24) CORPORATE TPP’s, CETA’s, et al, “SECRET” VULNERABILITIES. Which NON Shareholders WILL QUALIFY FOR EXEMPTIONS?

This researcher agrees with those who have suggested that there are many dire effects upon “workers’ rights, consumer protections and environmental standards” by way the TPP, CETA, et al,
however, I adamantly disagree
with the non economic comment that….

“We can rebut all these pro-TTIP arguments but time is running out” regarding the
pro treaty politicians who are under their influence of corporate lobbyists with the
promises of future considerations, et al, & their statement

“That jobs will be created, wages will rise, and living standards will improve”. DUMB comments like these will continue to “just” give away OUR “farm”.

From an economics point of view these comments ARE part of the BIG LIE (“Buyer/Voter Beware”). There is a truism* in economics that the voters do not seem to understand, &/or, just don’t care about & that is; unless the wages of the employed & unemployed, who may not be enjoying the same extra benefits as “our” corporate leaders, are pegged to the GROSS incomes (ie, before they write off “the cost of getting out of bed, etc.”) of the corporate leaders, the wage earners continues to fall behind.

It is this writer’s observation that, not only is this disparity between;
1) the SHAREHOLDERS & their corporate leaders
and
2) the wage earners (ie. the NON shareholders),

increasing, it has recently started to accelerate to the point where wage earners are feeling the collective “whip lash” & the encroachment of poverty,
but,
the CETAgreement & the other treaties/ “arrangements” are grossly & delinberately exacerbating the aforementioned acceleration of the disparity with the corporate secret enterprises,
doing secret international financial transactions (The Wall Street Meltdown was just a small probe before the “invasion”) & being adjudicated “guilty 51% – 49%, or, VERY guilty 49% – 51%” against the NON shareholders ONLY (ie. The “Net Amount”) by the cyber (Death-Star Chamber) Tribunals for their cyber jurisdiction &
in their cyber “country”.

On the other hand, the reader, YOU, might consider doing your due diligence “research” & sending your IMPROVED versions of the following Notifications, Letters & Questions to YOUR relevant leaders, friends, family members,
associates,et al.
1) EU Presidents; You’ve Been Served with “The NOTIFICATION of The PREEXISTING CHALLENGE toThe EU – Canada CETAgreement”
(see; davidehsmith.wordpress.com
“Response to EU Presidents’ Acknowledgement of (the aforementioned) ‘NOTIFICATION’ “,
2) “The MERKEL (Chanc. Germ.) Letter; To Sue, or, Be Sued”,
3) “The Submission” to The SUPREME COURT of CANADA (or, YOUR Submission to YOUR Nations Highest Court):

“The SHAREHOLDERS ( & their corporate leaders) of CANADA, et al,
v
the harmless NON shareholders, both; Native & non Native Canadians, et al”,

4) “PUTIN; The WHITE KNIGHT?”
5) “YOU SHOULD HAVE KNOWN”; President George Bush reneging on the FTAgreement “with” Canada
6) “But, Will CHINA & INDIA Support ‘PUTIN (BRICS); The WHITE KNIGHT’ ”?
&
7) et al.

Finally, it IS worth while to repeat;

“What the TREATY of VERSAILLES was to the 20th century PALES in COMPARISON to the TPP, CETA, C-CIT, NAFTA, et al, in the 21st”.
And, if you do not know about the Treaty of Versailles, &/or, its significance in turning Europe, et al, into an economic basket case for the 20th century, ask your parents, &/or, your grandparents

By way of closing, I look forward to reading about your thoughts, your feelings, your improvements, etc. regarding the above.

Sincerely,

David E.H. Smith
– Researcher
-“Qui tam…”

* The Second Truism of Economics; Economics is like a waterbed in several different ways. For one, there is only so much value at any time. Value is not created, it’s taken from another economy. And, while one can push down in one spot/area of the “waterbed” & the rest of the waterbed comes up in a predictable & profitably manipulative manner. Perhaps the most interesting thing about the TPPartnership & the other recent treaties/”arrangements” is that the secrecy of the “arrangements” deliberately provides a terrific way to take money out of the legitimate “waterbed” (ie. economy) without anyone knowing that the floor might be wet & re introducing the cleaned money later as if a SHAREHOLDER, or, corporation, had won the “clean” money in Monte Carlo.
*******
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…
*******
To SHARE Information & Questions re; The Relationship between Human (Nature) Rights & Economics in 1) Native Canadian Treaties and 2) the C-CI Treaty,
the CET Agreement, the TPPartnership, et al, via The WAD Accord
and
the List of RECENT ARTICLES, LETTERS & NOTIFICATIONS by DEHS,
see; davidehsmith.wordpress.com

23) The SUPREME COURT of CANADA; The SHAREHOLDERS, corporates CANADA, U.S.A., the EU, CHINA, The TRANS PACIFIC NATIONS, et al, VS. the harmless non shareholders of Canada, both; Native & non Native. Suing The Global Corporate Economy.

International NEWS; C-CITreaty, CETAgreement, TPPartnership, et al; More Taxes & Less Services to pay The SHAREHOLDERS (Tribunals).

“WILL The COURT CONSIDER…?”
Are YOU Depriving your Highest Court of the INFO to Decide Against the Global Corporate Economy?
Has Frau Bundaskanzarin Angela Merkel (Germ.) shared the Info with YOU?
by David E.H. Smith

Excerpt from Submission to The Supreme Court of Canada:

…Therefore, as a consequence of the aforementioned abuses that have been listed in the enclosed research articles & the dire peril that these abuses puts the NON shareholding Canadians in, both; Native & non Native, et al, as an elaborate, ”inhumane”, ”unethical”, “immoral” & probably, criminal, enterprise, the writer humbly asks; under what circumstances would The Court consider the following?

1) Will The Court consider ensuring that any further attempts by off shore enterprises, such as the aforementioned attempts by the global corporate “arrangements”, including
corporate Canada & its associates within the government of Canada, et al, as a “reciprocity pool” of shared “secret decisions” against the non shareholders of Canada, et al,
will be dealt with punitively.

2) And, in the interim, until The Court can make a determination of any wrongful intent, &/or, abuses of the ”arrangements” as a criminal enterprise,
will the open & public Supreme Court of Canada consider
preventing the further use of the non shareholders’ tax dollars from being used to make any, &/or, any more secret decisions against themselves, ie. the NON shareholders.

3) Furthermore, can, or, will The Court consider ordering the return of any & all of the tax dollars that have been used by the government, &/or, corporate Canada & their lawyers, et al, that have been used for the development of the aforementioned “arrangements” of a what The Court may determine to be a criminal enterprise (for examples; a) as a means of using/legitimizing off-shore money, et al, b) laundering money from the proceeds of criminal enterprises, &/or, c) going toward the funding of “criminals”, et al, who may be involved in other criminal, or, unethical, or, inhumane, immoral enterprises),
and thus,
the tax dollars have not been used for the purposes that the taxpayers had intended, such as; for goods, services (particularly to police organizations & judiciaries for their investigation of, not only the aforementioned secret/privileged relationship between corporate Canada via its lobbyists
and
the executives of the relevant political parties,
but, the alleged wrong doing by others, as well),
programs, health, education, etc. that are consistent with the NON shareholders’ understanding of what “good” government entails
and
return the tax dollars with punitive penalties paid to the NON shareholding Canadians, both: Native & non Native, et al.

