關於 plan do check action ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

【投資？投機？蓋房子！賣房子！】

長期投資，像蓋房子，蓋之前要先設計好要蓋什麼樣的房子(計劃買進) ，然後就一層一層的蓋上去(分批買進) ，在蓋的過程中投入的資金都是成本，要好好規劃運用(資金管控) 在還沒賣出去之前，最後都可能虧損(風險意識)

但是只要你蓋的房子，有做基本的市場調查(研究基本面/籌碼面/技術面等等) ，還有區域地點考量(選市) 及分析選擇客群(選股) ，蓋好的房子是有價值的 ，那暫時的虧損，是機會成本，等到價值反應在價格上(耐心等待) ，房子賣出(賣股) ，獲利入袋(資本利得)

沒有人會蓋一半，就放棄，然後又去蓋另一間房子(沒計劃，沒耐心，頻繁交易) ，除非是錢太多，真的蓋房子，不可能有人這樣子，但是投資市場上，這樣的人很多，不過成交量也是這樣來的，這算大愛，用自己的錢不斷的進出交易，長期灌溉股票市場，增加國家稅收，增加劵商營收，大部分的投資人在還沒有達到財富自由前，就會努力工作，也增加上班公司的營收，最後繼續增加國家稅收，然後國家用於建設，再回饋給大家

還有最重要的蓋房子需要時間，不可能因為看到房價下跌，就拆掉不繼續蓋(殺低) ，然後又看到房價上漲，又投入資金開始蓋房子(追高)

房子蓋好後，再來就是銷售(計劃賣出) ，當然一定要賺錢才賣，不然辛苦蓋房子是在做身體健康的嗎？所以參考目前市場行情，訂出想要的銷售價格(目標價) ，訂出銷售時間多久(計劃持股時間) ，如果超過銷售時間賣不出去，就要檢討是銷售價格訂的太高(賣價太高) 或是銷售時間需要再延長，還是目前房市不好(大盤趨勢) ，如果是房市不好，就要耐心等房市好轉，再來賣出，這段期間可以先將蓋好的房子出租收租金(股息) ，然後等到房市好了，再依當時的市場行情，繼續賣房子，如果順利賣出(賺價差) ，之前又收到租金(股息)

所以你是在投資市場上有計劃的蓋房子(靠計劃投資) ，還是每天忙進忙出的蓋房又拆房(憑感覺投機) ，才剛裝潢好，銷售不到3天，就拆掉，最後真正穩定獲利的是建商(劵商) 及做裝潢的(營業員) ，因為每天都有很多人蓋了又拆，拆了又蓋(頻繁交易，增加成本)

短期投機，不蓋房子，直接買賣別人蓋好的房子，然後轉手做價差。厲害的人，懂得買低樓層的房子(低買) ，然後再用高樓層的房價賣出(高賣) ，也有人喜歡買高樓層的房子(追高) ，然後再用低樓層的房價賣出(殺低) ，你是屬於哪一種？

其實大部分的人不適合投機，但是投資市場上，大部分的人喜歡投機

喜歡不代表就會獲利，要找適合自己的投資方式，才有機會獲利

今天你是繼續蓋長期計劃的房子，還是又在拆昨天剛開始蓋的房子？

南哥之前分享的潤泰新/億光，還有之後會分享的安馳及宏璟，我都是用蓋房子的投資觀念去執行的，從設計(plan) ，建造(do) ，檢驗(check) ，銷售(action) ，南哥一手包辦，或許你也可以試試看

這是我在同學會的第2年，去年投資150萬，獲利74萬，報酬率約50％，今年投資1000萬，年底時會獲利或虧損，繼續追蹤看下去，你才會知道

南哥投資便利商店，自己當老闆，追劇追到自然睡，睡覺睡到自然醒，上班忙到還會笑，無人的自動化便利商店，定價買進，固定報酬率，定價賣出，努力創造被動收入

搜尋"股市南哥" ，可以找到南哥投資便利商店的相關資訊，也可以看到之前上報的文章，還沒看過的人，可以看看，瞭解南哥，讓自己在投資路上，有學習成長的機會，看完的請按讚

Pressplay專案，南哥投資便利商店，歡迎加盟，自己當老闆

《不懂引導問話術，主管自己累成渣》用PDCA提問法主持會議
你有想過嗎，要如何擺脫沉悶無趣的會議方式，成為一個好的會議主持人？我更好奇的是，除了傳統的「是／否」、「對／錯」之類沒有討論空間的命令式問題外，還有什麼方法，能夠讓會議充滿更有建設性的討論？我從一本書裡找到滿意的答案。
部落格文章 https://readingoutpost.com/how-to-host-meeting/
Podcast 用聽的 https://readingoutpost.soci.vip/
.
#這本書在說什麼？
.
《不懂引導問話術，主管自己累成渣》這本書廣義來說，是教主管們如何提出「優質提問」，引導下屬採取行動、催生成長。狹義來說，書中的焦點實例在於「會議主持」，透過引導提問的方式，激發部屬的發言慾望和思考，達成更有效的討論。同樣的概念，也適用於任何的會議主持人，用來讓會議進行地更流暢、更活絡。

這本書的作者是日本〈商業引導服務〉機構的代表人新岡優子，曾任IT工程師、專案經理、公司顧問，目前運用自己在產業多元的經驗，協助其他公司進行團隊開發、領導能力、流程改善、會議改善。如同大部分日本的商業書籍，這是一本道理講得少、案例練習講得多的書。

書中很具體地展示了88個問句，如何應用在不同的情境和流程中，鉅細靡遺地說明使用時機和例外條件。這篇文章整理我讀完後的收穫，以及濃縮對我最有幫助的問句，畫成一張「主持會議的PDCA提問循環」提供日後參考。
.
#優質提問為什麼很重要？
.
先說結論：「好的提問能激發好的反思，好的反思容易帶來優質的行動」。在我的職場經驗裡，感受尤其深刻。最近有一位時常指導我的經理，對我（或對別人）最常問的一句話就是：「關於這件事，你有什麼想法？」每當自己被問到，腦中立馬千頭萬緒。

這句話真是簡單又萬用的提問，而且屢試不爽。當我們接到這個提問時，會為了回答而「反思」，也就是連結過去的經驗與價值觀，整理出自己的判斷與想法。反思很可能會帶來新的發現，促使積極的人發想具體的策略，最終促成「行動」。

