Letter to The Justices of The Supreme Court of Canada Continued; “Will The Court Consider…”; Toward more Informed Opinions & Conclusions
In conclusion, while I do not want to displease The Court, nor, do I want The Court’s displeasure directed at me, or/my research, it is important that in the interest of clarity, to pose some further questions regarding a typical situation that speaks to the intent of the “Arrangements” of corporate Canada, its associates, its shareholders, et al.
Following Mr. Paul Palango’s premises in his book “Dispersing the Fog” to a logical conclusion, that is to say; as a consequence of;
1) the government of Canada’s (& thus, its associated lobbyists, the party executives, and now, its global corporate associates, et al), the interference, interruptions, termination & “deliberate under funding”, etc. of investigations of corporation Canada, et al, by way of the political relationship between the Government of Canada & the top leaders of the RCMP, et al,
2) United State’s:
A) “renegining” on the decisions by the dispute reconciliators against the U.S. versus Canada in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
B) the symbolical chastising of Wall Street’s (U.S.A.) investment community as a consequence of its probe to check the lack of consequences for the international impact that the Wall Street Investment “Meltdown” and the Goldman Sachs malfeasance which may still be detrimentally effecting economies around the world, including Canada,
then, the above actions &, in some cases lack of action, has encouraged & emboldened the leaders of corporate Canada, et al, & its shareholders, et al, to further protect itself & its global associates from its Canadian liabilities, responsibilities, etc. by creating off-shore companies as a means of associating with their limited liability companies that operate in Canada, &/or, other signatory nations and is presently being legitimized by the aforementioned:
i) Canada – China Investment Treaty,
ii) Trans Pacific Partnership,
iii) EU – Canada Comprehensive Economic & Trade Agreement
iv) et al.
Corporate Canada has caused Canadian laws to be created for the prima fascie purposes (intent) of serving corporate Canada’s internationalist interests, not as “good corporate citizens”, but, in their intersts of cooperating with their associates that are based in other countries in order to cross sue (by way of The Tribunals) the NON shareholders in all of the signatory countries.
As it was noted in the Synopsis, page 7, to the article entitled “Native Suicides Linked to Information Deprivation”, the United States served notice around, or, about the 1980’s to other countries that American based corporations that are also operating in other countries, would no longer be a “good corporate citizens” of its host countries. That is to say that these American corporations would follow American economic policies & would not necessarily support the economic policies of the host countries.
The significance of American corporations becoming “NON good corporate citizens” while operating in other countries becomes apparent when one considers that Canadian corporations, by way of their representatives in the government of Canada, & the other signatories of the aforementioned “arrangements”, are implimenting a means whereby they can become “non good corporate citizens” of, not only the host countries that they operate in (&/or, where the corporations would like to operate in), they are becoming by way of the “arrangements”, “non good corporate citizens” of their home counties, as well.
These laws become more significance when looked at in the context of the aforementioned tribunals for the new Treaty, Agreement(s), Partnership “arrangements”. These “arrangements” enable corporate Canada & their new global corporate associates
to access their reciprocal “recovery pool” of the potential profits that the collabrative, global shareholders could derived from the development of the natural resources that are continuing to be found in Canada, et al, by enabling the corporations to sue the harmless, Canadian NON shareholders, et al, by way of the government of Canada, et al.
Similarly, corporate Canada & its shareholders can enjoy the financial benefits from the reciprocity of being enabled to sue the NON shareholders of other countries by way of the collaborative governments which are also willing, &/or, anxious to partake in the financial rewards derived from the victimizing of the harmless NON shareholders who are living in the other signatory countries.
These statements raise some very intesting questions for the Court, such as:
given that the tribunals are secret, just how frivolous can the “decisions” of The Tribunals get in order to obtain punitive; damages, fines, penalties, etc., before a “frivolous” decision offends the Supreme Court of Canada, et al?
And, given the pattern of “political” interference, interuption, termination of and
deliberate underfunding of police investigations, etc. that Mr. Paul Palango has documented in “Dispersing the Fog”, can the Court compel the government:
a) to cease & desist in its interference, etc.,
b) to adequately fund investigations, particularly when the investigations are into the somewhat obscured means that were, &/or, are continuing to be employed by the lobbyists, et al, of corporate Canada & the executives of the political parties that are operating in Canada, to manifest the aforementioned “arrangements” within Canada & with its global economic associates (ie. investigations into how the “arrangements” are causing, &/or, have caused a secret coup d’état” of the democratratic process in Canada, et al)?
Are there existing laws, &/or, remedies that can adequately protect, &/or, compensate the harmless NON shareholders that can render him/her whole? Or, is that the intent of the secret “arrangements”, ie. too ensure that no laws have been passed, &/or, will be passed that would make their secret “arrangements”, immediately recognizable as being “illegal” once the “arrangements” have been ratified? Under what circumstances would
the Court act unilaterally in order ascertain the sincerity & competency of the direct and indirect financial beneficiaries of the “arrangements”.
How long will the victims, the NON shareholders, who have been already been harmed by the costs of the development of the “arrangements”, etc.
who will be penalized & who will be continued to be damaged by way of the on-going secret “arrangements” once the “arrangements” are ratified, have to suffer?