Similarly, given the reckless endangering situation that the government, et al, has placed the NON shareholders in, can, or, will the Court ensure that the necessary funds will be spent for their, the NON shareholders’, intended purposes in order to “guarantee” these services, et al,
and
consider ordering corporate Canada, its shareholders & their lawyers, advisers & service beneficiaries of the present “arrangements” will be paid with their own funds, prior to presenting their future “adventures”, &/or, “arrangements” to:
A) The Court, &/or, its representatives
and then,
B) the NON shareholders for their consideration, discussions, improvements, &/or, rejections, et al,
in open forums that have eliminated the fear of recriminations, retributions, etc. by corporate Canada, its shareholders, The Tribunals, et al.

4 A) And, lest one forgets that the revelation of the present perilous International treaties/”arrangements” began with the regard for the rights of Native Canadians as per the Treaties/”arrangements” that corporate Canada & the Government of Canada have “foisted” upon Native Canadians who have been deliberately deprived of the due diligence information, such as the information in The W.A.D. Accord, et al, I am compelled to ask The Court:
will the Court consider whether, or, not The Court’s recent “Tsilhqot’in Decision”, makes
it easier for corporate Canada, its global economic associates, their shareholders, et al, to sue the Tsilhqot’in First Nation & other Native communities in Canada
and thereby, to seek financial relief from the harmless NON shareholding, non Native Canadians via the Government of Canada? And, will The Court consider preventing
any unrelated hardship to the NON shareholders as a consequence of the creation of the
aforementioned Tribunals & corporate Canada & its associates intent to obtain the unencumbered access to the natural resources that are continuing to be found in Canada & irrespective of Native title to these lands & its resources?

B) And, similarly, does the plan espoused by the American born Tom Eugene Flanagan which would enable First Nations communities to become municipalities, also make it easier for corporate Canada, its associates, et al, to sue Native communities, or, seek remedies from the Government of Canada (ie. from the NON shareholders) for any encumbrances that the new, Native municipalities, et al, might impose upon the development, &/or, access to the aforementioned natural resources, etc.?

(And, regarding the settlement of Native land claims that are presently before Canadian courts, & will continue to be before the courts for some time, the following question can help The Court a great deal in these deliberations, and that is; how were Europeans convinced to settle in North America in the first place & in particular, the land that became known as Canada?)

5) Therefore, can I only hope that given the enclosed information about the abuse, the potential for abuse & the intent of the aforementioned Tribunals which is:
A) to abuse & to limit The Court’s ability to hear…

*******
…For the FULL ARTICLE see;The Supreme Court of Canada.
*******                                                                                                                                                  Your DONATIONS for the ongoing research & the dissemination of the relevant information will be gratefully accepted & can be sent to;                                          David E.H. Smith, 112-711 Johnson St., Victoria, BC  V8W 1M8

                                         *******

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…

******

To SHARE Information & Questions re; The Relationship between Human (Nature) Rights & Economics in 1) the C-CI Treaty, the CET Agreement, TPP, et al, and 2) Native Canadian Treaties via The WAD Accord
and the List of RECENT ARTICLES, LETTERS & NOTIFICATIONS by DEHS.
see; davidehsmith.wordpress.com
*******

22) But, will CHINA support “PUTIN (BRICS); The WHITE KNIGHT”?

WILL CHINA, IRAN, the Muslin World SUPPORT PUTIN (BRICS, et al); The WHITE KNIGHT?

But, If Not PUTIN; ‘The WHITE KNIGHT’, then Who Do YOU Want to Save the harmless NON shareholders from Fast Tracking TPP’s, CETA’s Secret ‘Death-Star-Chamber’ Tribunal Penalties?

Higher Taxes & More Cuts to Services to Pay Secret Penalties; NON Shareholders Have to Pay SHAREHOLDERS, corporate France, Germany, Canada, et al. How Much are You Selling your Right to Sue the Global Corporate Economy for?

It will be good for, not only the NON shareholders of the enterprises that will be generated by the on-going global “cooperation” of corporate treaties, agreements, partnerships, et al, including the Trans Pacific Partnership, the EU – Canada CETA, the China – Canada Investment Treaty, et al,

but,

for the potential shareholders, as well,

who are quite interested to know if President Xi Jinping (China) will support Russia as a co-member of B.R.I.C.S. when President Putin uses his potential role as “The White Knight”.

And, while President Putin’s potential support as “The WHITE KNIGHT” in the development of the CETAgreement, et al, litigation below can dramatically off-set the hundreds of billions of dollars due to the present & future sanctions levelled by American led, et al, corporations & financial institutions via their governments’ signing their global corporate economic treaties/”arrangements”,

and the potential for making trillions of dollars for the Russian economy over the next 30 – 40 years & beyond,

are the citizens (SHAREHOLDERS & NON shareholders) of Germany & JAPAN just being prudent in wanting to wait for the outcome of:

1) The Submission to The SUPREME COURT of CANADA & the highest court in Germany, et al, to make their findings regarding “The Submission”:

“The SHAREHOLDERS & Corporations of AMERICA, Australia, Canada, et al

v

the harmless Canadian NON shareholders, both; Native & non Native, et al”?

(see; davidehsmith.wordpress.com)

and

2) “The MERKEL (Chancellor of Germany) Letter; To Sue, or, Be Sued”?

(see; davidehsmith.wordpress.com)

Have the federal representatives of the nations that are the potential signatories of CETA, TPP, et al, willingly provided the NON shareholders of China, Canada, Europe, the Trans Pacific nations, et al, with the aforementioned information? Are the federal representatives, et al, depriving the NON shareholders of Canada, et al, of the due diligence information that enables the family of the NON shareholders of Canada, et al, to make informed decisions regarding their financial planning?

And, would a reasonable person conclude by a preponderance of the evidence, &/or, beyond a reasonable doubt, that these documents, et al, demonstrate that the SHAREHOLDERS of AMERICA, CANADA , the EU & Trans Pacific nations, et al, really do not care which NON shareholders pay them the punitive penalties, etc., by way of their secret (“Death-Star Chamber”) TRIBUNALS, as long as its not the SHAREHOLDERS who pay & not their corporations regardless of which country the corporations:

1) operating from,

2) maintain their headquarters,

3) use to do their cyber banking, accounting, “taxation”, etc.

&

4) et al?

And, re; the CHINA – Canada Investment Treaty, is it understandable why the “coveted” Hong Kong investor & his associates are “concerned” with the aforementioned findings of The SUPREME COURT of CANADA, et al, & the effects of the findings, et al, on the EU, AMERICA, the Trans Pacific nations, et al, treaties with CHINA, et al?

In regard to arms sales; how about the sale of arms (non nuclear) in general in regard to the “trade” treaties that are continuing to be secretly negotiated and how will the Tribunals, both; B.R.I.C.S. & non BRICS, adjudicate, decide & penalize the NON SHAREHOLDERS for the sale of legitimate, semi- legitimate & “illegal” sales of arms within the signatories nations & the those of others, &/or, unaligned? Of particular, interest is China, which does have an treaty with Canada, which puts China “at odds” with other arms manufacturing & nuclear powers that it (China) does not have any “arrangements” with.

Are these types of questions that your politicians & the corporate lobbyists calls “forget-me-nots” (“Buyer Beware”) that will be (maybe) worked out after the fast tracked signatures are obtained?

And, what do you think is the significance of the line in The Submission to The Supreme Court of Canada ‘…And, lest one forgets that the revelation of the present perilous international treaties/’arrangements’ began with the regard for the rights of Native Canadians as per the Treaties/”arrangements” that corporate Canada & the Government of Canada have ‘foisted’ upon Native Canadians…’? What are the various ways that this line will cost the SHAREHOLDERS, et al?

On the other hand, it may be worth repeating yet again,

‘What the TREATY of VERSAILLES was to the 20th century PALES in COMPARISON to the TPP, CETA, C-CIT, NAFTA, et al, in the 21st’.