在主持會議的時候，這句話也適用於對其他的與會者提問，激發對方的思考和表達，進而傾聽對方真實的訴求與想法。《莫守成規》這本書裡提到叛逆型的領導者會懂得跳脫框架、建立「關係」，而且不斷發問：「當我們藉由提問與他人互動時，彼此的關係會變得更強韌。」

作者精煉多年來傳授「引導提問術」的經驗寫道：「優化關係品質和思考品質，促進行動品質的提升，進而帶來成果品質的提升。」這就是優質的提問能達到的效果，提升整體團隊的關係與思考、採取具體行動、強化最終成果。
.
#如何激起部屬發言慾望？
.
站在主管兼會議主持人的角度，不外乎希望大家參與會議，是能夠「達成共識」、「解決問題」、「促進行動」。要讓團隊產生化學效應，最重要的就是加深彼此的「信賴」關係。作者提出五個基本功，若自然而然掛在嘴邊，便能提升部屬的發言慾望：

1.「謝謝。」保持真誠的笑容，無論部屬發言是否有益，皆表達感謝，讓人感到自己有所貢獻、還想再發言。
2.「原來如此，這也是一種看法。」聽到立場不同或者相反的意見時，表達接納對方的發言，但還不表示肯定對方的意見。
3.「讓我們一起來想辦法。」讓部屬把你當作一同思考的戰友，但要搭配問「各位覺得怎麼辦才好？」不要淪為只有自己動腦。
4.「……（不多話）」身為主管常有強烈使命感，認為自己要負責解決問題。然而，太多話只會剝奪部屬思考與發言機會。
5.「我還是想提出這個看法…」用於當團隊思考開始侷限、失焦時，用這句話擴大思考框架，或提出完全相反的想法。

此外，保持「謙遜」的態度也會讓部屬勇於發言。我讀管理名著《主管這樣帶人就對了》時寫下這則感想：「領導者要認知到，自己不一定得是團隊中懂最多或最厲害的人，懂得讓出空間給下屬發揮和表現，讓下屬來『教』自己。」
.
#開會時應該問哪些問題？
.
讀到這本書的後半段，看到作者把「PDCA循環」用來做為會議的審視和改善規則手法。但我對於制定會議的規則比較不感興趣，反而覺得這個循環很適合做為會議的起承轉合，我整理書中實用的問句範例，畫成以下這張「主持會議的PDCA提問循環」。
.
#主持會議的PDCA提問循環 (詳見附圖)
.
#PLAN
首先，是會議開始時的規劃（Plan）階段，提出「目前最大的問題是什麼？誰最困擾？我們最應該先解決的是什麼？」之類的問題，定義會議討論的主軸，凝聚大家的聚焦方向。
#DO
接著，是會議重頭戲的執行（Do）階段，針對討論方向開始向部屬提問：「關於這件事，你有什麼想法？你打算怎麼做？需要什麼協助？」透過這類問題，激發思考與討論，催生各種提案與想法，讓議題有一定程度的發散。
#CHECK
再來，是會議收斂的檢核（Check）階段，試著帶領團隊回顧，問道：「我們的討論是否有朝目標前進？」也可以向個人提問：「你可以用一句話總結這項重點嗎？」把討論完的策略與議題進行收斂，凝聚團隊共識，加深部屬對各個議題的認知。
#ACTION
最後，總結會議內容的行動（Action）階段，問出：「根據今天的討論，要採取哪些行動？」讓團隊針對共識，擬定各項行動。透過「所以誰能為這件事做什麼？」之類問題，讓各項行動有明確的執行者，完成這次的會議循環。
.
後記：#你喜歡哪一種工作風格？
.
《不懂引導問話術，主管自己累成渣》書中的88個問句範例，大部分是由（１）使用原理、（２）使用範例、（３）進階運用要訣、（４）宜避免使用的提問構成，適合讀者挑選符合自己風格的問句，進一步研究跟練習。

以我自己接觸過日本外商的經驗，還有之前讀到《2030轉職地圖》這本書裡獵頭專家談日本職場文化，可以知道日本的職場倫理上對下的態度，仍舊根深柢固。書中也有許多篇幅，在講尊敬前輩的用詞和問句要如何調整，台灣的讀者倒不一定要照單全收。

相比起「命令式」一口令一動作的帶領風格，這本書讓我提高對於「提問式」領導的意識。拋出問題讓部屬自己回答與尋找答案，更能夠促使部屬成長與進步，似乎也更符合年輕一代比較傾向自主、自由的工作風格。

關於提問這件事，你有什麼想法呢？

這是前些日子爆出已經被加拿大法院接理對藏傳佛教噶舉派法王的訟訴。（加拿大法院鏈接在此：https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/21/09/2021BCSC0939cor1.htm?fbclid=IwAR2FLZlzmUIGTBaTuKPVchEqqngcE3Qy6G_C0TWNWVKa2ksbIYkVJVMQ8f8）

這位法王的桃色事件，我是幾年前才聽到。但，藏傳佛教的高層有這些性醜聞，我已經聽了幾十年。我以前的一位前女友也被一些堪布藉故上她的家摟抱過，也有一些活佛跟她表白。（這不只是她，其他地方我也聽過不少）

這是一個藏傳佛教裡面系統式的問題。

很多時候發生這種事情，信徒和教主往往都是說女方得不到寵而報仇，或者說她們也精神病，或者說她們撒謊。

我不排除有這種可能性，但，多過一位，甚至多位出來指證的時候，我是傾向於相信『沒有那麼巧這麼多有精神病的女人要撒謊來報仇』。

大寶法王的桃色事件，最先吹哨的是一位台灣的在家信徒，第二位是香港的女出家人，現在加拿大又多一位公開舉報上法庭。

對大寶法王信徒來說，這一次的比較麻煩，因為是有孩子的。（關於有孩子的，我早在法王的桃色事件曝光時，就有聽聞）

如果法庭勒令要驗證DNA，這對法王和他的信徒來說，會很尷尬和矛盾，因為做或不做，都死。

你若問我，我覺得『人數是有力量的』，同時我也覺得之後有更多的人站出來，是不出奇的。

我也藉此呼籲各方佛教徒，如果你們真的愛佛教，先別說批判，但如鴕鳥般不討論這些爭議，你是間接害了佛教。

（下面是我從加拿大法院鏈接拷貝下來的內容，當中有很多細節。）

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

ANALYSIS

A. The Spousal Support Claim in this Case

B. The Test to Amend Pleadings

C. Pleadings in Family Law Cases

D. The Legal Concept of a Marriage-Like Relationship

E. Is There a Reasonable Claim of a Marriage-Like Relationship?

F. Delay / Prejudice

CONCLUSION



INTRODUCTION
[1] The claimant applies to amend her notice of family claim to seek spousal support. At issue is whether the claimant’s allegations give rise to a reasonable claim she lived with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship, so as to give rise to a potential entitlement to spousal support under the Family Law Act, S.B.C. 2011, c. 25 (“FLA”).

