevent this nonsense catching up with my finances and they work so hard to ensure it does, these are the results of an outcome whereby they won.

I. Uno I

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland