LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	NOTE 11 – LEGAL PROCEEDINGS Since December 11, 2009, the Company, has been involved in a lawsuit where it was named as a Defendant, along with its CEO and transfer agent in Case Number 09-CA-030763, filed in the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County, Florida. The lawsuit was brought in the name of 31 individuals and 1 corporation. The lawsuit alleges that the Company, its CEO, and its transfer agent wrongfully refused to remove the restrictive legend from certain shares of the Company’s common stock that are collectively owned by the plaintiffs, which prevented the plaintiffs from selling or transferring their shares of the Company’s common stock. The plaintiffs allege that they have lost approximately $1,041,000 as of the date of the lawsuit. Such lawsuit continued to a hearing of the Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment against the Defendants including Seafarer, which was heard on September 1, 2011 and denied by the Court. Litigation of the matter has continued and the Company has presented evidence and arguments of law that the shares were distributed from their original recipient, Micah Eldred, in an illegal sale to another corporate entity. The Company further contends in its pleadings that such shares were then illegally purchased back by Eldred, then distributed in a manner by Eldred to others including the 31 other Plaintiffs to avoid reporting requirements under the Securities Act and as Eldred had a duty to report as a principal of a brokerage. The actions by Eldred, as pled by the Corporation, is that on or about October 8, 2008, Eldred gifted most of the 34,700,000 shares to certain friends, family, and employees (i.e., the Plaintiffs named in this Complaint), and kept ownership of 4, 140,000 shares. On September 11, 2013, the Parties attended a voluntary mediation, which ended in an impasse. Some discovery had progressed to the point that Seafarer had, on September 25, 2013, filed a Motion to File Counterclaims and Third-Party Complaint (“Motion for Leave to File Counterclaim”) along with a proposed Counterclaim. Such counterclaims were filed in December 2013. Included in the counterclaim was an allegation of conspiracy between Eldred and Sean Murphy for the publication of false information which Seafarer sued Murphy for and received a judgment for libel against Murphy on April 1, 2011 for $5,080,000. Thus the counterclaim was filed against the Plaintiffs: Micah Eldred, Michael J. Daniels, Carl Dilley, Heather Dilley, James Eldred, Mary R. Eldred, Michole Eldred, Nathan Eldred, Toni A. Eldred, Diane J. Harrison, Ioulia Hess, Olessia Kritskaia, Anna Krokhina, George Lindner, Elizabeth Lizzano, Karen Lizzano, Robert Lizzano, Abby Lord, Jillian Mally, Ekaterina Messinger, Susan Miller, Michael Mona, Matthew J. Presy, Oksana Savchenko, Vanessa A. Verbosh, Alan Wolper, Sarah Wolper, and Christine Zitman. On April 23, 2014, the trial court ruled on the Counter-Claim Defendants’ motion to dismiss and ordered the dismissal of the claims for section 517.301 violations, conspiracy and fraud. The court ruled that the Corporation did not have standing and was not in privity with the counter-claim defendants at the time of their alleged actions so the company could not maintain the action, unlike private shareholders who could have standing. Thus the Company attempted to protect the shareholders by such suit, but was ruled against as not having standing to do so. On October 18, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Removal to Federal Court in the Tampa Division of the United States District Court, citing the allegation that such lawsuit should be moved to Federal Court based upon the Defendants proposed counterclaims of Federal law. The pleading for removal contained the allegation by the Plaintiffs that they had the consent of all the listed Plaintiffs to remove the matter to Federal Court. On November 4, 2013, Seafarer filed a Motion to Remand back to State Court in the Federal Court, citing legal argument and the undisputed facts that removal to Federal Court was improper as having no basis in law, and asking for attorney’s fees from the Plaintiffs for such removal. On November 7, 2013, Judge James Moody of the United States District Court entered an Order granting the Remand Motion of Seafarer, finding that “Plaintiffs removed the case based on their assumption that the counterclaim would establish federal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs’ removal is patently without merit.” Judge Moody further held “Plaintiffs’ removal had no basis under the law or facts. Simply put, the removal was not objectively reasonable.” Accordingly, the Court Ordered the case sent back to State Court and that the Federal Court would award Defendants [Seafarer] a reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs.” Seafarer collected such attorney’s fees through counsel. Such case was remanded to the Circuit Court in Hillsborough County, where Seafarer had the motion to file the Counterclaims and Third Party Claims heard and an Order Granting the filing and service of such claims was made by Circuit Judge Paul Huey on December 13, 2013. Seafarer filed such complaint and served such Counterclaim Defendants and Third Party Defendants during the months of December 2013 and January 2014. Such complaint included claims by Seafarer for damages including punitive damages against the Plaintiffs for their actions, which is alleged to have materially damaged the Corporation and its shareholders. In early October 2013, counsel for Seafarer was contacted by counsel representing the listed Plaintiff, CADEF: The Childhood Autism Foundation (CADEF), as to their being named in the lawsuit as Plaintiffs in the State Court action and the litigation being done in their name. Pursuant to those discussions, on November 5, 2013, Seafarer, Kyle Kennedy (individually), Cleartrust LLC and CADEF entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release from Litigation. CADEF agreed to surrender all rights to the 1,000,000 shares in its name, as well as causing dismissal of any such claims against the Seafarer, Kennedy and Cleartrust that had been brought in their name in the lawsuit. Specifically, CADEF agreed: “CADEF agrees that the following matters of fact exist based upon the knowledge of its Board of Directors and Principals: A) The Board of Directors of CADEF had no knowledge of the share certificate ever being issued for its benefit or the existence of such share certificate until recently in the month of October 2013 when such shares were sent to them. B) The Board of Directors of CADEF never authorized the filing of the lawsuit cited above or to be a party to such. C) Because of the above in B) CADEF’s Board of Directors was never advised of any settlement offer being made by the Defendants nor of the mediation held on September 11, 2013. On approximately October 30, 2013 CADEF delivered such 1,000,000 shares to counsel for Seafarer. Seafarer believes this pattern activity. Such litigation continues and the Company will continue to fight the release of such shares for sale. It is the position of Seafarer that due to the actions involved with such shares, they are tainted and should be ordered to be cancelled. Seafarer intends to continuously pursue this defense will assist any shareholders with any claims they may have against the Plaintiffs who hold such shares as to their actions which may have harmed any shareholders who were shareholders at the time of the Plaintiff’s action. On March 2, 2010, the Company filed a complaint naming, Sean Murphy as a Defendant who formerly provided services as a captain, diver, and general laborer to the Company as a defendant in the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County, Florida case number 10-CA-004674. The lawsuit contains numerous counts against the defendant, including civil theft, breach of contract, libel and negligence. On April 5, 2011, a six person jury in Hillsborough County, Florida found in favor of the Company and found that the Defendant was responsible for $5,080,000 in compensatory damages. In 2012, the Company attempted to schedule a trial for the punitive damages, but the Court cancelled the trial due to scheduling of priority cases. The Company is currently seeking final entry of not only the judgment, but will be exercising collection matters against the Defendant. The Company intends to pursue collection, no matter the ability of the Defendant to pay. On June 18, 2013, Seafarer began litigation against Tulco Resources, LLC, in a lawsuit filed in the Circuit Court in and for Hillsborough County, Florida. Such suit was filed for against Tulco based upon for breach of contract, equitable relief and injunctive relief. Tulco was the party holding the rights under a permit to a treasure cite at Juno Beach, Florida. Tulco and Seafarer had entered into contracts in March 2008, and later renewed under an amended agreement on June 11, 2010. Such permit was committed to by Tulco to be an obligation and contractual duty to which they would be responsible for payment of all costs in order for the permit to be reissued. Such obligation is contained in the agreement of March 2008 which was renewed in the June 2010 agreement between Seafarer and Tulco. Tulco made the commitment to be responsible for payments of all necessary costs for the gaining of the new permit. Tulco never performed on such obligation, and Seafarer during the period of approximately March 2008 and April 2012 had endeavored and even had to commence a lawsuit to gain such permit which was awarded in April 2012. Seafarer alleges in their complaint the expenditure of large amounts of shares and monies for financing and for delays due to Tulco’s non-performance. Seafarer seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief for the award of all rights held by Tulco to Seafarer. As of March 24, 2014, Seafarer, through Counsel with the assistance of a licensed investigator, established there was no party or individual to be served from Tulco due to the death of the former Manager, and having no other legal person or entity to serve, has established that it will seek the entry of a default judgment, and final judgment for award of all rights to such site for contractual and other rights held by Tulco. Seafarer expects to have such final judgment within 90 days of March 1, 2014, unless another party or person responds to such lawsuit, including publication of such matter under Florida law. Such publication is currently occurring and the Company will seek judgment when a default occurs. The Company expects that it will gain all contractual and complete permit rights to the artifact area under its complete control and remove all interest Tulco had in the partnership. The Company currently has litigation pending in Pinellas County, the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Civil Case No. 11-05539-Cl-19 naming as Defendants both an individual and a corporation controlled by the individual. The case is a collection case against the corporation for the balance of a promissory note due to the Company, and against the individual as a guarantor of the promissory note. The defendants have filed an answer in the nature of a general denial, certain affirmative defenses, and a singular counterclaim against the Company and its CEO, individually, alleging that the Company and its CEO were negligent in the use or maintenance of a vessel owned by the corporation, for which damages are sought in excess of $15,000. Seafarer’s legal counsel intends to argue that the Company’s CEO has been improperly individually joined in this action. The counterclaim allegations are being vigorously legally contested by both the Company and its CEO. Motion to strike and dismiss defenses and counterclaims are currently pending, legal discovery is ongoing, and the pleadings are not otherwise currently “at-issue” to schedule the action for trial. At the time of the filing of this form 10-Q, the Company’s motions have not been set for hearing and dispositions by the court. During the three month period ended March 31, 2014: In January of 2014, a related party shareholder provided the Company with short term loan proceeds totaling $2,000. The Company repaid the related party shareholder the entire $2,000 balance prior to March 31, 2014. The Company did not pay any interest or fees to the related party shareholder for providing the short term loan. In January of 2014, the Company entered into a convertible loan agreement in the amount of $31,500 with an individual who is related to the Company’s CEO. This loan pays interest at a rate of 6% per annum and the principle and accrued interest are due on or before July 17, 2014. The note is not secured and is convertible at the lender’s option into shares of the Company’s common stock at a rate of $0.006 per share. In February of 2014, the Company entered into an agreement with an individual who is related to the Company’s CEO to continue serving as a member of the Company’s Board of Directors. Under the agreement, the Director agreed to provide various services to the Company including making recommendations for both the short term and the long term business strategies to be employed by the Company, monitoring and assessing the Company's business and to advise the Company’s Board of Directors with respect to an appropriate business strategy on an ongoing basis, commenting on proposed corporate decisions and identifying and evaluating alternative courses of action, making suggestions to strengthen the Company's operations, identifying and evaluating external threats and opportunities to the Company, evaluating and making ongoing recommendations to the Board with respect for one year and may be terminated by either the Company or the Director by providing written notice to the other party. The agreement also terminates automatically upon the death, resignation or removal of the Director. Under the terms of the agreement, the Company agreed to pay the Director 2,000,000 restricted shares of its common stock at the execution of the agreement and to negotiate future compensation on a year-by-year basis. The Company also agreed to reimburse the Director for pre-approved expenses. The 2,000,000 shares are included as an expense in consulting and contractor fees in the accompanying income statement. The Company has an ongoing verbal agreement with a limited liability company that is controlled by a person who is related to the Company’s CEO to pay the related party consultant $3,000 per month to provide general business consulting, industry research, monitoring and assessing the Company's business and to advise management with respect to an appropriate business strategy on an ongoing basis, commenting on proposed corporate decisions and identifying and evaluating alternative courses of action, perform background research including background checks and provide investigative information on individuals and companies and acting as an administrative specialist to perform various administrative duties and clerical services including reviewing the Company’s agreements and books and records. The consultant provides the services under the direction and supervision of the Company’s CEO. All fees paid to the related party consultant during the year ended March 31, 2014 are included as an expense in consulting and contractor fees in the accompanying income statement for the period. The Company has an ongoing agreement with a limited liability company that is owned and controlled by a person who is related to the Company’s CEO to provide stock transfer agency services. At March 31, 2014, the Company owed the related party limited liability company $5,819 for transfer agency services rendered. In January 2014 the Company entered into a separate debt settlement agreement with the related party vendor to settle a total of $7,683 of outstanding debt related to legal fees incurred by the related party vendor due to a lawsuit against the Company in which suit the related party vendor was also named as a defendant due to its position as the Company’s stock transfer agency. The Company issued 768,293 shares of its common stock to this vendor as satisfaction for the outstanding debt. The agreement between the Company and the vendor stipulated that should the transfer agency realize less than $7,683 from the sale of the stock, then the consultant is entitled to receive up to an additional 700,000 shares of common stock or a cash payment until the balance is paid in full. In March 2014 the related party limited liability company also agreed to provide various corporate consulting, strategic planning and training under a separate consulting agreement and the Company agreed to pay 500,000 shares of its restricted common stock under the consulting agreement. All fees paid to the related party consultant during the period ended March 31, 2014 are included as an expense in consulting and contractor fees in the accompanying income statement for the period.