[2] The facts alleged by the claimant do not fit within a traditional concept of marriage. The claimant does not allege that she and the respondent ever lived together. Indeed, she has only met the respondent in person four times: twice very briefly in a public setting; a third time in private, when she alleges the respondent sexually assaulted her; and a fourth and final occasion, when she informed the respondent she was pregnant with his child.

[3] The claimant’s case is that what began as a non-consensual sexual encounter evolved into a loving and affectionate relationship. That relationship occurred almost entirely over private text messages. The parties rarely spoke on the telephone, and never saw one another during the relationship, even over video. The claimant says they could not be together because the respondent is forbidden by his station and religious beliefs from intimate relationships or marriage. Nonetheless, she alleges, they formed a marriage-like relationship that lasted from January 2018 to January 2019.

[4] The respondent denies any romantic relationship with the claimant. While he acknowledges providing emotional and financial support to the claimant, he says it was for the benefit of the child the claimant told him was his daughter.

[5] The claimant’s proposed amendment raises a novel question: can a secret relationship that began on-line and never moved into the physical world be like a marriage? In my view, that question should be answered by a trial judge after hearing all of the evidence. The alleged facts give rise to a reasonable claim the claimant lived with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship. Accordingly, I grant the claimant leave to amend her notice of family claim.

BACKGROUND
[6] It should be emphasized that this is an application to amend pleadings only. The allegations by the claimant are presumed to be true for the purposes of this application. Those allegations have not been tested in a court of law.

[7] The respondent, Ogyen Trinley Dorje, is a high lama of the Karma Kagyu School of Tibetan Buddhism. He has been recognized and enthroned as His Holiness, the 17th Gyalwang Karmapa. Without meaning any disrespect, I will refer to him as Mr. Dorje in these reasons for judgment.

[8] Mr. Dorje leads a monastic and nomadic lifestyle. His true home is Tibet, but he currently resides in India. He receives followers from around the world at the Gyuto Monetary in India. He also travels the world teaching Tibetan Buddhist Dharma and hosting pujas, ceremonies at which Buddhists express their gratitude and devotion to the Buddha.

[9] The claimant, Vikki Hui Xin Han, is a former nun of Tibetan Buddhism. Ms. Han first encountered Mr. Dorje briefly at a large puja in 2014. The experience of the puja convinced Ms. Han she wanted to become a Buddhist nun. She met briefly with Mr. Dorje, in accordance with Kagyu traditions, to obtain his approval to become a nun.

[10] In October 2016, Ms. Han began a three-year, three-month meditation retreat at a monastery in New York State. Her objective was to learn the practices and teachings of the Kagyu Lineage. Mr. Dorje was present at the retreat twice during the time Ms. Han was at the monastery.

[11] Ms. Han alleges that on October 14, 2017, Mr. Dorje sexually assaulted her in her room at the monastery. She alleges that she became pregnant from the assault.

[12] After she learned that she was pregnant, Ms. Han requested a private audience with Mr. Dorje. In November 2017, in the presence of his bodyguards, Ms. Han informed Mr. Dorje she was pregnant with his child. Mr. Dorje initially denied responsibility; however, he provided Ms. Han with his email address and a cellphone number, and, according to Ms. Han, said he would “prepare some money” for her.

[13] Ms. Han abandoned her plan to become a nun, left the retreat and returned to Canada. She never saw Mr. Dorje again.

[14] After Ms. Han returned to Canada, she and Mr. Dorje began a regular communication over an instant messaging app called Line. They also exchanged emails and occasionally spoke on the telephone.

[15] The parties appear to have expressed care and affection for one another in these communications. I say “appear to” because it is difficult to fully understand the meaning and intentions of another person from brief text messages, especially those originally written in a different language. The parties wrote in a private shorthand, sharing jokes, emojis, cartoon portraits and “hugs” or “kisses”. Ms. Han was the more expressive of the two, writing more frequently and in longer messages. Mr. Dorje generally participated in response to questions or prompting from Ms. Han, sometimes in single word messages.

[16] Ms. Han deposes that she believed Mr. Dorje was in love with her and that, by January 2018, she and Mr. Dorje were living in a “conjugal relationship”.

[17] During their communications, Ms. Han expressed concern that her child would be “illegitimate”. She appears to have asked Mr. Dorje to marry her, and he appears to have responded that he was “not ready”.

[18] Throughout 2018, Mr. Dorje transferred funds in various denominations to Ms. Han through various third parties. Ms. Han deposes that these funds were:

a) $50,000 CDN to deliver the child and for postpartum care she was to receive at a facility in Seattle;

b) $300,000 CDN for the first year of the child’s life;

c) $20,000 USD for a wedding ring, because Ms. Han wrote “Even if we cannot get married, you must buy me a wedding ring”;

d) $400,000 USD to purchase a home for the mother and child.

[19] On June 19, 2018, Ms. Han gave birth to a daughter in Richmond, B.C.

[20] On September 17, 2018, Mr. Dorje wrote, ”Taking care of her and you are my duty for life”.

[21] Ms. Han’s expectation was that the parties would live together in the future. She says they planned to live together. Those plans evolved over time. Initially they involved purchasing a property in Toronto, so that Mr. Dorje could visit when he was in New York. They also discussed purchasing property in Calgary or renting a home in Vancouver for that purpose. Ms. Han eventually purchased a condominium in Richmond using funds provided by Mr. Dorje.

