FOR HON. CJ MARIA LOURDES SERENO - 12th part

UNANG PANDARAYA

PANGALAWANG PANDARAYA 

PANGATLONG PANDARAYA 

PANGAPAT NA PANDARAYA 

PANGLIMANG PANDARAYA

PANG ANIM NA PANDARAYA 

PAMPITONG PANDARAYA 

PANG WALONG PANDARAYA 

PANG SIYAM NA PANDARAYA 

PANG SAMPUNG PANDARAYA 

PANG LABING-ISANG PANDARAYA 

PANG LABINDALAWANG PANDARAYA

HULING BAHAGI (13TH PART) 

RAUL QUIROZ  DEFENSE  PLEADINGS

DISBARMENT COMPLAINT AGAINST    
ATTY. RAUL QUIROZ  FILED DOCUMENT HERE

RA  7641 CIRCUMVENTED BY SHELL,  
 GUARDIANS OF LAW SHOULD BE DISCIPLINED

4.1.12 PANG LABINDALAWANG PANDARAYA:

        
          HINDI PO TOTOO NA NOONG MGA 

          PANAHON NA TANGGALIN AKO AY 

          MAY "REDUNDANCY" NA  

          ITINAGUYOD NI ATTY. RAUL QUIROZ

          Your Honor,  nagsinungaling si 

            Atty. Raul Quiroz na noong  panahon

          na tanggalin ako sa trabaho ay may 

          "redundancy" na  itinaguyod ni 

         Atty. Raul Quiroz . Sa totoo lang po, 

         wala pong "redundancy", siguradong 

         sigurado po ako noong panahong iyon. 

          Bakit ko nasabi yun? Ganire po yun :

           

              Your Honor, please, masdan po natin 
              ang  sulat sa akin ni G. Rico Bersamin

               na may petsa 28th November 2002, 

               sinasabi po rito:

               XXX

               "Dear Mr. Buensuceso,

                As already discussed with you, with the 

                restructuring of the Tabangao Refinery,

                we have exhausted best endeavors to 

                find a suitable position for you but we 

                have been unsuccessful. Hence, to 

                conforme  to normal legal requirements, 

                we would like to serve notice that we will

                be constrained to terminate your 

                employment effective close of business 

                31st December 2002 with the redundancy

                package described in the following                     

                paragraph."xxx

                PACKET 12 : LABEL 5.12.1  Complainant Position 

                                                             Paper, 

                                                              Annex "E"

                                                           28th November 2002  

                                                     R. Bersamin letter 1st letter

                  Dito po ay pinabatid sa akin ni G. Rico 

                  Bersamin na dahil sa restructuring ng 

                  Tabangao Refinery ay nagawa na nilang 

                  lahat para makakita ng "suitable position

                  "sa akin pero sila ay nabigo.Kaya, upang 

                  makasunod sa panuntunan ng batas ay

                 ipinagbibigay alam nila sa akin na ang 

                 aking pagtatrabaho sa SHELL ay hanggang 

                  31st December 2002 na lang, na may 

                  redundancy package na nakasaad sa

                   sunod na talata.

                Mapapansin po natin ang apat na bagay :

                  1. Restructuring ng Tabangao Refinery 

                      ay tapos na

                  

                  2. Nagawa na nila ang lahat  ngunit 

                      nag-resulta sa walang suitable position,

                      di umano, para sa akin

                3. At sinabing hanggang 

                    31st December 2002 ang trabaho ko

                 4. At may redundancy package 

                      na ibibigay sa akin

                Your Honor,  please, ibig pong sabihin ni 

                G. Rico Bersamin  sa isang pangungusap 

                ay,  na  noong gawin niya ang sulat na ito 

                sa akin, kung papaniwalaan natin siya, 

                matapos ang Restructuring ng Tabangao 

                Refinery ay  kalabisan na ako sa 

                kinakailangang operator sa planta, 

                kaya kailangan na niya akong tanggalin 

                epektibo sa 31st December  2002. 

                Tama po ba?

                Ngunit, Your Honor, hindi kaya ninyo 

                pagdudahan ang kadalisayan ng mga 

                sinulat niya sa akin,  hindi kaya ninyo siyang

                sabihing nagsisinungaling kapag nabasa 

                ninyo ang pangalawang liham niya sa akin ,

                na may petsang 17th  December 2002?

                Tunghayan po natin :

                XXX

                 Dear Mr. Buensuceso,

                 Further to our letter dated 28th November 2002,

                 please be advised in view of the requirements

                 of the business, the effectivity of the cessation 

                 of your employment for reasons of redundancy 

                 shall be deferred from 

                31st December 2002 to 15th February 2003. xxx

                 PACKET 12 : LABEL 5.12.2  Complainant Position Paper, 

                                                            Annex "F",

                                     17th December 2012 R. Bersamin 2nd letter

                Sinulat po sa akin ni G. Rico Bersamin, na 

                susog doon sa kanilang sulat sa akin na may 

                petsang  28th November 2002, Sabi niya ay 

                ganito : "please be advised in view of the 

                requirement of the business", ibig sabihin po , 

                Sana ay unawain mo na dahilan sa 

                pangangailangan ng negosyo, ang

                "effectivity" ng pagtanggal sa iyo sa trabaho 

                dahil sa "redundancy" ay ipinagpapaliban

                mula sa 31st December 2002 patungo sa 

                15th February 2003.

                 Hindi po ba tamang isipin na nagsisinungaling 

                 si G. Rico Bersamin sa pagsasabing may 

                 redundancy, na ako ay kalabisan na sa  

                 kinakailangan sa planta? Hindi po ba kung 

                 tunay na ako ay kalabisan na sa kinakailangan,

                 sa totoo lang , eh kahit po ora mismo, ngayon din, 

                 ay maaari na niya akong pakawalan? Sa 

                 pangyayaring nagkaroon na sila ng plaso mula 

                 28th November 2002 to 31st December 2002 

                 ay humirit pa sila ng panahon hanggang 

                15 February 2003 bago ako  tanggalin , 

                 kaya maliwanag na may pangangailangan

                 sa akin noong panahong iyon ; na si G. Rico 

                 Bersamin mismo ang nagsabing kailangan

                niya ako na manatili  Siya po mismo ang nagsabi ..

                Sa Ingles po ang sabi niya:XXX please be

                advised in view of the requirements of 

                the business the effectivity of the cessation 

                of your employment for reasons of 

                 redundancy shall be deferred from

                31st December 2002 to February 15, 2003.xxx

                Hindi po ba ninyo kaya naiisip  na naghanap 

                muna si G. Rico Bersamin ng tao upang

                ipanghalili sa akin at hindi tunay na may

                "redundancy" na tulad ng sinasabi niya noong 

                panahong iyon ? Kung totoo pong kalabisan 

                na ako eh bakit hiniling pa niyang  manatili ako 

                hanggang 15th February 2003?

                Your Honor, please, kung totoong labis

                kaming mga operator , eh  tsugi na agad

                sana ako sa buwan ng Disyembre pa lang, 

                tutal nasunod na naman ni  G. Rico Bersamin 

                ang sinasabi niyang  one month requirement 

                na "notice" di po ba? Bakit humingi pa sila sa 

                akin ng extension hanggang 

               15 February 2003?

                Kaya po, Your Honor, wala pong kaduda 

                duda hindi maaring magsinungaling

                ang dalawang sulat na ebidensya. Wala pong

                "redundancy," maliwanag pong walang 

                kalabisan sa tao noong panahong iyon. 

               Si  G. Rico Bersamin  ay buking  o  bistado na

                nagsisinungaling at ang pagsisinungaling 

                naman niya ay buong lakas at talino at husay 

                na itinaguyod ni Atty. Raul Quiroz.  Kaya, 

               Your Honor, please, nararapat lamang  at  

               dapat  tiyakin  ng lubusan  na si 

               Atty. Raul Quiroz ay ma-disbar upang wala 

               nang mangahas pang siya ay pamarisan. 

              With all due respect, Your Honor, DISBARMENT

                po ang karapat dapat sa isang abogadong 

               katulad ni Atty. Raul Quiroz.

              (Contrary to  3.1.1  &  3.1.2.2  &  3.1.2.2 )

SEE  13th part  LAST PART here,

UNANG PANDARAYA

PANGALAWANG PANDARAYA 

PANGATLONG PANDARAYA 

PANGAPAT NA PANDARAYA 

PANGLIMANG PANDARAYA

PANG ANIM NA PANDARAYA 

PAMPITONG PANDARAYA 

PANG WALONG PANDARAYA 

PANG SIYAM NA PANDARAYA 

PANG SAMPUNG PANDARAYA 

PANG LABING-ISANG PANDARAYA 

PANG LABINDALAWANG PANDARAYA

HULING BAHAGI (13TH PART) 

RAUL QUIROZ  DEFENSE  PLEADINGS

DISBARMENT COMPLAINT AGAINST    
ATTY. RAUL QUIROZ  FILED DOCUMENT HERE

RA  7641 CIRCUMVENTED BY SHELL,  
 GUARDIANS OF LAW SHOULD BE DISCIPLINED

The TRUTH will set you FREE.