And, how will YOUR submission to YOUR highest court IMPROVE upon The Submission that is presently before The Supreme Court of Canada?

David E.H. Smith

– Researcher

– ‘Qui tam…’

******

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…

******

For more Information & Questions re; The Relationship between Human (Nature) Rights & Economics by way of the C-CI Treaty, the CET Agreement, TPP, et al, and The WAD Accord

&

List of RECENT ARTICLES, LETTERS & NOTIFICATIONS by DEHS,

see; davidehsmith.wordpress.com

21) INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE, or, INTELLIGENT SHARING; The Edge, or, Illusion for Who? Editor International New York Times

Editor International New York Times
& Mr. Noam Cohen,
I read with some interest your November 11, 2013 article in the New York Times entitled “Surveillance Leaves Writers Wary PEN American Center Survey Finds Caution Among Members”. As a consequence of your article, I am not sure if I may have upset some people.

Mr. Cohen, as you may be able to help me figure out the concern that I may have caused, I was wondering if you would consider helping me by answering a couple of the following questions?

By extending my offer of the consideration of political deniability to the Canadian intelligence service (CSIS), et al, do you think that my asking CSIS to consider getting the information that is embodied in “The Australian Question” (also known as The W.A.D. Accord* that deals with, among other things, The Compensation for being deprived of “the information”) directly to those most vulnerable Canadian citizens, et al, (some times referred to by CSIS as “the diaspora”) who are being deprived of it by those who may be directly (cash dividends), &/or, indirectly, but, exclusively benefiting from the deprivation the most vulnerable Canadians, et al, of the information & questions in The WAD Accord (aka; “information deprivers” & some times referred to by CSIS as “the despots”)
that I may have disappointed someone in an intelligence service, et al?

Similarly, to further extend my consideration of the need for political deniability for some of the those Canadians & non Canadians, who may be benefiting indirectly, do you think that CSIS may have been a little disappointed when I asked them if they, CSIS, would prefer if I asked another intelligence service if they could help “us” by “renditioning” (ie. farmed out the action necessary to accomplish a goal) the aforementioned information by disseminating the information for us? Do you think that the morale of CSIS may have been unnecessarily hurt by my asking them, CSIS, if they preferred that:
1) I discussed the matter with a particular intelligence service that may be a “good corporate citizen” of Canada, or, an “ally”
and
2) I did not discuss the matter with other intelligence services who may want to undermine corporate Canada’s privileged relationship & arrangements with other countries?

Mr. Cohen, I have included below a copy of the information that I discussed with an expert in another field, psychology. And, while some people think that the information below is exclusively about Native Canadians, do you understand that it is about human nature? That is to say, not only are Native Canadians being deprived of “the information”, so are non Native Canadians, Americans, et al. Do you understand why non Native Canadians are being deprived of the information? Furthermore, do you understand the various different ways that:
1) trade partners of Canada (NAFTA)
2) the potential trade partners of Canada:
a) China, C-CI Treaty,
b) the European Union, CET Agreement,
c) Trans Pacific, TP Partnership
&
d) et al,
&
3) the countries that will not be participants in the aforementioned arrangements, treaties, agreements, partnerships, et al,
are a little concerned about, among other things, the liability of their corporations & their shareholders in regard to The Compensation that is in The WAD Accord? That is to say, that by way of the secret dispute tribunals in the aforementioned arrangements, corporates Canada, America, China, EU, Trans Pacific, et al, need, not only, to supersede the previous (historic) arrangements & treaties (particularly the treaties between Native Canadians & the government of Canada & the Monarchs of the United Kingdom),
but,
force the municipal, provincial/state governments, et al, to make the most vulnerable citizens (who will continue to be non shareholders & who comprise 95% – 99% of these “sovereign” countries) of Canada (both; Native & non Native Canadians), China, the European Union, “America”, the Trans Pacific nations, et al, to pay the punitive damages, costs, etc. for any encumbrances to the access to the natural resources that are continuing to be found in Canada, &/or, in the other participant countries, etc.

Please find below:
1) The W.A.D. Accord,
2) The Psychologist’s Concurrence,
3) CHINA PRESS; “CHINA’S KIND HELP from its MINISTRY of STATE SECURITY (MSS) may be ACCEPTED by CSIS…”
&
4) Reasons for Secrecy; “Insider Trading”.

And, while it seems, from a Canadian viewpoint, that in the United States, any information regarding the arrangements made in trade negotiations & their secret dispute resolution tribunals are a matter of “national security”,
when it comes to civil rights infringements caused by these arrangements the individual, non shareholding American & groups of non shareholding Americans, seem to be protected by a working process & a system of procedures that other countries, including Canada, are not afforded.

Do you & your readers & potential readers in the aforementioned countries think that the secret dispute resolutions tribunals are being used, &/or, can be abused by appropriating the non shareholders’ tax dollars in order to inflate the value of the shareholders’ shares & the value of their (shareholders’) dividends, provide sinecure future considerations, etc.? Is this a matter of “national security”, or, just yet another attempt to get around civil liberties, et al, that further enables the “unethical” & “inhumane” disparity between the 1% – 5% of the American, Canadian, et al, shareholders
&
the 95% – 99% of the shareholders?
And, finally, do you & your potential readers understand how The Compensation in The W.A.D. Accord can be used to level the playing field between the shareholders and the non shareholders? And, until the information can be shared, considered, discussed & reconciled, not only will the present uncertainty cause acrimony between the shareholders & the non shareholders,
but,
between the corporate groups that reside in the various countries that are promoting these arrangements, treaties, agreements, partnerships, et al, & “enforced” by their armed forces?

By way of closing, Mr. Cohen, I think that by way of our mutual helping each other in these matters, that I may be in a much better position to ask some of the aforementioned participants some of the questions that you & some of your fellow American writers & researchers may feel that they are “unable” to ask at the present & as per your article. What do you think?

Regardless, Mr. Cohen, I look forward to reading about your thoughts, your feelings, your improvements, your alternatives, your questions, et al, regarding the above & the enclosed. Would you mind acknowledging your receipt of this letter & the enclosed?

Sincerely,

David E.H. Smith
– Researcher
– “Qui tam…”

For more Info. & Questions re; The Relationship between Human (Nature) Rights & Economics in the C-CI Treaty, the CET Agreement, et al, in the contexts of The WAD Accord & the growing “global” corporate economy
see; davidehsmith.wordpress.com

****************
1) The W.A.D. Accord (less comprehensive version)

…(basically) The W.A.D. Accord (aka; “The Australian Question”) as it pertains to Aboriginal Canadians states that most Canadians, et al, agree that it is a “right”, not a “privilege” for the most vulnerable Aboriginal community members, et al, to obtain from the government of Canada, et al, its (the government of Canada’s) criteria for ascertaining the health and robustness of their Native communities’ economies. That is to say; the criteria would probably include, among other things, a list of those environmentally sustainable businesses, industries and/or enterprises that can:
1) provide the most vulnerable with the direct, cash dividends that amount to over two times (ie. factor of 2+) the
amounts that the most vulnerable can obtain from all the present sources of social assistance,
2) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
3) be expanded to provide over 100% employment of the most vulnerable members of an Aboriginal community,
and
4) etc.

And, finally, “The Australian Question” states that because “some” of the most vulnerable Aboriginal community members are being deprived of the aforementioned benefits and the information regarding
these benefits, the most vulnerable are entitled to be compensated** for their deprivation (ie. their poverty, despair, disenchantment, fear, unconscionably high rates of unemployment & suicides, etc).. “The Question” asks; is $47,400 ($87,000 Australian, circa 1984) per year a reasonable compensation …?”