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2014

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

NOTE 11 – LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

Since December 11, 2009, the Company, has been involved in a lawsuit where it was named as a Defendant, along with its CEO and transfer agent in Case Number 09-CA-030763, filed in the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County, Florida. The lawsuit was brought in the name of 31 individuals and 1 corporation. The lawsuit alleges that the Company, its CEO, and its transfer agent wrongfully refused to remove the restrictive legend from certain shares of the Company’s common stock that are collectively owned by the plaintiffs, which prevented the plaintiffs from selling or transferring their shares of the Company’s common stock. The plaintiffs allege that they have lost approximately $1,041,000 as of the date of the lawsuit. Such lawsuit continued to a hearing of the Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment against the Defendants including Seafarer, which was heard on September 1, 2011 and denied by the Court. Litigation of the matter has continued and the Company has presented evidence and arguments of law that the shares were distributed from their original recipient, Micah Eldred, in an illegal sale to another corporate entity. The Company further contends in its pleadings that such shares were then illegally purchased back by Eldred, then distributed in a manner by Eldred to others including the 31 other Plaintiffs to avoid reporting requirements under the Securities Act and as Eldred had a duty to report as a principal of a brokerage. The actions by Eldred, as pled by the Corporation, is that on or about October 8, 2008, Eldred gifted most of the 34,700,000 shares to certain friends, family, and employees (i.e., the Plaintiffs named in this Complaint), and kept ownership of 4, 140,000 shares.