Mar 26th, 2013 by John Donova Shell exec leaves by 'mutual consent' after Arctic mishaps Posted on March 26, 2013 at 2:28 pm by Jennifer A. Dlouhy: Covers energy policy and other issues for The Houston Chronicle and other Hearst Newspapers from Washington, D.C. A Shell executive in charge of oil exploration across the Americas has stepped down from his post after 29 years with the company. Shell said the move by David Lawrence, the executive vice president of exploration and commercial for upstream Americas "was made by mutual consent" and that he was not fired. But skeptics have fostered a different view: that Lawrence was fired and made the scapegoat for Shell's problem-plagued 2012 Arctic drilling season. Last month, Shell announced it was calling off plans to resume hunting for oil in U.S. Arctic waters after the high-profile mishaps,including the Dec. 31 grounding of one of its rigs on an Alaskan island. And on March 14, the Interior Department issued a report that blamed the company for not sufficiently overseeing and managing a web of contractors as it hunted for black gold under the Chukchi and Beaufort seas last year. "A recurring theme from Shell's 2012 experience is that there were significant problems with contractors on which Shell relied for critical aspects of its program," the high-level Interior Department review concluded. "Shell's focus appeared to be on compliance with prescriptive safety and environmental regulations required for approvals and authorizations, rather than on a holistic approach to managing and monitoring risks identified during operational planning." Lawrence could not be reached for comment. Shell spokesmen declined to say more about why Lawrence was leaving the company. Lawrence has overseen all of Shell's exploratory and commercial portfolio in the Americas since 2006 — a position that put him in charge of the U.S. Arctic venture as well as other onshore and offshore initiatives, including exploration in Canada and offshore Brazil as well as domestic natural gas operations. Other executives also play a close role in managing Shell's Arctic program, including Peter Slaiby, vice president of Shell Alaska, and Don Jacobsen, Shell's vice president of Arctic and industry regulatory affairs. Lawrence's move comes as Shell prepares to restructure its broad exploration and commercial portfolio in the Americas, possibly creating separate organizations focused on exploration (including the Arctic), new business development and integrated gas. Shell hopes to resume exploratory drilling in the Arctic next year. The rigs it used to drill two Arctic wells in 2013 are heading to Asian shipyards for repairs. Most of Shell's mishaps happened while its rigs were traveling to and from U.S. Arctic waters, including the drillship Noble Discoverer's out-of-control drift near Dutch Harbor, Alaska, last July and the grounding of its Kulluk rig as it traveled to a Seattle shipyard for maintenance. Shell and oil industry leaders have described the mishaps as maritime incidents, distinct from the drilling itself. But the episodes illustrated that even routine maritime operations surrounding Arctic drilling can be risky, particularly given the scarce infrastructure and resources along Alaska's northern coast. SOURCE Posted in: Alaska, Arctic. Tagged: Alaska · Arctic Ocean · Beaufort Sea · Chukchi Sea · David Lawrence Shell EP ·Royal Dutch Shell Plc ← Shell Plans to Spend $1 Billion on China Shale Gas Development Shell Oil Axes Exec For Alaska Drilling Fiasco. Will More Heads Roll? →

MARVIN ODUM DESCRIBES KULLUK SHIPWRECK AS A 'MARINE TRANSPORT ISSUE'

Mar 26th, 2013 

by John Donovan.

EMAIL SENT 25 MARCH 2013 BY BILL CAMPBELL TO MICHIEL BRANDJES, ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC COMPANY SECRETARY & GENERAL COUNSEL CORPORATE. MR CAMPBELL IS A RETIRED HSE GROUP AUDITOR OF SHELL INTERNATIONAL. EMAIL CONCERNS LAUGHABLE STATEMENT MADE BY MARVIN ODUM (RIGHT) DESCRIBING THE KULLUK HITTING THE ROCKS AND CONSEQUENTIAL ABANDONMENT OF SHIP AS A 'MARINE TRANSPORT ISSUE'

With the Kulluk now safely recovered, we'll carry out a detailed assessment of the vessel to understand what those impacts might be. For now, it's important to note that this was a marine transit issue that occurred after completion of our exploration program and well outside our theater of operations. It did not involve drilling operations.