It may be regrettable that corporate Canada, et al, may feel justified with
aforementioned harm as it may be outweighed by corporate Canada’s “wisdom”and its benevolence for creating “some” non consensual jobs that the shareholders and their corporate leaders find so dangerous, &/or, beneath their dignity, that they have no intention of doing the jobs themselves, but, are “offering” the jobs to the NON shareholders, or, failing that, to immigrant workers from the aforementioned signatory countries?
Regardless, there are many financial advantages for corporate Canada & its associates
that necessitates the continuation of their secrecy. For instances; the secrecy enables the utilization of untraceable money (ie. legally, &/or, illegally gained money) by the signatories’ off-shore companies, by the Tribunals to sue the agreeable Government of Canada, et al, for the tax dollars of the deliberately uniformed (ie. information deprived), &/or, misinformed, harmless NON shareholding Canadian tax payers.
By utilizing unaccountable (secret) off shore goods & services ( particularly, over
insurances), such as; administrative & legal fees that the associated limited liability companies in the host countries might incur, enables corporate Canada, its associates and their shareholders to inflate their true costs and thereby, either minimizes the taxes that they pay to the host countries, or, can also be used as a means of receiving tax credits, job creation funds, economic development funds, et al, from the NON shareholders via the agreeable, signatory host countries. Therefore, it is necessary that corporate Canada & its associates and their shareholders move & hide as much of their profits and “costs” off shore from the deliberately underfunded Canadian, et al, accountants, investigators & investigative organizations, such as; the RCMP and Revenue Canada.
In addition, the off-shore companies can sell its shares on the basis of the unfettered decisions of the signatories’ tribunals. Aren’t the off-shore companies which are protected by The Tribunals a very convenient method of laundering money, whereby the off-shore companies can use, & will be used by criminal enterprises in order to legitimize their proceeds, or, to pay for the corruption of government officials who are being paid directly,
or, via future considerations for their support, &/or, their lack of opposition to
the development & ratification of the superseding “arrangements”& enterprises? And, therefore, isn’t the purpose of the design & manifestion of the “arrangements” and its Tribunals, to facilitate a very large & secret criminal enterprise with some legitimate & semi-legitimate companies taking a very limited amount of the liability while placing almost all ofthe enterprises’ finances, accounting, profits, etc. beyond the jurisdiction of the government of Canada, &/or, The Court?
Isn’t the intent of the aforementioned enterprise to ensure that profits & expenditures will be remain hidden & can not be repatriated to Canada & other legitimate
jurisdictions, and thus, the profits can not be frozen, or, seized during any investigation, &/or,
or, used as damages, &/or, punitive damages, in unfavorable awards by way of The Court on behalf of judgements favoring the NON shareholders?
And, furthermore, by having the ownership of the assets that are to be used in the
devlopment & financing of the natural resources that are continuing to be found in Canada, off-shore, the assets & the interests of the signatory nations can be protected by foreign militaries which can prevent the seizing of its assets in Canada and the bulk of its assests that are off-shore, etc.?
Do the NON shareholders have to pay the aforementioned:
1) developmental costs of the “arrangements”
2) the penalties & damages
3) et al,
while they wait for a test case to be heard by The Court, and while corporate Canada, et al, becomes further emboldened, gains more momentum & further entrenches itself laterally into more financial institutions, etc., before The Court can step in?
And, finally, there are a number of other points that I am presently researching and developing. One of them, I will leave with you to consider and that is;
as corporate Canada, its associates, its shareholders, et al, appear to be intent upon:
1) maximizing the privilege of secrecy regarding their arms length control of the Canadian economy, et al, to conduct their:
A) project financing,
D) procurment of goods & services; and
E) payment of costs, such as; salaries, bonuses, stock dividends, etc.
H) et al,
and thus, making it deliberately difficult for any, or, all of assests being forfeited
2) minimizing, &/or, eliminating their costs, liabilities, resposabilities, etc.
3) using the Tribunals as a means of raising funds, profits, etc. in order to recuperate what might otherwise might be legitimate, and/or, illegitimate costs of doing business, etc, aren’t corporate Canada, its associates, its shareholders, et al, indicating that they
are, not only ,“non good citizens of Canada”, but, they are people and companies which are suggesting to The Court, et al, by way of their actions, that they do not want to be welcomed in Canada,
the aforementioned “non good citizens of Canada” are indicating their desire to be treated by the NON shareholders, including the members of The Court, as persona non grata?
On the other hand, by demonstrating:
1) a willingness to repatriate the aforementioned benefits, assests, etc.
2) take ownership ofthe aforementioned liabilities, responsibilties, etc.,
3) by demonstrating a willingness to develop only environmentally friendly & sustainable businesses, industries & enterprises,
4) et al,
might be looked upon favorably by the NON shareholders and TheCourt.
By way of closing, I look forward to reading:
1) your acknowledgement of this letter & the enclosed
2) about The Court’s thoughts, its answers to the aforementioed questions that have been raised as a consequence of the research, The Court’s questions, its comments, its improvements, etc., regarding the above & the enclosed material.