[22] Ms. Han deposes that the parties made plans for Mr. Dorje to visit her and meet the child in Richmond. In October 2018, however, Mr. Dorje wrote that he needed to “disappear” to Europe. He wrote:

I will definitely find a way to meet her

And you

Remember to take care of yourself if something happens

[23] The final plan the parties discussed, according to Ms. Han, was that Mr. Dorje would sponsor Ms. Han and the child to immigrate to the United States and live at the Kagyu retreat centre in New York State.

[24] In January 2019, Ms. Han lost contact with Mr. Dorje.

[25] Ms. Han commenced this family law case on July 17, 2019, seeking child support, a declaration of parentage and a parentage test. She did not seek spousal support.

[26] Ms. Han first proposed a claim for spousal support in October 2020 after a change in her counsel. Following an exchange of correspondence concerning an application for leave to amend the notice of family claim, Ms. Han’s counsel wrote that Ms. Han would not be advancing a spousal support claim. On March 16, 2020, counsel reversed course, and advised that Ms. Han had instructed him to proceed with the application.

[27] When this application came on before me, the trial was set to commence on June 7, 2021. The parties were still in the process of discoveries and obtaining translations for hundreds of pages of documents in Chinese characters.

[28] At a trial management conference on May 6, 2021, noting the parties were not ready to proceed, Madam Justice Walkem adjourned the trial to April 11, 2022.

ANALYSIS
A. The Spousal Support Claim in this Case
[29] To claim spousal support in this case, Ms. Han must plead that she lived with Mr. Dorje in a marriage-like relationship. This is because only “spouses” are entitled to spousal support, and s. 3 of the Family Law Act defines a spouse as a person who is married or has lived with another person in a marriage-like relationship:

3 (1) A person is a spouse for the purposes of this Act if the person

(a) is married to another person, or

(b) has lived with another person in a marriage-like relationship, and

(i) has done so for a continuous period of at least 2 years, or

(ii) except in Parts 5 [Property Division] and 6 [Pension Division], has a child with the other person.

[30] Because she alleges she has a child with Mr. Dorje, Ms. Han need not allege that the relationship endured for a continuous period of two years to claim spousal support; but she must allege that she lived in a marriage-like relationship with him at some point in time. Accordingly, she must amend the notice of family claim.

B. The Test to Amend Pleadings
[31] Given that the notice of trial has been served, Ms. Han requires leave of the court to amend the notice of family claim: Supreme Court Family Rule 8-1(1)(b)(i).

[32] A person seeking to amend a notice of family claim must show that there is a reasonable cause of action. This is a low threshold. What the applicant needs to establish is that, if the facts pleaded are proven at trial, they would support a reasonable claim. The applicant’s allegations of fact are assumed to be true for the purposes of this analysis. Cantelon v. Wall, 2015 BCSC 813, at para. 7-8.

[33] The applicant’s delay, the reasons for the delay, and the prejudice to the responding party are also relevant factors. The ultimate consideration is whether it would be just and convenient to allow the amendment. Cantelon, at para. 6, citing Teal Cedar Products Ltd. v. Dale Intermediaries Ltd. et al (1986), 19 B.C.L.R. (3d) 282.

C. Pleadings in Family Law Cases
[34] Supreme Court Family Rules 3-1(1) and 4-1(1) require that a claim to spousal support be pleaded in a notice of family claim in Form F3. Section 2 of Form F3, “Spousal relationship history”, requires a spousal support claimant to check the boxes that apply to them, according to whether they are or have been married or are or have been in a marriage-like relationship. Where a claimant alleges a marriage-like relationship, Form F3 requires that they provide the date on which they began to live together with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship and, where applicable, the date on which they separated. Form F3 does not require a statement of the factual basis for the claim of spousal support.

[35] In this case, Ms. Han seeks to amend the notice of family claim to allege that she and Mr. Dorje began to live in a marriage-like relationship in or around January 2018, and separated in or around January 2019.

[36] An allegation that a person lived with a claimant in a marriage-like relationship is a conclusion of law, not an allegation of fact. Unlike the rules governing pleadings in civil actions, however, the Supreme Court Family Rules do not expressly require family law claimants to plead the material facts in support of conclusions of law.

[37] In other words, there is no express requirement in the Supreme Court Family Rules that Ms. Han plead the facts on which she relies for the allegation she and Mr. Dorje lived in a marriage-like relationship.

[38] Rule 4-6 authorizes a party to demand particulars, and then apply to the court for an order for further and better particulars, of a matter stated in a pleading. However, unless and until she is granted leave and files the proposed amended notice of family claim, Ms. Han’s allegation of a marriage-like relationship is not a matter stated in a pleading.

[39] Ms. Han filed an affidavit in support of her application to amend the notice of family claim. Normally, evidence would not be required or admissible on an application to amend a pleading. However, in the unusual circumstances of this case, the parties agreed I may look to Ms. Han’s affidavit and exhibits for the facts she pleads in support of the allegation of a marriage-like relationship.

[40] Because this is an application to amend - and Ms. Han’s allegations of fact are presumed to be true - I have not considered Mr. Dorje’s responding affidavit.

[41] Relying on affidavit evidence for an application to amend pleadings is less than ideal. It tends to merge and confuse the material facts with the evidence that would be relied on to prove those facts. In a number of places in her affidavit, for example, Ms. Han describes her feelings, impressions and understandings. A person’s hopes and intentions are not normally material facts unless they are mutual or reasonably held. The facts on which Ms. Han alleges she and Mr. Dorje formed a marriage-like relationship are more important for the present purposes than her belief they entered into a conjugal union.

[42] Somewhat unusually, in this case, almost all of the parties’ relevant communications were in writing. This makes it somewhat easier to separate the facts from the evidence; however, as stated above, it is difficult to understand the intentions and actions of a person from brief text messages.

[43] In my view, it would be a good practice for applicants who seek to amend their pleadings in family law cases to provide opposing counsel and the court with a schedule of the material facts on which they rely for the proposed amendment.