Marvin Odum, President, Shell Oil Company

THE EMAIL

Subject: Public Statements by Royal Dutch Shell Alaska

The following is an observation, perhaps RDS find it acceptable to mislead the public but misleading employees is another issue, whether this was by accident or intent it's for RDS to judge. You will be glad to know it is not my intention to continue with this bombardment. Mr Donovan is free to publish or amend as he sees fit.

rgds

Bill Campbell

Being in transit is a risky business

In the worldwide operations of Royal Dutch Shell (RDS), transportation incidents cause the majority of fatalities year after year, mainly road traffic accidents but not exclusively so.

For example, in its North Sea activities three aircraft incidents, the fixed wing ditching of the Shetlands, the Chinook disaster, and the helicopter ditching off Cormorant Alpha et al have resulted in circa 80 fatalities.  Other Operators have had their problems also in recent years due to catastrophic failure of helicopter gear boxes.

So being in transit can be a risky business.  Many Operating Units (OU's) under the umbrella governance of the RDS parent company have responded to these risks by having HSE cases specifically prepared to demonstrably reduce the risks of marine, road and aircraft transportation within their sphere of operations.

Continuing on this theme, and specifically concerning the Kulluk incident Marvin Odum the president of RDSA recently told his employees in the in-house magazine (1) that quote for now its important to Note that this was a marine transit issue that occurred after completion of our exploration program and well outside our theatre of operations.  It did not involve drilling operations unquote.

I guess even the office boys and girls inexperienced in such matters understand that you cannot drill from a rig that is under tow.  However, the incident happened in the transit of a drilling vessel, owned by Shell, operated by Noble Drilling and involved a tug, the Aiviq, owned by Shell both operating I understand under the overall  HSE Case for drilling operations per se.

Ultimate accountability for the health and safety of the persons involved on these vessels was clearly that of the Board of Directors in Huston so I cannot interpret or understand the statement by Odum that these events were well outside our theatre of operations.  The vessel was well removed from the location it had been actively drilling is one interpretation, but that is not relevant.

The safe passage of Kulluk to its final destination should have been assured if essential controls had been in place for the overall global operation and clearly according to the DOI report they were not.

It may just be inappropriate wording but to the uninitiated reader the Odum statement suggests that he is distancing himself from his duty of care. At best the information given to employees is misleading.

(1) Alumininews 7th January last

Post Note

The Kulluk refitted at considerable cost was a valuable asset and the whole drilling program depended on it.  With a gross tonnage of 28,000 tons it had no propulsion, the thrusters due to be fitted in dock (2 at 1500kW) were never fitted.  These thrusters could have assisted the tug by reducing the forces on the tow rope.  When the weather rapidly deteriorated, not uncommon in this part of the world, the single tug struggled to handle the vessel drift and the single tow line broke.  In what must have been horrendous conditions another tow rope was connected but then the tug engines failed.  What  we are observing here is catastrophic failure of single line components with no installed redundancy  Single line components such as the single tow line and the single tug and the non availability of the thrusters which were part of the original design.  Were the consequences of the lack of thrusters understood?

When in any system the consequences of failure are significant and in this case intolerable to RDSA meeting its goals and objectives it is usual to have installed redundancy in safety systems, in this case two tugs rather than one etc.  The question is were the risks associated with the transit of this vessel competently assessed?

Posted in: Alaska, Arctic, Bill Campbell, Business Principles, Environment,GoogleNews, John Donovan, Marvin Odum, Michiel Brandjes, Oil, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Shell Employee Safety, Shell Project Delays, Shell Project Overruns, United States.
Tagged: Alaska · Arctic Ocean · Beaufort Sea · Chukchi Sea · John Donovan · Peter Voser · Royal Dutch Shell Plc

