21) INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE, or, INTELLIGENT SHARING; The Edge, or, Illusion for Who?

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…
******

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s