D. The Legal Concept of a Marriage-Like Relationship
[44] As Mr. Justice Myers observed in Mother 1 v. Solus Trust Company, 2019 BCSC 200, the concept of a marriage-like relationship is elastic and difficult to define. This elasticity is illustrated by the following passage from Yakiwchuk v. Oaks, 2003 SKQB 124, quoted by Myers J. at para. 133 of Mother 1:

[10] Spousal relationships are many and varied. Individuals in spousal relationships, whether they are married or not, structure their relationships differently. In some relationships there is a complete blending of finances and property - in others, spouses keep their property and finances totally separate and in still others one spouse may totally control those aspects of the relationship with the other spouse having little or no knowledge or input. For some couples, sexual relations are very important - for others, that aspect may take a back seat to companionship. Some spouses do not share the same bed. There may be a variety of reasons for this such as health or personal choice. Some people are affectionate and demonstrative. They show their feelings for their “spouse” by holding hands, touching and kissing in public. Other individuals are not demonstrative and do not engage in public displays of affection. Some “spouses” do everything together - others do nothing together. Some “spouses” vacation together and some spend their holidays apart. Some “spouses” have children - others do not. It is this variation in the way human beings structure their relationships that make the determination of when a “spousal relationship” exists difficult to determine. With married couples, the relationship is easy to establish. The marriage ceremony is a public declaration of their commitment and intent. Relationships outside marriage are much more difficult to ascertain. Rarely is there any type of “public” declaration of intent. Often people begin cohabiting with little forethought or planning. Their motivation is often nothing more than wanting to “be together”. Some individuals have chosen to enter relationships outside marriage because they did not want the legal obligations imposed by that status. Some individuals have simply given no thought as to how their relationship would operate. Often the date when the cohabitation actually began is blurred because people “ease into” situations, spending more and more time together. Agreements between people verifying when their relationship began and how it will operate often do not exist.

[45] In Mother 1, Mr. Justice Myers referred to a list of 22 factors grouped into seven categories, from Maldowich v. Penttinen, (1980), 17 R.F.L. (2d) 376 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), that have frequently been cited in this and other courts for the purpose of determining whether a relationship was marriage-like, at para. 134 of Mother 1:

1. Shelter:

(a) Did the parties live under the same roof?

(b) What were the sleeping arrangements?

(c) Did anyone else occupy or share the available accommodation?

2. Sexual and Personal Behaviour:

(a) Did the parties have sexual relations? If not, why not?

(b) Did they maintain an attitude of fidelity to each other?

(c) What were their feelings toward each other?

(d) Did they communicate on a personal level?

(e) Did they eat their meals together?

(f) What, if anything, did they do to assist each other with problems or during illness?

(g) Did they buy gifts for each other on special occasions?

3. Services:

What was the conduct and habit of the parties in relation to:

(a) preparation of meals;

(b) washing and mending clothes;

(c) shopping;

(d) household maintenance; and

(e) any other domestic services?

4. Social:

(a) Did they participate together or separately in neighbourhood and community activities?

(b) What was the relationship and conduct of each of them toward members of their respective families and how did such families behave towards the parties?

5. Societal:

What was the attitude and conduct of the community toward each of them and as a couple?

6. Support (economic):

(a) What were the financial arrangements between the parties regarding the provision of or contribution toward the necessaries of life (food, clothing, shelter, recreation, etc.)?

(b) What were the arrangements concerning the acquisition and ownership of property?

(c) Was there any special financial arrangement between them which both agreed would be determinant of their overall relationship?

7. Children:

What was the attitude and conduct of the parties concerning children?

[46] In Austin v. Goerz, 2007 BCCA 586, the Court of Appeal cautioned against a “checklist approach”; rather, a court should "holistically" examine all the relevant factors. Cases like Molodowich provide helpful indicators of the sorts of behaviour that society associates with a marital relationship, the Court of Appeal said; however, “the presence or absence of any particular factor cannot be determinative of whether a relationship is marriage-like” (para. 58).

[47] In Weber v. Leclerc, 2015 BCCA 492, the Court of Appeal again affirmed that there is no checklist of characteristics that will be found in all marriages and then concluded with respect to evidence of intentions:

[23] The parties’ intentions – particularly the expectation that the relationship will be of lengthy, indeterminate duration – may be of importance in determining whether a relationship is “marriage-like”. While the court will consider the evidence expressly describing the parties’ intentions during the relationship, it will also test that evidence by considering whether the objective evidence is consonant with those intentions.

[24] The question of whether a relationship is “marriage-like” will also typically depend on more than just their intentions. Objective evidence of the parties’ lifestyle and interactions will also provide direct guidance on the question of whether the relationship was “marriage-like”.

[48] Significantly for this case, the courts have looked to mutual intent in order to find a marriage-like relationship. See, for example, L.E. v. D.J., 2011 BCSC 671 and Buell v. Unger, 2011 BCSC 35; Davey Estate v. Gruyaert, 2005 CarswellBC 3456 at 13 and 35.

[49] In Mother 1, Myers J. concluded his analysis of the law with the following learned comment:

[143] Having canvassed the law relating to the nature of a marriage-like relationship, I will digress to point out the problematic nature of the concept. It may be apparent from the above that determining whether a marriage-like relationship exists sometimes seems like sand running through one's fingers. Simply put, a marriage-like relationship is akin to a marriage without the formality of a marriage. But as the cases mentioned above have noted, people treat their marriages differently and have different conceptions of what marriage entails.

[50] In short, the determination of whether the parties in this case lived in a marriage-like relationship is a fact-specific inquiry that a trial judge would need to make on a “holistic” basis, having regard to all of the evidence. While the trial judge may consider the various factors listed in the authorities, those factors would not be treated as a checklist and no single factor or category of factors would be treated as being decisive.

E. Is There a Reasonable Claim of a Marriage-Like Relationship?
[51] In this case, many of the Molodowich factors are missing:

a) The parties never lived under the same roof. They never slept together. They were never in the same place at the same time during the relationship. The last time they saw each other in person was in November 2017, before the relationship began.

b) The parties never had consensual sex. They did not hug, kiss or hold hands. With the exception of the alleged sexual assault, they never touched one another physically.

c) The parties expressed care and affection for one another, but they rarely shared personal information or interest in their lives outside of their direct topic of communication. They did not write about their families, their friends, their religious beliefs or their work.

d) They expressed concern and support for one another when the other felt unwell or experienced health issues, but they did not provide any care or assistance during illness or other problems.

e) They did not assist one another with domestic chores.

f) They did not share their relationship with their peers or their community. There is no allegation, for example, that Mr. Dorje told his fellow monks or any of his followers about the relationship. There is no allegation that Ms. Han told her friends or any co-workers. Indeed, there is no allegation that anyone, with the exception of Ms. Han’s mother, knew about the relationship. Although Mr. Dorje gave Ms. Han’s mother a gift, he never met the mother and he never spoke to her.

g) They did not intend to have a child together. The child was conceived as a result of a sexual assault. While Mr. Dorje expressed interest in “meeting” the child, he never followed up. He currently has no relationship with the child. There is no allegation he has sought access or parenting arrangements.