On September 11, 2013, the Parties attended a voluntary mediation, which ended in an impasse. Some discovery had progressed to the point that Seafarer had, on September 25, 2013, filed a Motion to File Counterclaims and Third-Party Complaint (“Motion for Leave to File Counterclaim”) along with a proposed Counterclaim. Such counterclaims were filed in December 2013. Included in the counterclaim was an allegation of conspiracy between Eldred and Sean Murphy for the publication of false information which Seafarer sued Murphy for and received a judgment for libel against Murphy on April 1, 2011 for $5,080,000. Thus the counterclaim was filed against the Plaintiffs: Micah Eldred, Michael J. Daniels, Carl Dilley, Heather Dilley, James Eldred, Mary R. Eldred, Michole Eldred, Nathan Eldred, Toni A. Eldred, Diane J. Harrison, Ioulia Hess, Olessia Kritskaia, Anna Krokhina, George Lindner, Elizabeth Lizzano, Karen Lizzano, Robert Lizzano, Abby Lord, Jillian Mally, Ekaterina Messinger, Susan Miller, Michael Mona, Matthew J. Presy, Oksana Savchenko, Vanessa A. Verbosh, Alan Wolper, Sarah Wolper, and Christine Zitman. On April 23, 2014, the trial court ruled on the Counter-Claim Defendants’ motion to dismiss and ordered the dismissal of the claims for section 517.301 violations, conspiracy and fraud. The court ruled that the Corporation did not have standing and was not in privity with the counter-claim defendants at the time of their alleged actions so the company could not maintain the action, unlike private shareholders who could have standing. Thus the Company attempted to protect the shareholders by such suit, but was ruled against as not having standing to do so.

On October 18, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Removal to Federal Court in the Tampa Division of the United States District Court, citing the allegation that such lawsuit should be moved to Federal Court based upon the Defendants proposed counterclaims of Federal law. The pleading for removal contained the allegation by the Plaintiffs that they had the consent of all the listed Plaintiffs to remove the matter to Federal Court. On November 4, 2013, Seafarer filed a Motion to Remand back to State Court in the Federal Court, citing legal argument and the undisputed facts that removal to Federal Court was improper as having no basis in law, and asking for attorney’s fees from the Plaintiffs for such removal. On November 7, 2013, Judge James Moody of the United States District Court entered an Order granting the Remand Motion of Seafarer, finding that “Plaintiffs removed the case based on their assumption that the counterclaim would establish federal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs’ removal is patently without merit.” Judge Moody further held “Plaintiffs’ removal had no basis under the law or facts. Simply put, the removal was not objectively reasonable.” Accordingly, the Court Ordered the case sent back to State Court and that the Federal Court would award Defendants [Seafarer] a reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs.” Seafarer collected such attorney’s fees through counsel. Such case was remanded to the Circuit Court in Hillsborough County, where Seafarer had the motion to file the Counterclaims and Third Party Claims heard and an Order Granting the filing and service of such claims was made by Circuit Judge Paul Huey on December 13, 2013. Seafarer filed such complaint and served such Counterclaim Defendants and Third Party Defendants during the months of December 2013 and January 2014. Such complaint included claims by Seafarer for damages including punitive damages against the Plaintiffs for their actions, which is alleged to have materially damaged the Corporation and its shareholders.

In early October 2013, counsel for Seafarer was contacted by counsel representing the listed Plaintiff, CADEF: The Childhood Autism Foundation (CADEF), as to their being named in the lawsuit as Plaintiffs in the State Court action and the litigation being done in their name. Pursuant to those discussions, on November 5, 2013, Seafarer, Kyle Kennedy (individually), Cleartrust LLC and CADEF entered into a Settlement Agreement and Release from Litigation. CADEF agreed to surrender all rights to the 1,000,000 shares in its name, as well as causing dismissal of any such claims against the Seafarer, Kennedy and Cleartrust that had been brought in their name in the lawsuit. Specifically, CADEF agreed: “CADEF agrees that the following matters of fact exist based upon the knowledge of its Board of Directors and

Principals: A) The Board of Directors of CADEF had no knowledge of the share certificate ever being issued for its benefit or the existence of such share certificate until recently in the month of October 2013 when such shares were sent to them. B) The Board of Directors of CADEF never authorized the filing of the lawsuit cited above or to be a party to such. C) Because of the above in B) CADEF’s Board of Directors was never advised of any settlement offer being made by the Defendants nor of the mediation held on September 11, 2013. On approximately October 30, 2013 CADEF delivered such 1,000,000 shares to counsel for Seafarer. Seafarer believes this pattern activity.