**The Compensation; similar to the Residential Schools Abuse compensation, except larger.

************
2) The Psychologist’s Concurrence

LINK BETWEEN SUICIDES, etc. & the DEPRIVATION of INFORMATION
HELP IS ON THE WAY? (Culling the Herd?)
Re; the NUNAVUT, NESKANTAGA, et al, First Nation’s high rate of SUICIDES.
After discussing with a PSYCHOLOGIST (Native), et al, the relationship BETWEEN:
the DEPRIVATION of the most vulnerable Native community members, et al, of the simplest & most basic information, such as the information in The W.A.D. Accord (aka; The Australian Question)
AND
the high rates of:
1) SUICIDES,
2) despair,
3) disenchantment,
4) unemployment,
5) poverty,
&
6) etc.,
that are found in many Native communities, et al, across Canada,
the PSYCHOLOGIST CONCURRED.

I have subsequently shared some of the aforementioned information, et al, with, &/or, have had the information & questions improved by, amongst others:
1) senior politicians & bureaucrats; both, federal & provincial, Canadian, et al,
2) the relevant lobbyists’ clients & the executives of the political parties operating in Canada,
3) the “coveted” foreign investor, et al,
4) the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
&
5) et al.

If you are interested in utilizing the aforementioned information to minimize, &/or, ELIMINATE the aforementioned major contributing factor to the SUICIDES, etc,
&/or,
have questions regarding the basis for The Compensation (similar to the compensation re; the Residential Schools, except larger, et al) to the most vulnerable community members, et al, for being deprived of the aforementioned simplest & most basic information,
then,
you might consider contacting the above groups & individuals in order to obtain some of the information that is The W.A.D. Accord, etc.,
then,
contacting me by mail at:
2173 Bradford Ave., Sidney, B.C. CANADA. V8L 2C8.

By way of closing, does the information in this letter & the information in The WAD Accord belong to you, or, to the community members?
And, what do the psychologists that the Nunavut & Neskanataga are utilizing know about the aforementioned relationship? And, do they concur, or, not?

Sincerely,

David E.H. Smith
– Researcher
– “Qui tam…”

cc.

Major study shines light on Nunavut’s suicide crisis
cbc.sh
People who died by suicide in Nunavut were more likely to have experienced childhood physical or sexual abuse, and were more likely to have been diagnosed with depression, according to a new study from McGill University.

l’Humanité https://www.facebook.com/humanite.fr l’Humanité shared a link.
Le journal fondé par Jean Jaurès Découvrez nos éditions numériques : achat à l’unité ou bien abonnement, lisez l’Humanité sur tous vos écrans ! http://www.humanite.fr/numerique
News/Media Website: 83,403 like this

***********

3) CHINA PRESS, “CHINA’S KIND HELP from its MINISTRY of STATE SECURITY (MSS) may be ACCEPTED by CSIS…”

CHINA PRESS
https://www.facebook.com/ChinaPressCP?fref=ts

FINANCIAL NEWS:
The C-CI TREATY;
CHINA’S KIND HELP, from its MINISTRY of
STATE SECURITY (MSS) may be ACCEPTED by the CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE (CSIS)
IF…
…there is ADEQUATE PLAUSIBLE POLITICAL DENIABILITY.

Yes, the existing, unratified version of the C-CI Treaty (China – Canada Investment Treaty; aka; FIPPA) does provide some “protection” to corporate China, its shareholders, et al, from having to pay a disproportionate amount of The Compensation that is embodied in The W.A.D. Accord (this attempted “protection” is likely considered by the “coveted” foreign investor, et al, to be yet another poorly camouflaged attempt by corporate Canada to minimize, &/or, eliminate it’s portion of its contribution to The Compensation by off loading it on to corporate China, its shareholders & its people for trying to develop the natural resources that are continuing to be found in Canada),
but,
when corporate Canada insists that these penalties & the punitive
damages for the “controlled challenges” to the C-CI Treaty are also a “guaranteed” way of raising the value of their shares (paid by the “innocent” Canadian taxpayers) in these joint natural resource development & financing projects,
& thus, legally, as opposed to “ethically & morally deprived”, reward the Canadian & Chinese C-CI Treaty shareholders by way of secret tribunals & arrangements, it’s clear that the representatives of corporate Canada, the executives of the political parties, are going to tell the Canadian taxpayers/voters (who have no choice but to pay for the aforementioned penalties & the punitive damages) to blame
the Chinese for these prerequisite terms & conditions
&
claim (once again) that:

“We did the best that we could have under very onerous conditions; trying to ride the giant ‘dragon’s’ economy…”.

It may be regrettable that one of the C-CI Treaty problems that corporate Canada, et al, is down playing to corporate China, et al, is the problem of Canadian (both; Native & non Native Canadians) civil disobedience & demonstrations, such as “Idle No More”, et al, if the C-CI Treaty is not improved in the relevant & simple manner. Otherwise, it is very likely that corporate Canada will try to drag (“beholden”)
corporate China under Canada’s protective covers against accusations of Canada’s further human rights violations.

For those who may not be familiar with The WAD Accord, &/or, its recent developments, The Accord can be accessed on line by way of the submission entitled:

“Towards a More Informed Opinion regarding the Environmental Impact & Context of the NGP (Pipeline), et al”, Researched & Submitted by D.E.H.S., July 24, 2012 to the Enbridge Co.’s NGP Joint Review Panel..

Contact:

Ms. Colette Spagnuolo,
GatewayProcessAdvisor@ceaa-acee.gc.ca
Process Advisor, Northern Gateway Project
(22nd Floor, 160 Elgin St. Ottawa ON K1A 0H3)
regarding:
http://gatewaypanel.review-examen.gc/cl … r-eng.html
Public Registry; File #A43076
All letters of comment are under “F”. This comment is available
under the subfolder “S”.
Further questions?;
GatewayProcessAdvisor@ceaa-acee.gc.ca

By way of closing, if you have any difficulty accessing The WAD Accord, etc. that is embodied in the aforementioned submission, then let me know & I will see what I can do to provide it to you. I can be contacted by regular mail (preferably) at:

David E.H. Smith
112-711 Johnson St., Victoria, BC  V8W 1M8

or, davidehsmith.wordpress.com

 

For more information about The Compensation, The W.A.D. Accord, etc.,
see; davidehsmith.wordpress.com
Post;
“NATIVE SUICIDES LINKED TO INFO. DEPRIVATION”, et al.

Sincerely,

David E.H. Smith

– Researcher
– “Qui tam…”

P.S. – Please be advised that the above, the referenced material, et al, are the BASIS for:

“NOTIFICATION of Preexisting CHALLENGE to the CANADA – CHINA INVESTMENT TREATY, #0000001

(to follow).

cc:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Leader, Conservative Party
& Mr. DAN HILTON, Executive Director CP,

Tom Mulcair, Leader, New Democratic Party
& Mr. NATHAN ROTMAN, National Director NDP,
Don Davies, MP (Critic for International Trade),

Justin Trudeau, Leader, Liberal Party
& Mr. IAN McKAY, National Director Liberal Party

Louis Plamondon, Parliamentary Leader
& Mr. DANIEL PAILLE & Mr. Claude St-Hilaire, Chief Agent Bloc Québécois

Elizabeth May, Leader, Green Party
& Ms. EMILY McMILLON, Executive Director Green Party,

Senators,
the Relevant Lobbyists’ Clients; corporate Canada, et al,
the potential DIRECT (cash) beneficiaries of the C-CI Treaty,
the “guilty” penalty payers; the Canadian TAXPAYERS, (et al?),

China’s counter parts of the above,
et al.