← US gets tough on Arctic oil drilling

Shell 'bet the farm' on backing drill ship novice – Huisman's →

ALLEGED CORRUPTION OF THE IRISH POLICE BY SHELL

ALLEGED CORRUPTION OF THE IRISH POLICE BY SHELL Mar 31st, 2013 by John Donovan. OSSL seems to have been used as a "Mr Fixit" for SEPIL, allegedly facilitating the distribution of improper gifts to various parties, including the Garda, who rightly or wrongly, have been accused of acting as an offshoot of Shell security in policing protests against the project. It was also alleged that related invoices were falsified on Shell's instructions. Alan Shatter TD, Irish Minister for Justice Dear Mr Shatter TD I am contacting you in your capacity as the Irish Government Minister responsible for Justice. I operate an independent, entirely non commercial website –royaldutchshellplc.com – that monitors the activities of Royal Dutch Shell. We have many contacts inside Shell and regularly publish Shell internal information supplied by whistleblowers, including employees working on the controversial Corrib gas project. We established that the Shell Corib emails supplied to us for publication were authentic. In 2010, 2011, and 2012, I was in correspondence with various Garda officers, including on one occasion, Chief Superintendent M.B. Mangan, Personal Assistant to the Garda Commissioner and subsequently with Superintendent Patrick Diskin and others. The correspondence was in connection with alleged death threats made against the Corrib gas project whistleblowers. I did all I could to assist in the investigation. More recently, in September of last year, I was contacted by a company called OSSL, which apparently for several years, supplied services to Shell E&P Ireland (SEPIR) in relation to the Corrib gas project. OSSL seems to have been used as a "Mr Fixit" for SEPIL, allegedly facilitating the distribution of improper gifts to various parties, including the Garda, who rightly or wrongly, have been accused of acting as an offshoot of Shell security in policing protests against the project. It was also alleged that related invoices were falsified on Shell's instructions. We took the matter up directly with Shell at the outset giving them the opportunity to comment on, or deny the allegations, but received no response. We did satisfy ourselves that a related leaked email to Shell dated 23 August 2012 was genuine and published it along with a related article. Irish Supplier Accuses Shell of Bribery, Cover-up and Sinister Threats The OSSL allegations have continued in subsequent months and in recent days we have published the following articles, which includes a purported invoice to SEPIL dated 24 August 2012 for over €35,000 worth of alcohol allegedly involving "upwards of 300 cops." Shell Accused of Corrupting Irish Police Force OSSL, SHELL AND ALLEGED CORRUPTION Following the publication of the most recent articles, I received on 30 March an email from a long-standing contact in Ireland. This person has far more  knowledge and experience than me in relation to SEPIL and the Garda. The email contained this rather chilling paragraph. "I personally don't know any of the OSSL people (I knew Desmond Kane, the owner of the business name by sight but that was all) but I wonder if they are fully aware of the potentially deadly danger they face in persisting with this and, to that effect, have they adequate protection in place as regards spreading copies of their evidence to different places and ensuring that the original documentation is lodged in a VERY safe location or locations." I have passed this concern on to OSSL and have made it clear  that it comes from a source sympathetic to the plight of OSSL. Being a small company carrying out the instructions of Shell, OSSL must have thought what they were being asked to do by Shell was perfectly legal, bearing in mind that Shell has an in-house army of several hundred lawyers to ensure Shell operates strictly within the law. OSSL probably thought that they could safely rely on Shell. It is only recently that, according to OSSL, Shell's accountants in Dublin have notified them that the activities undertaken for Shell may have been criminal. If authentic, the content of the invoice dated 24 August 2012 raises a number of issues. 1. Was the alcohol listed therein distributed as corrupt gifts to the Garda? 2. Are there cross-border smuggling and VAT issues involved? 3. Did Shell take advantage of the naivety of a small company? Since the corruption allegations have been on the public record for several months, I am astonished that the Irish authorities apparently have not yet become involved in establishing whether there is an enormous corruption scandal surrounding the Corrib gas project, or alternatively, that a small company, for some unknown reason, is making wild unfounded allegations, possibly supported by fake documentation. I have copied this email to Lorna Siggins at The Irish Times so that she is aware of this matter. As a matter of courtesy, I have also sent a copy to Michiel Brandjes, Company Secretary & General Counsel Corporate, Royal Dutch Shell Plc. Kind regards John Donovan Posted in: Bribery, Business Principles, Corrib Gas Project, Corruption, Environment,Gas, GoogleNews, Human Rights, John Donovan, Michiel Brandjes, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Shell, Shell to Sea Campaign. Tagged: Corrib Gas Project · Corruption · Gas · John Donovan · Royal Dutch Shell Plc ← The danger of getting into bed with Shell

LETTER TO THE VICE PRESIDENT

The TRUTH will set you FREE.

LETTER TO THE OMBUDSMAN

RE : SEEK HELP TO PROSECUTE  R.A. 3019  OFFENDERS

    R. A. 3019 , Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
                            Batas Laban sa Kurakutan at Katiwalian

Exhibit  1  Separation Pay

EXHIBIT 2  CLEAR VIEW

The TRUTH will set you FREE.