Such litigation continues and the Company will continue to fight the release of such shares for sale. It is the position of Seafarer that due to the actions involved with such shares, they are tainted and should be ordered to be cancelled. Seafarer intends to continuously pursue this defense will assist any shareholders with any claims they may have against the Plaintiffs who hold such shares as to their actions which may have harmed any shareholders who were shareholders at the time of the Plaintiff’s action.

On March 2, 2010, the Company filed a complaint naming, Sean Murphy as a Defendant who formerly provided services as a captain, diver, and general laborer to the Company as a defendant in the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County, Florida case number 10-CA-004674. The lawsuit contains numerous counts against the defendant, including civil theft, breach of contract, libel and negligence. On April 5, 2011, a six person jury in Hillsborough County, Florida found in favor of the Company and found that the Defendant was responsible for $5,080,000 in compensatory damages. In 2012, the Company attempted to schedule a trial for the punitive damages, but the Court cancelled the trial due to scheduling of priority cases. The Company is currently seeking final entry of not only the judgment, but will be exercising collection matters against the Defendant. The Company intends to pursue collection, no matter the ability of the Defendant to pay.

On June 18, 2013, Seafarer began litigation against Tulco Resources, LLC, in a lawsuit filed in the Circuit Court in and for Hillsborough County, Florida. Such suit was filed for against Tulco based upon for breach of contract, equitable relief and injunctive relief. Tulco was the party holding the rights under a permit to a treasure cite at Juno Beach, Florida. Tulco and Seafarer had entered into contracts in March 2008, and later renewed under an amended agreement on June 11, 2010. Such permit was committed to by Tulco to be an obligation and contractual duty to which they would be responsible for payment of all costs in order for the permit to be reissued. Such obligation is contained in the agreement of March 2008 which was renewed in the June 2010 agreement between Seafarer and Tulco. Tulco made the commitment to be responsible for payments of all necessary costs for the gaining of the new permit. Tulco never performed on such obligation, and Seafarer during the period of approximately March 2008 and April 2012 had endeavored and even had to commence a lawsuit to gain such permit which was awarded in April 2012. Seafarer alleges in their complaint the expenditure of large amounts of shares and monies for financing and for delays due to Tulco’s non-performance. Seafarer seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief for the award of all rights held by Tulco to Seafarer. As of March 24, 2014, Seafarer, through Counsel with the assistance of a licensed investigator, established there was no party or individual to be served from Tulco due to the death of the former Manager, and having no other legal person or entity to serve, has established that it will seek the entry of a default judgment, and final judgment for award of all rights to such site for contractual and other rights held by Tulco. Seafarer expects to have such final judgment within 90 days of March 1, 2014, unless another party or person responds to such lawsuit, including publication of such matter under Florida law. Such publication is currently occurring and the Company will seek judgment when a default occurs. The Company expects that it will gain all contractual and complete permit rights to the artifact area under its complete control and remove all interest Tulco had in the partnership.

The Company currently has litigation pending in Pinellas County, the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Civil Case No. 11-05539-Cl-19 naming as Defendants both an individual and a corporation controlled by the individual. The case is a collection case against the corporation for the balance of a promissory note due to the Company, and against the individual as a guarantor of the promissory note. The defendants have filed an answer in the nature of a general denial, certain affirmative defenses, and a singular counterclaim against the Company and its CEO, individually, alleging that the Company and its CEO were negligent in the use or maintenance of a vessel owned by the corporation, for which damages are sought in excess of $15,000. Seafarer’s legal counsel intends to argue that the Company’s CEO has been improperly individually joined in this action. The counterclaim allegations are being vigorously legally contested by both the Company and its CEO. Motion to strike and dismiss defenses and counterclaims are currently pending, legal discovery is ongoing, and the pleadings are not otherwise currently “at-issue” to schedule the action for trial. At the time of the filing of this form 10-Q, the Company’s motions have not been set for hearing and dispositions by the court.