China Press (中國報)

-成為馬來西亞最受歡迎的報章 -傳達資訊(翔實報導,公正無私) -溝通民意(作為論壇,集思廣益) -提升品味(領導潮流,多姿多彩)

Page: 88,666 like this

*************

JOURNALISTS for HUMAN RIGHTS, ” IT’S SAFE…”.
https://www.facebook.com/#1/jhnews
Mr. Rodrigues (CANADIAN ASSOC of JOURNALISTS,
https://www.facebook.com/CdnAssocJournalists);
It’s now okay (“safe”) to cover the story below because it’s already been broken in non threatened countries (ie. for their journalists). Please let me know when you’ve told your membership that “It’s safe”. Also, please let me know if there is anything else that I can do for you.

DEHSmith
***********
SGNews;
I thought that you & the good people at Can. Assoc. of Journalism might find this interesting. Have you been
leading this story, or, did Mr. Mike Duffy (Senator),former “journalist”, mention how he, et al, sat on the story below (ED.; ABOVE) in order to get his “sinecure” Senate “job, job, job”,
et al?

DEHSmith

China Press (中國報)
-成為馬來西亞最受歡迎的報章 -傳達資訊(翔實報導,公正無私) -溝通民意(作為論壇,集思廣益) -提升品味(領導潮流,多姿多彩)
Media/News/Publishing: 262,491 like this

****************

4) Reasons for Secrecy; “Insider Trading”

SECRET C-CITreaty & CETA* TRIBUNALS are INSIDER TRADING; corp. Canada tells China to “Hit the Road” if Chinese style anti-corruption Blows “Arrangements” between Can. Lobbyists’ Clients & Parties’ Executives (W.A.D. Accord**)? NON Shareholders HAVE TO pay.

Financial & Human Rights News; DEHS – Canada;
* C-CI Treaty; Canada – China Investment Treaty (FIPA) & CET Agreement; Comprehensive Economic & Trade Agreement (Canada-European Union)

(CAN) – Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s attempts to maintain the secrecy provisions in the Canada – China Investment Treaty (C-CIT; FIPPA) & the Canada – European Union CETA may be unraveling by way of the threatened Canadian Senate, et al.

There are several reasons for the secrecy (“omerta”) of the dispute resolution tribunals.
1) To Protect the parties to the treaty, &/or, agreement, ie. corporate sponsors, from having to reveal to the non shareholding tax payers the existing arrangements that it has with its own government. For instance, the Canadian W.A.D. Accord suggests that corporate Canada’s lobbyists pay considerations to the executives of the political parties for two main reasons:
A) to promote corporate Canada’s agenda with governing party(ies) by:
i) reducing its taxes & thus, the “net increase” in taxes for non shareholders
&
ii) increase its funding for “economic development” which covers the cost of, among other things, the present & future advocacy, ie. lobbying & the cost of the considerations that corporate Canada pays out, etc. It may be regrettable that given the source of the accessed “economic development” funds, ie. those 95% – 99% of Canadians who are non shareholding tax payers there is a great deal of room for discretionary spending & its abuse
and
to protect corporate Canada’s agenda by paying the other (non governing) political parties considerations in order to limit the scope of the “opposition” to manageable issues that can be compromised in order that “opposing” parties can claim victories (at least a limited victory) for their constituents. Under this arrangement both, the politicians & the lobbyists’ clients are protected from scrutiny by the role of the parties’ executives.
2) To Protect the parties to the treaty, &/or, agreement, ie. corporate sponsor from having to reveal to the each others’ corporate sponsors their existing arrangements that it has with its own government & thus, each counties’ corporate sponsors are not obliged to share the benefits & considerations (& future considerations) that they receive from their respective governments ie. their non shareholding taxpayers. Often the benefits are shared as an inducement to conduct business together in the more convenient jurisdictions.
3) To Protect the parties to one treaty, &/or, agreement (referred to as the “original” treaty/agreement) from having to reveal to third parties the nature, &/or, details of their “original” arrangements to other third parties who may want to enter into a treaty, &/or, agreement with either of the parties to the “original” agreement/treaty.That is to say, that acquiring & having privileged information of an outsiders treaties, &/or, agreements will cause contention as the third party will undoubtedly insist upon more favorable terms & conditions to a new treaty/agreement than the original treaty/agreement. For example; “You did this with them, so I insist upon more, or, I’ll deal with them, or, others”. The European Union is particularly interested in preventing the Canada – European Union CETA from becoming divisive whereby individual EU member countries may be enticed, &/or, coreced into making preferential, but, “very secretive” side deals with corporate Canada, et al.

By preventing the non shareholding taxpayers from learning about the aforementioned reasons for the tribunals’ secrecy whereby the non shareholding taxpayers pay for the increase in the value of the shareholders’ stocks & dividends is insider trading & stock manipulation.

Therefore, corporate Canada, AFN & their traditional media outlets have more than just a vested interest in the continuation of the most vulnerable Canadians (95% – 99% of Native & non Native Canadians) deprivation of the information such as the comprehensive version of The W.A.D. Accord and the comprehensive versions of the Canada – China Investment Treaty, the Canada – European Union CET Agreement, et al, that include the mechanisms, procedures, practices used in the adjudications of the dispute resolution tribunal & its disbursement of its punitive awards.

It may be regrettable that not all of the 95% – 99% most vulnerable, non shareholders are able, &/or, willing to move to a sovereign Quebec, or, other jurisdictions, in order to:
1) avoid the “unethical” & “inhumane” (see; The W.A.D. Accord), but, “legal” practices
and
2) start getting the relevant & quantitative information regarding the above, et al.

The issue of the secret tribunals raises some interesting questions about the relationship, ie. the”secret congress” between the lobbyists’ clients & the executives of the political parties which the “congress” has absolutely no intention of answering. For instance; what do the above arrangements say about the 95% – 99% of Canadians who are non shareholding tax payers & the version of “democracy” that “they” are developing in Canada in the context of the growing “global” economy
and
what do the above arrangements say about the accelerating growth of the disparity of the wealth between the shareholders (1% – 5% of Canadians, et al) & the non shareholders (95% – 99% of Canadians), et al?

What are you, the reader, learning about the Canada – China Investment Treaty that will help you to ascertain whether the Canada – European Union Agreement is better for you & the non shareholders, or, corporate Canada & its shareholders?

What are some of the other questions that the non shareholders need to ask
&
who can answer, &/or, is willing to answer (as opposed to “respond’ to) their questions that would make the non shareholders informed & consensual participants & direct beneficiaries of the C-CIT & the CETA?

Have you & your family, friends & colleagues sent PM Harper & Mr. DAN HILTON (Executive Director of the Conservative Party), et al, your:

“NOTIFICATION of Preexisting CHALLENGE to the CANADA – CHINA
INVESTMENT TREATY”

and

“NOTIFICATION of Preexisting CHALLENGE to the CANADA – EUROPEAN UNION
COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC & TRADE AGREEMENT”,

in order to enhance your opportunity to exculpate yourself from having to pay for:
1) the aforementioned Compensation that is embodied in The W.A.D. Accord
&
2) the costs, penalties, punitive damages that will be derived from the C-CI Treaty
& the CET Agreement?

In conclusion, it may be regrettable that the C-CI Treaty & the CET Agreement has, so far, been successful at giving corporate Canada & its representatives the much higher degree of legitimacy to their aforementioned secrecy (assisted by way of the international cache) that it needs in order for them to later, & once again, claim (see; NAFTA) that they are doing/did “their best” to protect the non shareholders from the over zealousness of their foreign Treaty, &/or, Agreement counterparts.