Old Fisherman - worth reading (WOW)

From: Alfred Clayton
Date: Tue, May 31, 2011 at 9:05 AM

THE OLD FISHERMAN Our house was directly across the street from the clinic entrance of Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore. We lived downstairs & rented the upstairs rooms to outpatients at the Clinic. One summer evening as I was fixing supper, there was a knock at the door. I opened it to see a truly awful looking man. 'Why, he's hardly taller than my eight-year-old,' I thought as I stared at the stooped, shriveled body. But the appalling thing was his face, lopsided from swelling, red & raw. Yet, his voice was pleasant as he said,'Good evening. I've come to see if you've a room for just one night. I came for a treatment this morning from the eastern shore, & there's no bus 'till morning.' He told me he'd been hunting for a room since noon but with no success; no one seemed to have a room. 'I guess it's my face. I know it looks terrible, but my doctor says with a few more treatments...' For a moment I hesitated, but his next words convinced me, 'I could sleep in this rocking chair on the porch. My bus leaves early in the morning.' I told him we would find him a bed, but to rest on the porch. I went inside & finished getting supper. When we were ready, I asked the old man if he would join us. 'No thank you. I have plenty' And he held up a brown paper bag. When I had finished the dishes, I went out on the porch to talk with him a few minutes. It didn't take a long time to see that this old man had an over sized heart crowded into that tiny body. He told me he fished for a living to support his daughter, her five children & her husband, who was hopelessly crippled from a back injury. He didn't tell it by way of complaint; in fact, every other sentence was prefaced with thanks to God for a blessing. He was grateful that no pain accompanied his disease, which was apparently a form of skin cancer. He was thankful for the strength to keep going. At bedtime, we put a camp cot in the children's room for him. When I got up in the morning, the bed linens were neatly folded, & the little man was out on the porch. He refused breakfast, but just before he left for his bus, haltingly, as if asking a great favor, he said, 'Could I please come back & stay the next time I have a treatment? I won't put you out a bit. I can sleep fine in a chair.' He paused a moment & then added, 'Your children made me feel at home. Grownups are bothered by my face, but children don't seem to mind.' I told him he was welcome to come again. And on his next trip he arrived a little after seven in the morning. As a gift, he brought a big fish & a quart of the largest oysters I had ever seen. He said he had shucked them that morning before he left so that they'd be nice & fresh. I knew his bus left at 4 a.m., & I wondered what time he had to get up in order to do this for us. In the years he came to stay overnight with us there was never a time that he did not bring us fish or oysters or vegetables from his garden. Other times we received packages in the mail, always by special delivery; fish & oysters packed in a box of fresh young spinach or kale, every leaf carefully washed. Knowing that he must walk three miles to mail these & knowing how little money he had made the gifts doubly precious. When I received these little remembrances, I often thought of a comment our next-door neighbor made after he left that first morning. 'Did you keep that awful looking man last night? I turned him away! You can lose roomers by putting up such people!' Maybe we did lose roomers once or twice But, oh if only they could have known him, perhaps their illness would have been easier to bear. I know our family always will be grateful to have known him; from him we learned what it was to accept the bad without complaint & the good with gratitude... Recently I was visiting a friend who has a greenhouse. As she showed me her flowers, we came to the most beautiful one of all, a golden chrysanthemum, bursting with blooms. But to my great surprise, it was growing in an old dented, rusty bucket. I thought to myself, 'If this were my plant, I'd put it in the loveliest container I had!' My friend changed my mind. 'I ran short of pots,' she explained, 'and knowing how beautiful this one would be, I thought it wouldn't mind starting out in this old pail. It's just for a little while, till I can put it out in the garden.' She must have wondered why I laughed so delightedly, but I was imagining just such a scene in heaven. There's an especially beautiful one,' God might have said when he came to the soul of the sweet old fisherman. 'He won't mind starting in this small body.' All this happened long ago -- and now, in God's garden, how tall this lovely soul must stand.. The LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.' Friends are very special. They make you smile & encourage you to succeed. They lend an ear & they share a word of praise. Show your friends how much you care. Pass this on, & brighten someone's day. Nothing will happen if you do not decide to pass it along. The only thing that will happen if you do pass it on is that someone might smile because of you! Never look down on anybody, unless you're helping them up. "Life without God is like an unsharpened pencil - it has no point." WISHING YOU LOVE IN YOUR HEART...PEACE IN YOUR SOUL..AND JOY IN YOUR LIFE.....ALWAYS...