[52] The only Molodowich factor of any real relevance in this case is economic support. Mr. Dorje provided the funds with which Ms. Han purchased a condominium. Mr. Dorje initially wrote that he wanted to buy a property with the money, but, he wrote, “It’s the same thing if you buy [it]”.

[53] Mr. Dorje also provided a significant amount of money for Ms. Han’s postpartum care and the child’s first year of life.

[54] This financial support may have been primarily for the benefit of the child. Even the condominium, Ms. Han wrote, was primarily for the benefit of the child.

[55] However, in my view, a trial judge may attach a broader significance to the financial support from Mr. Dorje than child support alone. A trial judge may find that the money Mr. Dorje provided to Ms. Han at her request was an expression of his commitment to her in circumstances in which he could not commit physically. The money and the gifts may be seen by the trial judge to have been a form of down payment by Mr. Dorje on a promise of continued emotional and financial support for Ms. Han, or, in Mr. Dorje’s own words, “Taking care of her and you are my duty for life” (emphasis added).

[56] On the other hand, I find it difficult to attach any particular significance to the fact that Mr. Dorje agreed to provide funds for Ms. Han to purchase a wedding ring. It appears to me that Ms. Han demanded that Mr. Dorje buy her a wedding ring, not that the ring had any mutual meaning to the parties as a marriage symbol. But it is relevant, in my view, that Mr. Dorje provided $20,000 USD to Ms. Han for something she wanted that was of no benefit to the child.

[57] Further, Ms. Han alleges that the parties intended to live together. At a minimum, a trial judge may find that the discussions about where Ms. Han and the child would live reflected a mutual intention of the parties to see one another and spend time together when they could.

[58] Mr. Dorje argues that an intention to live together at some point in the future is not sufficient to show that an existing relationship was marriage-like. He argues that the question of whether the relationship was marriage-like requires more than just intentions, citing Weber, supra.

[59] In my view, the documentary evidence referred to above provides some objective evidence in this case that the parties progressed beyond mere intentions. As stated, the parties appear to have expressed genuine care and affection for one another. They appear to have discussed marriage, trust, honesty, finances, mutual obligations and acquiring family property. These are not matters one would expect Mr. Dorje to discuss with a friend or a follower, or even with the mother of his child, without a marriage-like element of the relationship.

[60] A trial judge may find on the facts alleged by Ms. Han that the parties loved one another and would have lived together, but were unable to do so because of Mr. Dorje’s religious duties and nomadic lifestyle.

[61] The question I raised in the introduction to these reasons is whether a relationship that began on-line and never moved into the physical world can be marriage-like.

[62] Notably, the definition of a spouse in the Family Law Act does not require that the parties live together, only that they live with another person in a marriage-like relationship.

[63] In Connor Estate, 2017 BCSC 978, Mr. Justice Kent found that a couple that maintained two entirely separate households and never lived under the same roof formed a marriage-like relationship. (Connor Estate was decided under the intestacy provisions of the Wills, Estates and Succession Act, S.B.C. 2009, c. 13 ("WESA"), but courts have relied on cases decided under WESA and the FLA interchangeably for their definitions of a spouse.) Mr. Justice Kent found:

[50] The evidence is overwhelming and I find as a fact that Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor loved and cared deeply about each other, and that they had a loving and intimate relationship for over 20 years that was far more than mere friendship or even so-called "friendship with benefits". I accept Mr. Chambers' evidence that he would have liked to share a home with Ms. Connor after the separation from his wife, but was unable to do so because of Ms. Connor's hoarding illness. The evidence amply supports, and I find as a fact, that Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor loved each other, were faithful to each other, communicated with each other almost every day when they were not together, considered themselves to be (and presented themselves to be) "husband and wife" and were accepted by all who knew them as a couple.

[64] Connor Estate may be distinguishable from this case because Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor were physically intimate for over 20 years, and presented themselves to the world as a married couple.

[65] Other decisions in which a marriage-like relationship has been found to exist despite the parties not living together have involved circumstances in which the couple lived under the same roof at previous points in the relationship, and the issue was whether they continued to be spouses after they took up separate residences: in Thompson v. Floyd, 2001 BCCA 78, the parties had lived together for a period of at least 11 years; in Roach v. Dutra, 2010 BCCA 264, the parties had lived together for approximately three years.

[66] However, as Mr. Justice Kent noted in Connor Estate:

[48] … [W]hile much guidance might be found in this case law, the simple fact is that no two cases are identical (and indeed they usually vary widely) and it is the assessment of evidence as a whole in this particular case which matters.

[67] Mr. Justice Kent concluded:

[53] Like human beings themselves, marriage-like relationships can come in many and various shapes. In this particular case, I have no doubt that such a relationship existed …

[68] As stated, Ms. Han’s claim is novel. It may even be weak. Almost all of the traditional factors are missing. The fact that Ms. Han and Mr. Dorje never lived under the same roof, never shared a bed and never even spent time together in person will militate against a finding they lived with one another in a marriage-like relationship. However, the traditional factors are not a mandatory check-list that confines the “elastic” concept of a marriage-like relationship. And if the COVID pandemic has taught us nothing else, it is that real relationships can form, blossom and end in virtual worlds.

[69] In my view, the merits of Ms. Han’s claim should be decided on the evidence. Subject to an overriding prejudice to Mr. Dorje, she should have leave to amend the notice of family claim. However, she should also provide meaningful particulars of the alleged marriage-like relationship.

F. Delay / Prejudice
[70] Ms. Han filed her notice of family claim on July 17, 2019. She brought this application to amend approximately one year and nine months after she filed the pleading, just over two months before the original trial date.