Is it not easier & just prudent to discuss the preexisting arrangements & challenges to the Treaty & the Agreement prior to ratifying them in order to determine which is more egregious than the other (or, are both equally egregious) & thus, avoid any of the secret “dispute” resolutions & its “hefty” costs to the beleaguered non shareholding taxpayers, et al? And, how much will the added costs of the C-CIT’s & CETA’s infra structure, punitive penalties, etc. increase the erosion of the non shareholders health care, educational services, etc. in order to artificially increase the value of corporate Canada’s shares & dividends while dramatically reducing the non shareholders’ disposable income?

How much has corporate Canada set aside to defend the CHALLENGES, et al, that corporate Canada & the non shareholders are anticipating? How far along are they in collecting this fund & how much more does corporate Canada & its shareholders need to set aside before the non shareholding taxpayers allow corporate Canada & its representatives to proceed?

Similarly, due to a psychiatrist’s previous linking of the deprivation of information with the unconscionably high rates of despair, disenchantment, suicides, unemployment, poverty, etc., that are found in many communities across Canada,
what are the various different ways that non shareholders can guarantee that corporate Canada & its shareholders have enough financial reserves set aside in order to pay for the CHALLENGES by the non shareholders and those who will be the new victims of the aforementioned deprivation of information?

On the other hand, are there actually any non shareholding taxpayers who think that corporate
Canada is anxious to explain to them, or, corporate China, or, corporate EU, just how effective & lucrative their secretive relationship between:
1) lobbyists’ of corporate Canada
&
2) the executives of the parties that are operating in Canada
has been & is continuing to be?

And, finally, without:
1) a meaningful “democratic” forum in which the non shareholders can directly question the direct beneficiaries of the Treaty & the Agreement, ie. corporate Canada & its lobbyists, without the fear of recriminations, etc.,
2) a predetermined list of circumstances whereby corporate Canada can & will terminate the Treaty & the Agreement without penalties, &/or, costs to the harmless non shareholding taxpayers
&
3) et al,
the ratification of the C-CI Treaty & the CET Agreement will eliminate for most Canadians the last remnants of “democratically” effecting the treaty/agreement by the non shareholding taxpayers
& thus,
corporate Canada, et al, will finally be able to give these arrangements the luster of legitimacy that they need that is based upon the logic that “It can’t be another gilded cage that will cause another economic melt down like the “derivative type conspiracy”*** that is continuing to debilitate international finance, etc., because there are just too many vanguards of industry promoting the public financing of the C-CI Treaty & CET Agreement”.

Regarding the secrecy of the C-CI Treaty & CET Agreement arrangements, they are not dissimilar to insider trading. In this situation the shareholders, who are on “the inside”, use secret, &/or, privileged information to make money for themselves at the expense of the group that is on the “outside”, ie. the non shareholding taxpayers, who are being deprived of the aforementioned information & thus, are being deprived of the opportunity to enjoy the direct benefits of the treaty/agreement. Similarly, some of the means to counter these arrangements are also not dissimilar to those counter measures that can remedy insider trading & pay punitive damages, etc. to the harmless non shareholders. And, while it is likely that the “coveted” Chinese investor**** may have enough of the insider information regarding the more “unethical”, &/or, “inhumane” arrangements in the C-CI Treaty to navigate the mechanisms of the secret dispute resolution tribunal in his favor & at the peril of corporate Canada, it may be regrettable that it is highly unlikely that the European Union has been as fortunate regarding the CETA arrangements.This disparity between
China’s benefits from the C-CI Treaty & the benefits that the EU may derive from their CETA will continue to be dangerously contentious.

And, finally, it may also be regrettable that there is yet another vulnerability that corporate Canada, especially its Alberta chapter, is particularly desperate to be kept secret for as long as possible and it only remains to be seen when it will be most advantageous to “leak” the secret & by which party.

* C-CI Treaty; Canada – China Investment Treaty (FIPA) & CET Agreement; Comprehensive Economic & Trade Agreement (Canada-European Union)

** The W.A.D. Accord; Reference:
For those who may not be familiar with The WAD Accord, &/or, its recent developments, The Accord can be accessed on line by way of the submission entitled:

“Towards a More Informed Opinion regarding the Environmental Impact & Context of the NGP (Pipeline), et al”, Researched & Submitted by D.E.H.S., July 24, 2012 to the Enbridge Co.’s NGP Joint Review Panel..

Contact:
Ms. Colette Spagnuolo,
GatewayProcessAdvisor@ceaa-acee.gc.ca
Process Advisor, Northern Gateway Project
(22nd Floor, 160 Elgin St. Ottawa ON K1A 0H3)
regarding:
http://gatewaypanel.review-examen.gc/cl … r-eng.html
Public Registry; File #A43076
All letters of comment are under “F”. This comment is available
under the subfolder “S”.
Further questions?;
GatewayProcessAdvisor@ceaa-acee.gc.ca

For the other information that may lead the non shareholders, corporate China and corporate European Union & their shareholders & the non shareholders, et al, to a greater certainty regarding
what corporate Canada may be sharing with you regarding the accessing of the aforementioned, information & Canadian natural resources, et al, I can be contacted at:

David E.H. Smith
112-711 Johnson St., Victoria, BC  V8W 1M8

 

Non shareholders & the other potential participants in the C-CI Treaty CET Agreement can access more of the relevant articles that have been researched & posted on Facebook (& several online newspapers, et al) at:

davidehsmith.wordpress.com

*** “derivative type conspiracy”; “The $58 Trillion Elephant in the Room” by Jesse Eisinger. Upstart Business Journal, October 15, 2008, 8:00am EDT. Re; the “industrialized credit derivatives”
http://upstart.bizjournals.com/views/columns/wall-street/2008/10/15/Credit-Derivatives-Role-in-Crash.html?page=all

**** the “coveted” Chinese investor; Who is the “coveted” Chinese investor who said:
“It’s not that we are racist when we are dealing with Canadians,
it’s just that we can’t stand the way that you suck up to us.”?

BBC News – Have you got a good story?
http://www.bbc.co.uk
Have you got a good story? BBC News wants to hear from you.

The New York Times
We aim to create a space on Facebook.com/NYTimes where readers can exchange intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information. We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point politely. A few things we won’t tolerate on our Face…
Newspaper: 4,466,983 like this

******
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…
******

20) More of PM Harper’s corporate Alberta (‘Canada’) trying to Beholden the Big, Bad Dragon & Why CSIS’s Fadden Had to Go.

March 11, 2010

Mr. Geng Huichang,
Minister of State Security,
Ministry of Public Security of
the People’s Republic of China.

Re; Further to the “Threat Assessment” of “The Walsh-Apps-Duceppe Accord”

Mr. Geng Huichang;

I hope that you have had time to look into most of the material that I have sent to you. Similarly, I hope that you have had the opportunity to discuss with the aforementioned “coveted foreign investor”, who you probably know, et al, the various different ways that the information can be utilized to develop our mutual interests and aspirations; particularly in the areas of investment, natural resources, manufacturing and trade.

Of course, the Canadian financial institutions that I have sent the attached letter to are a little sensitive to any attention that is drawn to their relationship with the federal government regarding those loans that these institutes are making which are guaranteed by the government of Canada, ie. the tax dollars of the citizens of Canada. One of the reasons that these institutions would like to avoid any scrutiny regarding these practices is in order to avoid questions such as; how much of these institutions’ loans/”gifts” are generated by the institutions desire to just generate greater profits, salaries, bonuses, et al, at the expense of the taxpayers of Canada while trying to ingratiate and to encumber “the coveted foreign investor” with unsolicited, unwanted and dubious goods and services, etc.?