During the three month period ended March 31, 2014:

In January of 2014, a related party shareholder provided the Company with short term loan proceeds totaling $2,000. The Company repaid the related party shareholder the entire $2,000 balance prior to March 31, 2014. The Company did not pay any interest or fees to the related party shareholder for providing the short term loan.

In January of 2014, the Company entered into a convertible loan agreement in the amount of $31,500 with an individual who is related to the Company’s CEO. This loan pays interest at a rate of 6% per annum and the principle and accrued interest are due on or before July 17, 2014. The note is not secured and is convertible at the lender’s option into shares of the Company’s common stock at a rate of $0.006 per share.

In February of 2014, the Company entered into an agreement with an individual who is related to the Company’s CEO to continue serving as a member of the Company’s Board of Directors. Under the agreement, the Director agreed to provide various services to the Company including making recommendations for both the short term and the long term business strategies to be employed by the Company, monitoring and assessing the Company's business and to advise the Company’s Board of Directors with respect to an appropriate business strategy on an ongoing basis, commenting on proposed corporate decisions and identifying and evaluating alternative courses of action, making suggestions to strengthen the Company's operations, identifying and evaluating external threats and opportunities to the Company, evaluating and making ongoing recommendations to the Board with respect for one year and may be terminated by either the Company or the Director by providing written notice to the other party. The agreement also terminates automatically upon the death, resignation or removal of the Director. Under the terms of the agreement, the Company agreed to pay the Director 2,000,000 restricted shares of its common stock at the execution of the agreement and to negotiate future compensation on a year-by-year basis. The Company also agreed to reimburse the Director for pre-approved expenses. The 2,000,000 shares are included as an expense in consulting and contractor fees in the accompanying income statement.

The Company has an ongoing verbal agreement with a limited liability company that is controlled by a person who is related to the Company’s CEO to pay the related party consultant $3,000 per month to provide general business consulting, industry research, monitoring and assessing the Company's business and to advise management with respect to an appropriate business strategy on an ongoing basis, commenting on proposed corporate decisions and identifying and evaluating alternative courses of action, perform background research including background checks and provide investigative information on individuals and companies and acting as an administrative specialist to perform various administrative duties and clerical services including reviewing the Company’s agreements and books and records. The consultant provides the services under the direction and supervision of the Company’s CEO. All fees paid to the related party consultant during the year ended March 31, 2014 are included as an expense in consulting and contractor fees in the accompanying income statement for the period.

The Company has an ongoing agreement with a limited liability company that is owned and controlled by a person who is related to the Company’s CEO to provide stock transfer agency services. At March 31, 2014, the Company owed the related party limited liability company $5,819 for transfer agency services rendered. In January 2014 the Company entered into a separate debt settlement agreement with the related party vendor to settle a total of $7,683 of outstanding debt related to legal fees incurred by the related party vendor due to a lawsuit against the Company in which suit the related party vendor was also named as a defendant due to its position as the Company’s stock transfer agency. The Company issued 768,293 shares of its common stock to this vendor as satisfaction for the outstanding debt. The agreement between the Company and the vendor stipulated that should the transfer agency realize less than $7,683 from the sale of the stock, then the consultant is entitled to receive up to an additional 700,000 shares of common stock or a cash payment until the balance is paid in full. In March 2014 the related party limited liability company also agreed to provide various corporate consulting, strategic planning and training under a separate consulting agreement and the Company agreed to pay 500,000 shares of its restricted common stock under the consulting agreement. All fees paid to the related party consultant during the period ended March 31, 2014 are included as an expense in consulting and contractor fees in the accompanying income statement for the period.