[71] Ms. Han’s delay was made all that more remarkable by her change in position from January 19, 2021, when she confirmed, through counsel, that she was not seeking spousal support in this case.

[72] Ms. Han gave notice of her intention to proceed with this application to Mr. Dorje on March 16, 2021. By the time the application was heard, the parties had conducted examinations for discovery without covering the issues that would arise from a claim of spousal support.

[73] Also, in April, Ms. Han produced additional documents, primarily text messages, that may be relevant to her claim of spousal support, but were undecipherable to counsel for Mr. Dorje, who does not read Mandarin.

[74] This application proceeded largely on documents selected and translated by counsel for Ms. Han. I was informed that Mandarin translations of the full materials would take 150 days.

[75] Understandably in the circumstances, Mr. Dorje argued that an amendment two months before trial would be neither just nor convenient. He argued that he would be prejudiced by an adjournment so as to allow Ms. Han to advance a late claim of spousal support.

[76] The circumstances changed on May 6, 2021, when Madam Justice Walkem adjourned the trial to July 2022 and reset it for 25 days. Madam Justice Walkem noted that most of the witnesses live internationally and require translators. She also noted that paternity may be in issue, and Mr. Dorje may amend his pleadings to raise that issue. It seems clear that, altogether apart from the potential spousal support claim, the parties were not ready to proceed to trial on June 7, 2021.

[77] In my view, any remaining prejudice to Mr. Dorje is outweighed by the importance of having all of the issues between the parties decided on their merits.

[78] Ms. Han’s delay and changes of position on spousal support may be a matter to de addressed in a future order of costs; but they are not grounds on which to deny her leave to amend the notice of family claim.

CONCLUSION
[79] Ms. Han is granted leave to amend her notice of family claim in the form attached as Appendix A to the notice of application to include a claim for spousal support.

[80] Within 21 days, or such other deadline as the parties may agree, Ms. Han must provide particulars of the marriage-like relationship alleged in the amended notice of family claim.

[81] Ms. Han is entitled to costs of this application in the cause of the spousal support claim.

“Master Elwood”

業務管理でよく用いられるPDCAサイクル。
継続的に品質管理するための手法です。

Plan（計画）
Do（実行）
Check（評価）
Action（改善）

大企業や中小企業だけじゃなく、個人事業主にとっても大事なこと。
フリーランスもPDCAサイクルを回し続けることがとても重要です。
しかも高速で回し続けること。
時代に取り残されないために、ライバルとの差別化を図るために。
ビジネスを持続化していくために。

#PDCAサイクル　 #ビジネス #フリーランス

チャンネル登録はこちら
http://urx.mobi/HHy3

■━■━■━■━■━■━■━■━■━■
■最強ワードプレステーマ
https://urikoya.com/thethor

集客と収益に特価した最強のワードプレステーマ。
ザ・トールの完全攻略マニュアル動画を特典としてご用意しました。
SEOに強いデザイナーズテーマでライバルに圧倒的な差をつけよう！


■売子屋の無料メール講座
https://urikoya.com/course

YouTubeで7,000人以上の濃い見込み客を
集めて月収500万円稼いだ方法を公開中！

■マンツーマン個人コンサル
https://urikoya.com/consulting

PC１台で思いっきり稼ぐノウハウ、あなたに直接お会いしてこっそり教えちゃいます♪

■ヒーローゆうきのオフィシャルサイト
https://heroyuuki.com/

■売子屋
https://urikoya.com/

ネットビジネスやWEB集客、アフィリエイトでの稼ぎ方
自己啓発やマインドなどで役立つ情報を配信しています。


～プロフィール～
みんなのヒーローゆうき
1974年2月4日生まれ　水瓶座のO型
20代の頃はBANDでギターボーカルを担当
フリーターをやりながら、ライブハウスや路上ライブなどを敢行
30代の頃に一度だけまともに会社に就職
一度きりの人生、やりたいとをやろうと思って独立開業
2011年からネットビジネスの世界を知って参入
2014年にアフィリエイトで月収100万超えを達成！
2017年に株式会社パブロックを設立

現在はコンサル、オンラインスクール、セミナー、教材販売、YouTube、アフィリエイトなど、WEBマーケティングを中心に幅広いビジネスを展開しています。

もっと詳しいプロフィールはこちら
https://urikoya.com/profile

★ヒーローゆうきのFacebook
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100004302460786

★売子屋のTwitter
https://twitter.com/urikoya

「みるみるランド」の編集長やってます♪
世の中のワクワク・ドキドキを全国のお茶の間にお届け！
https://mirumiruland.com/

料理チャンネル「みるみるクッキング」もよろしく
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTjl0-thbOA35zYGdtj_rNQ

■━■━■━■━■━■━■━■━■━■━■━■

みんなのヒーローゆうきへのお問い合わせはこちら
http://heroyuuki.com/?page_id=2

ネットビジネスやアフィリエイトについてのご質問なども受け付けています。
お気軽にメッセージくださいね♪
(・∀・)/

As A Digital Marketing Agency Owner, You Need To Have These 7 Softwares. Want More Insider Marketing Knowledge From Jeremy And Dan? Join The Next FREEDOM Challenge Now: https://7digitalmarketingsoftwares.danlok.link

Most digital marketing agencies rely on software to automate processes and make their lives easier. Discover the 7 software that every digital marketing agency needs to have. Share this video with a fellow digital marketer.

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ Video Highlights ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
0:00 - Intro - 7 Softwares That Every Digital Marketing Agency Needs To Have
1:08 - Software 1: Stripe
2:07 - Software 2: Clickfunnels
3:03 - Software 3: Kajabi
4:08 - Software 4: Active Campaign
5:09 - Software 5: Slack
5:48 - Software 6: G-Suite
6:59 - Software 7: Culture Index
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

? SUBSCRIBE TO DAN'S YOUTUBE CHANNEL NOW ?
https://www.youtube.com/danlok?sub_confirmation=1

? Join my YouTube Membership to get access to EXCLUSIVE perks ?
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCs_6DXZROU29pLvgQdCx4Ww/join

Check out these Top Trending Playlists -
1.) Boss In The Bentley - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEmTTOfet46OWsrbWGPnPW8mvDtjge_6-

2.) Sales Tips That Get People To Buy - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6Csz_hvXzw&list=PLEmTTOfet46PvAsPpWByNgUWZ5dLJd_I4

3.) Dan Lok’s Best Secrets - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZNmFJUuTRs&list=PLEmTTOfet46N3NIYsBQ9wku8UBNhtT9QQ

Dan Lok has been viewed more than 1.7+ billion times across social media for his expertise on how to achieve financial confidence. And is the author of over a dozen international bestselling books.