It is at this point, Mr.Huichang, ie. the dubious loans and expenditures, that I think that you and I can do a great service, not only for “the coveted foreign investor”, but, the people of both, China and Canada. Amongst other things, the re-allocation of some of the $8 billion per year that is being spent on the non-criteria “economic development” can be utilized to make a very significant impact on the relationship between our countries and with the over 600 First Nations of Canada. In regard to some of the other participants who we have considered, I think that CSIS will be appreciative that we are giving them the means to fight foreign terrorism, etc. On Canada’s domestic side, I think that “the coveted foreign investor” will appreciate that we have learned from his example by our making available a generous portion of the re-allocated funds to reversing the erosion of the Canadian health care system, et al, that has benefited the HMOs & other clients of the interested lobbyists. Regardless, Mr. Huichang, have you had the opportunity to discuss with some of the other services how we may be of further assistance to CSIS in this particular matter?

Incidentally, I don’t think that Justice Douglas Campbell is the only Canadian that is looking forward to the elimination of “the playing of the race card” tactic in regard to the aforementioned “WAD Accord” (a.k.a.; “The Australian Question”).

By way of closing, Mr. Huichang, I look forward to learning about your thoughts, your feelings, your questions, etc., regarding the above, the attached, “…other associated &/or developing culpabilities & costs…”, the historical precedents that are embodied in the research, et al. Please rest assured that the over-whelming majority of Canadians are looking forward to your security recommendations regarding the various different ways that you and your associates can protect those businesses, industries &/or enterprises from the deprivers who are desperate to continue depriving the most vulnerables of the aforementioned benefits that are embodied in “The WAD Accord”.
.

Sincerely,
David E.H. Smith
– Researcher                                                                                                                                         – “Qui tam…”

******
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…
******

19) “OPPOSITION” Sucking Up to EU; CETA & C-CI Treaty DELAYED for IMPROVEMENTS?

Last Edited; Oct. 14, 2013

Mr. Estrin, President and Ms. Emily McMillan, Executive Director, Green Party of Canada;

Regarding Ms. Elizabeth May’s, Green Party of Canada, letter to me dated Oct.11, 2013,
I am not going to belabor the despair, disenchantment, etc. that she is
contributing to Canadians, both: Native and non Native, by way her
inability, &/or, lack of desire to answer the simplest and most basic questions.

However, as a demonstration of her veracity regarding her claim that she and
the Green Party have left no stone unturned in her/your attempts to use every
means of the “democratic” process in order stop, improve, &/or, reject the
Canada – China Investment Treaty C-CIT; aka; FIPPA), the Comprehensive
Economic & Trade Agreement (Canada – European Union CETA), et al,

I will ask you to direct Ms. May to answer the following, simple due diligence
questions:
1) have you raised in the House of Commons the “Private Citizen’s Bill”, with
its prerequisite political deniability for the Green Party, that demonstrate how
most of the citizens of Canada, CHINA and the European Union can start to use the
C-CITreaty an the CETAgreement discussions in order to exculpated themselves
from having to pay any “contribution” to The Compensation (similar to The Residential
Schools’ Compensation, but, far larger) that is embodied in The W.A.D. Accord
(aka; “The Australian Question”)?
2) have you given the House of Commons, the Chinese government (President Xi Jinping)
and the European Union (EU; Parliament, Council and Commission);
“The NOTIFICATION of Preexisting CHALLENGES to the C-CITreaty”
“The NOTIFICATION of Preexisting CHALLENGES to the CETA”
from each and every citizen of Canada, China and the European Union (the 95% – 99% of the citizens of Canada, both; Native & non Native, CHINA, the European Union, et al,
who will not be shareholders in The C-CITreaty, The CETAgreement, et al)
that you have already had the opportunity to consider, question, share with, etc. the
aforementioned information?
3) have you raised the questions regarding the relationship between:
corporate Canada, particularly the Canadian financial institutions, and its shareholders
via their lobbyists
and
the executives of political parties,
and informed the Canadian taxpaying voters, ie. including the uninformed Conservative, Liberal, NDP voters, et al, that:
a) without the non shareholders’ (the 95% – 99% of all Canadians, both;
Native & non Native) taxes to pay for corporate Canada’s & their shareholders
costs in “their” enterprises related to the C-CITreaty and the CETAgreement,
including the punitive penalties and “damages” caused by corporate Canada
which will secretly ascertain how much the non shareholders will have to
pay to artificially increase the value of the shareholders’ stocks and dividends
and
b) the continuing cuts to existing programs, including; health, education, etc., will
free up more tax dollars to fund “their” C-CIT & CETA enterprises that exclusively pay
the shareholders even more dividends.

Do you, Mr. Estrin, Ms. McMillan, Ms, May, et al, actually think that the “coveted” Chinese
investor who said:

“It’s not that we are racist when it comes to dealing with Canadians,
its just that we can’t stand the way that you suck up to us”,

approves of corporate Canada’s demand for the aforementioned secret
tribunals that protect corporate Canada’s very lucrative and exclusive control of
tax spending for the benefit of their corporations and shareholders, etc.
and
at the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars to the non shareholders?

Have you even tried to reach out to the “coveted” Chinese investor who, in conjunction
with his associates, has a direct line of communicating with the top levels of
the government of China?
Do you want me to introduce you to him? And, if you, et al, really are as concerned
as you would like to convince others that you are
and
are sincere in your desire to greatly improve the C-CIT (and the CETA),
then,
what is a “good” time for me to introduce you to him;
do you have a problem with tomorrow?

By way of closing, one final small item, would mind asking Ms. May to refrain from
saying “thank you for your interest” when we, et al, write to her with simple, due diligence questions?
Don’t you find that the remark is just a bit condescending when you consider that Ms.
May has no intention of, &/or, the where with all to answer these simple questions?
On the other hand, is she your first choice to work with the “coveted” investor, et al?

Sincerely,

David E.H. Smith
– Researcher/ Bach. of Enviro. St.
– “Qui tam…”
For more Info. re; C-CITreaty, CETAgreement, et al, see; davidehsmith.wordpress.com

cc.

*******
To SHARE Information & Questions re; The Relationship between Human (Nature) Rights & Economics in 1) Native Canadian Treaties and 2) the C-CI Treaty, the CET Agreement, the TPPartnership, et al, via The WAD Accord
and
the List of RECENT ARTICLES, LETTERS & NOTIFICATIONS by DEHS.
see; davidehsmith.wordpress.com
******
Your DONATIONS for the ongoing research & the dissemination of the relevant information will be gratefully accepted & can be sent to;

David E.H. Smith
112-711 Johnson St., Victoria, BC  V8W 1M8

                                      ******

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…
******

18) An OPEN LETTER to Canadian NON SHARE HOLDERS (both; Native & non Native) & POTENTIAL, FOREIGN INVESTORS in Canadian Natural Resource Development, et al, re; NAFTA, C-CIT, CETA, TPP, et al, SECRET TRIBUNALS.

(Last Edited; March 10, 2014)

After 145 years of corporate Canada using non shareholders’ tax dollars, corporate Canada is proceeding to REWARD its SHAREHOLDERS by way of punitive penalties paid by NON SHAREHOLDERS via NAFTA, C-CIT, CETA, TPP, et al, SECRET TRIBUNALS.

Ms. Woolridge (Council of Canadians), et al;

I think that you may have read a couple of my articles, &/or, correspondence, such as; “SECRET C-CITreaty & CETA TRIBUNALS are INSIDER TRADING” and have shared them with others.