And, does the enclosed information & questions give us the hope that it can assist The Court in understanding the aforementioned “arrangements” that are meant to:
1) circumvent the jurisdiction of the the Court,
2) punish, &/or, take unfair advantage of, by secret means, the NON shareholding Canadians, both; Natives & non Natives
3) et al?
Is there anything else that I can do, or, any other information that I might be able to provide The Court with in order to:
1) further demonstrate to The Court, et al, the damages, undue hardships, etc. that the aforementioned “arrangements” are causing, &/or, will cause to the NON shareholders
2) give The Court a greaterunderstanding of the necessity for asking the future litigents the “broader”questions in order to breach the secrecy of corporate Canada, et al, &
repair the damage that is being perpetrated upon the NON shareholders & the Canadian
version of “democracy”?
As the secrecy & information deprivation may be claimed to be privileged by the protection of the relationship between a lawyer & his/her client, I would hope that the
The Court would take into consideration that the information that I am sharing with the Court has yet to be classified as “privileged”, or, protected in the interests of “national security”.
One of the questions that this statement has raised is; at what point in the commission of a crime, or, a non legal action, can the lawyer/client confidentiality be abused in order to facilitate the crime(s)? That is to say; at what point can the confidentiality be used as another form of deception by secrecy, & /or, deprivation of information (for the purposes of, amongst other things, minimizing/preventing due diligence investigations). And, at what point in the “privileged” crime is the aforementioned confidentiality between a lawyer and a client (or, a priest & a penitent) no longer “guaranteed”?
And, by providing the information to The Court it will hopefully help the members of the
Court to develop some questions for the representatives of corporate Canada, et al, that the Court might not otherwise have the knowledge to ask.
Furthermore, by providing the information to The Court it will cause corporate Canada:
1) to share corporate Canada’s understanding of the information that I am providing to The Court, with The Court, the most vulnerable Canadians, the non shareholders, et al,
2) to declare their intentions & financial information in the openness of The Court & the public, as opposed to their severely limiting the availability of their financial information, et al, to the secret (”Star Chamber”) Tribunals provided by the aforementioned “arrangements”.
Please note, that in providing the information in this submission to The Court I have tried to:
1) eliminate the use of characterizations
2) minimize the number of conclusions that I have made in order to leave it up to the Court to draw its own conclusions.
On the other hand, would it be presumptuous, &/or, impudent, if I asked The Court; could we agree that the enclosed material raises:
1) some very disturbing questions regarding the direction & intent of what the public may have previously referred to as the “good corporate citizens of Canada”,
the rights (particularly, the right to due diligence information) of the harmless NON shareholders vs. the shareholders & their global corporate leaders,
2) some worisome questions regarding the changing interrelationships between
economics the “democratic” and the political process in Canada; ie. by moving the accountability & profits, etc. of corporate Canada off-shore to where the economic decisions will be removed from Canadian scrutiny, but, will continue to “de-sovereignize” Canada, etc.
3) some alarming questions regarding the usurping of the authority of The Court to adjudicate the adversarial positions between:
the corporations that are supported by the congress of the federal government of Canada & the enterprise of the global corporate economy via their Tribunals (their “courts”) & their international sanctions, etc.
the non shareholders,
in order to make the harmless NON shareholders whole again & compensate them as to be determined by The Court.
Regardless, I do hope that The Court will share with me some of its concerns with me regarding the above & the enclosed
will take the time to write to me & provide some hope that The Court intends to eliminate, &/or, minimize the basis the anxiety & fear that I, and so many Canadians are living with that I mentioned at the outset of this submission, other than to suggest that The Court will take the aforementioned information & questions under advisement, etc. at the appropriate time, such as when the Court may hear “the” relevant case that specifically addresses a particular piece of the aforementioned information, &/or, questions.
And, finally, I have endeavored to be concise in my writing & editing of this submission, but, the significance of the article’s content may have suffered as a consequence (Brevis esse laboro, obscurus fio; Latin). Similarly, I apologize for the lumpiness of some of the material, but, the necessity of sharing the enclosed information, questions, etc. is predicated upon the September 28, 2014 deadline when PM Harper has made public his intention to make a formal statement regarding “conclusion” to the EU – Canada CETAgreement.
David E.H. Smith
– “Qui tam…”
For EXCERPTS (#1) to ‘The SUBMISSION to The SUPREME COURT of CANADA;
The SHAREHOLDERS & Corporations of CHINA, America, the Trans-Pacific nations, the EU, Canada, et al
The ‘harmless’ Canadian NON-shareholders, et al, both; Native & non Native’.
For The FULL SUBMISSION, see; The Supreme Court of Canada
Also, FULL Article, see,
36) ‘The BASIS for TREATIES/’ARRANGEMENTS’ LITIGATION as an INVESTMENT’;
Also see; 4) ‘INSIDER TRADING’ (The Need for Secrecy), davidehsmith.wordpress.com
Please consider sharing the enclosed information & questions with 10 members of your family, friends, associates in order that they can use the due diligence info to make more informed decision about their families‘ financial planning, & then they can share it with 10 others…