Dan has also been featured on FOX Business News, MSNBC, CBC, FORBES, Inc, Entrepreneur, and Business Insider.

In addition to his social media presence, Dan Lok is the founder of the Dan Lok Organization, which includes more than two dozen companies - and is a venture capitalist currently evaluating acquisitions in markets such as education, new media, and software.

Some of his companies include Closers.com, Copywriters.com, High Ticket Closers, High Income Copywriters and a dozen of other brands.

And as chairman of DRAGON 100, the world’s most exclusive advisory board, Dan Lok also seeks to provide capital to minority founders and budding entrepreneurs.

Dan Lok trains as hard in the Dojo as he negotiates in the boardroom. And thus has earned himself the name; The King Of Closing.

If you want the no b.s. way to master your financial destiny, then learn from Dan. Subscribe to his channel now.

★☆★ CONNECT WITH DAN ON SOCIAL MEDIA ★☆★
YouTube: http://youtube.danlok.link
Dan Lok Blog: http://blog.danlok.link
Dan Lok Shop: https://shop.danlok.link
Facebook: http://facebook.danlok.link
Instagram: http://instagram.danlok.link
Linkedin: http://mylinkedin.danlok.link
Podcast: http://thedanlokshow.danlok.link

#DanLok #DigitalMarketingTools #Software

Please understand that by watching Dan’s videos or enrolling in his programs does not mean you’ll get results close to what he’s been able to do (or do anything for that matter).

He’s been in business for over 20 years and his results are not typical.

Most people who watch his videos or enroll in his programs get the “how to” but never take action with the information. Dan is only sharing what has worked for him and his students.

Your results are dependent on many factors… including but not limited to your ability to work hard, commit yourself, and do whatever it takes.

Entering any business is going to involve a level of risk as well as massive commitment and action. If you're not willing to accept that, please DO NOT WATCH DAN’S VIDEOS OR SIGN UP FOR ONE OF HIS PROGRAMS.

This video is about 7 Softwares That Every Digital Marketing Agency Needs To Have.

https://youtu.be/UHjbFPk-VZ8
https://youtu.be/UHjbFPk-VZ8

How Does One Start A Business And Sustain It? If You Want Honest, No BS Advice From Dan Lok And His Digital Marketing Advisor Jeremy Haynes, Then Join The Next FREEDOM Challenge. Apply Right Now: https://howtostartabusiness.danlok.link

Most business owners are not cut out to be an entrepreneur. They are good at what they do in their field but that doesn’t mean they have the skills to run a business. If you want to start a business, set yourself up for success by following P-P-H-D.

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ Video Highlights ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
0:00 Intro
0:15 Why 95% of Businesses Fail
1:15 First Steps To Starting A Business
2:20 Sacrifices You Need To Make When Starting A Business
4:22 "You Don't Know What You Don't Know"
5:11 Solving Business Problems
6:14 Best Business To Start Nowadays
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

SUBSCRIBE TO DAN'S YOUTUBE CHANNEL NOW ?
https://www.youtube.com/danlok?sub_confirmation=1

? Join my YouTube Membership to get access to EXCLUSIVE perks ?
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCs_6DXZROU29pLvgQdCx4Ww/join

Check out these Top Trending Playlists -
1.) Boss In The Bentley - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEmTTOfet46OWsrbWGPnPW8mvDtjge_6-

2.) Sales Tips That Get People To Buy - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6Csz_hvXzw&list=PLEmTTOfet46PvAsPpWByNgUWZ5dLJd_I4

3.) Dan Lok’s Best Secrets - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZNmFJUuTRs&list=PLEmTTOfet46N3NIYsBQ9wku8UBNhtT9QQ

Dan Lok has been viewed more than 1.7+ billion times across social media for his expertise on how to achieve financial confidence. And is the author of over a dozen international bestselling books.

Dan has also been featured on FOX Business News, MSNBC, CBC, FORBES, Inc, Entrepreneur, and Business Insider.

In addition to his social media presence, Dan Lok is the founder of the Dan Lok Organization, which includes more than two dozen companies - and is a venture capitalist currently evaluating acquisitions in markets such as education, new media, and software.

Some of his companies include Closers.com, Copywriters.com, High Ticket Closers, High Income Copywriters and a dozen of other brands.

And as chairman of DRAGON 100, the world’s most exclusive advisory board, Dan Lok also seeks to provide capital to minority founders and budding entrepreneurs.

Dan Lok trains as hard in the Dojo as he negotiates in the boardroom. And thus has earned himself the name; The Asian Dragon.

If you want the no b.s. way to master your financial destiny, then learn from Dan. Subscribe to his channel now.

★☆★ CONNECT WITH DAN ON SOCIAL MEDIA ★☆★
YouTube: http://youtube.danlok.link
Dan Lok Blog: http://blog.danlok.link
Dan Lok Shop: https://shop.danlok.link
Facebook: http://facebook.danlok.link
Instagram: http://instagram.danlok.link
Linkedin: http://mylinkedin.danlok.link
Podcast: http://thedanlokshow.danlok.link

#DanLok #StartABusiness #Entrepreneurship

Please understand that by watching Dan’s videos or enrolling in his programs does not mean you’ll get results close to what he’s been able to do (or do anything for that matter).

He’s been in business for over 20 years and his results are not typical.

Most people who watch his videos or enroll in his programs get the “how to” but never take action with the information. Dan is only sharing what has worked for him and his students.

Your results are dependent on many factors… including but not limited to your ability to work hard, commit yourself, and do whatever it takes.

Entering any business is going to involve a level of risk as well as massive commitment and action. If you're not willing to accept that, please DO NOT WATCH DAN’S VIDEOS OR SIGN UP FOR ONE OF HIS PROGRAMS.

This video is about How To Start A Business?

https://youtu.be/LR-xrYyGdQM
https://youtu.be/LR-xrYyGdQM