Do you, &/or, the Council of Canadians, et al, understand that the shareholders’ & their global corporate leaders have brought the domestic (ie. Canadian) & foreign non shareholders to the stage whereby they can now consider the referendums & the challenges to the NAFTA, the C-CI Treaty, the CET Agreement, the TP Partnership, et al, based upon the legal & moral issues that have been raised to date; ie.”depraved indifference”, “reckless endangerment”, etc.?

That is to say; after 145 years (since Confederation) of the non shareholders’ tax funded promotion & protection of a nationalistic corporate Canada via;

1) health, environmental & safety legislation,

2) economic development & non repayable loans (aka; “gifts”),

3) the support of & benefit of Canadian financial institutions,

4) legal protection

&

5) et al,

corporate Canada’s secret discussions “on behalf” of their shareholders & in association with the other global corporate groups, have used the non shareholders’ tax dollars in order to determine how they, the global corporate groups, can work together, instead of competing against each other, to, amongst other things:

1) accelerate their sharing of the enormous profits derived from the development of the natural resources that are continuing to be found in Canada, by off-loading these development & expansion costs & liabilities on to the non shareholders by way of the punitive damages & penalties assessed by the secret tribunals (ie. penalizing the non shareholders for trying to protect themselves from foreign corporations & “schmiergelders”* by way of corporate Canada’s 145 years of “nationalistic” legislation)

&

2) circumvent the The Compensation embodied in The W.A.D. Accord & other encumbrances (to developing the aforementioned Canadian natural resources) by off-loading it on to the non shareholders of Canada, North America, China, Europe, the Trans Pacific nations, et al.

(The questions here are, amongst others; how much of the shareholders’ tax dollars are the non shareholders entitled to spend in order to investigate, share, discuss, etc., the pros & cons, alternatives & improvements of the aforementioned arrangement (ie. treaties, etc.) prior to their, the non shareholders, making their decision as to whether to support the aforementioned arrangements, or, reject them & thereby, level the shareholders’ playing field?

And, how much can a non shareholder sell his right to dissent regarding these limited arrangements? That is to say, what is the value to the non shareholder going along with the arrangements that will conceivably make trillions of dollars for the leaders of the global corporate groups over the life time of the arrangements? See more of the writer’s questions in other Reader Supported News articles)

*”Schmiergelder”, (German) – “a money-greaser…a person designated under a German tax law that permitted middlemen to deduct from their incomes bribes or any other payments to foreigners to secure the sale of German products.” (“Dispersing the Fog”, Paul Palango, Publisher; Key Porter Books).

Hence, the term “schmiergeldee”; the term for the recipient of the aforementioned bribes, largesse, and/or, considerations (past, present, &/or, future considerations), etc. And, “schmiergelding”; the process of bribing non-German officials, et al, and by Germans, and/or non-Germans.

The outcome of these secret discussions & arrangements are being implemented by way of the NAFTA, C-CIT, CETA, TPP, et al.

And, while a great deal has been accomplished, Ms. Woolridge, such as;

a) identifying those that are continuing the deprivation of the relevant information (ie. information deprivers),

and

b) sharing “The NOTIFICATIONS of the Preexisting CHALLENGES with the direct “beneficiaries” & harmless, but, despairing potential plaintiffs (ie.”victims”) of the aforementioned arrangements (ie. treaties, et al), etc.,

at the present I would like to share with you, et al, for your consideration, your improvements, your questions, your discussion, &/or, your rejection, (and those of your potential readers throughout North & South America, China, the European Union, the Trans Pacific Nations, et al,) some of the referendums that are being considered & are associated with the referendum that will convert First Nations’ communities into municipalities that will be capable of being sued by the aforementioned corporations & thereby, unencumber the corporations’ access to Canada’s natural resources, etc. The penalties for continue to encumber the access can continue to be used to inflate the value of the investors’ shares & dividends.

And, finally, while one could make a very compelling argument for all of the previous confrontations/wars on this planet being nation(s) versus nation(s), do you think that a reasonable person might conclude that as a consequence of the aforementioned arrangements, treaties, et al, the new confrontation is now:

the shareholders (& their global corporate leaders)

versus

the non shareholders?

Regardless, there are numerous articles & letters that I have shared with others that you may find useful. I have included a list of them & highlighted with the asterisk symbol some of the more recent ones. However, do you understand how the The WAD Accord can be used to improve, &/or, eliminate the NAFTA, C-CIT, CETA, TPP, et al? And, what do you think are some of the other vulnerabilities of the shareholders, and more importantly, their corporate leaders, besides the “uncertainty & the reasonable doubt” that are presently encumbering them by way of The Compensation for Native Canadians, & OTHERS, that is embodied in The WAD Accord?

Have you, et al, submitted your “NOTIFICATION(s) of Preexisting CHALLENGES to C-CI Treaty”, et al, to all of the relevant potential participants, both;

1) the direct beneficiaries, &/or, those who will be beneficiaries by way of future considerations (who do you, et al, think are these beneficiaries?)

&

2) the potential “victims” (ie. the non shareholders),

in order to exculpate yourself, et al, from having to “contribute” to:

1) The Compensation embodied in The WAD Accord,

2) the punitive penalties assessed by the secret tribunals of the aforementioned secret arrangements (ie. treaty, “agreements”, partnership, et al)

&

3) et al?

Have “your” politicians, et al, explained to you in writing, how they intend to share & use the aforementioned information in order to:

1) “un ring the bell” after the arrangements become ratified & the Conservatives deliberately loose the next election (only to metamorphose itself again as another shortening of their previous name, “The Progressive Conservative Party”…)

&/or,

2) to eliminate, &/or, improve the arrangements prior to their ratifications?

Who do you think has made some of these submissions? And, who are the relevant participants?

Do you, et al, want to pay the shareholders, &/or, their leaders for their depriving you of some, &/or, most of the aforementioned information, et al? Do you think that the aforementioned information will make a significant contribution towards helping you, et al, to make more informed opinions about the relationships between:

1) the shareholders & the non shareholders

&

2) corporate Canada & the executives of the political parties that are operating in Canada,

& thus, enhance the number of alternatives that can improve, &/or, eliminate the aforementioned arrangements?

Or, would you prefer to continue the deprivation of the aforementioned information?

Do you think that in regard to the aforementioned secret arrangements that the future well-being of the non shareholders (ie. the 95% – 99% of all Native & non Native Canadians, et al) may be determined by:

1) their (your) ability to access the information about the various vulnerabilities (such as; historically precedents) of the shareholders & their corporate leaders

2) their (your) willingness to share the information that can form the basis for the non shareholders creating the various solutions to these preconceived arrangements that will conclude this stage of the concentration of global power

&

3) the non shareholders’ (your) willingness to implement these solutions?

On the other hand, do you think that it may be regrettable that “some” Canadians still feel, as a consequence of their deprivation of the relevant information, that there is nothing that they can do in the face of the concentration of the power that already exists in Canada, let alone do anything about the further concentration of the global (corporate) power? And, how much should those who just don’t care about the aforementioned arrangements, etc., have to pay?

Sincerely,

David E.H. Smith

– Researcher

– “Qui tam…”

*********

To SHARE Information & Questions re; The Relationship between Human (Nature) Rights & Economics in 1) Native Canadian Treaties and 2) the C-CI Treaty, the CET Agreement, the TPPartnership, et al, via The WAD Accord

and

the List of RECENT ARTICLES, LETTERS & NOTIFICATIONS by DEHS.

see; davidehsmith.wordpress.com

*******

Your DONATIONS for the ongoing research & the dissemination of the relevant information will be gratefully accepted & can be sent to;
 David E.H. Smith

112-711 Johnson St., Victoria, BC  V8W 1M8

*******

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…
******