27) The European Union’s Commission’s receipt of: “The NOTIFICATION of Preexisting CHALLENGE to the EU – Canada Comprehensive Economic & Trade Agreement (CETA)”; EU may consider “Renditioning Info” as Condition of CETA Deal to Minimize “Unethical & Inhumane” Arrangements between Canadian lobbyists’ clients/parties’ executives; CHINA Unprotected with C-CITreaty?

(CAN) President Jose Barroso (EU Commission), President Herman Van Rompuy (EUCouncil), President Schulz (EU Parliament), citizens of the European Union, et al;

Thank you for acknowledging the European Union’s Commission’s receipt of:

“The NOTIFICATION of Preexisting CHALLENGE to the Canada – EU Comprehensive Economic & Trade Agreement (CETA)”, #00000001.

I look forward to:

1) your answers to the enclosed, simple & basic questions and the answers to any of our future questions

&

2) sharing with you, et al, more of the relevant information that you may have been deprived of.

And, as the sharing of the information regarding the basis for the aforementioned “NOTIFICATION of Preexisting CHALLENGE to the Canada – EU CETAgreement”, is essential in preventing any divisiveness in the EU (ie. any desires to make separate, &/or, private arrangements), &/or, by other interested parties, would you please confirm that you have disseminated the provided information to all of the EU members? I’ll contact some of the members to see who you may have left out.

Yes; the government of Canada, corporate Canada, et al, would prefer that you, your members & corporate EU & its shareholders, et al, not ask too many questions about:

1) who & when some of the other participants, such as the Chinese, et al, have received the information regarding;

a) their “NOTIFICATION of the Re Existing CHALLENGE”, &/or, The COMPENSATION that is embodied in The W.A.D. Accord, et al,

&

b) the other participants’ suggested improvements to the CETA, &/or, Canada – China Investment Treaty

(C-CIT)

&

their sharing of the information which can help exculpate the potential shareholders from their having to contribute a disproportionate amount for The Compensation &, perhaps, reduce the amounts that most EU taxpayers may have to pay for the CETA’s punitive penalties, etc.,

2) the process & mechanisms whereby the participants of the CETAgreement, &/or, the C-CITreaty can find remedies & compensations as a consequence of the aforementioned information deprivation

&

3) et al.

Presidents Barroso, Van Rompuy & Schulz, if there is anything else I can do to:

1) improve the clarity, the certainty, etc. of The Agreement, such as; providing more of the due diligence information that you have previously been deprived of, & thereby, further assist you to attain a greater understanding of some of the other problems, such as; the support, &/or, the lack of support for The Agreement by the various other Canadian interest groups & sovereignty/separatists/self governance groups, et al, that you may not have been encouraged to learn about by some Canadian interest groups, that will likely have detrimental effects upon:

a) the shareholders’ & the non shareholders’ value in regard to the projects that will be generated by The Agreement & their financing, particularly in regard to the disproportionate amount of co-manufacturing (ie. Canadian-European Union) projects that will be based in Canada

&/or,

2) enhance the benefits to all of the participants who have expressed an interest in benefiting from the development of the natural resources that have been found, & are continuing to be found, in Canada,

&

3) et al.

I suggest that you consider reviewing & sharing more of the relevant, on line information by accessing:

1) Facebook; David Smith, Sidney, British Columbia,

&

2) Enbridge Co. regarding 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

President Jose Barroso (EU Commission)& President Martin Schulz (EU Parliament) you can continue to contact me at my enclosed email address, or, by regular

mail at:

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

.

Furthermore, by your organizations members, both; shareholders & non shareholders, insisting that Prime Minister Stephen Harper & his party’s liaison with the lobbying interests of corporate Canada (ie. the primary, direct beneficiary of the CETAgreement with the EU & the C-CITreaty with China), et al,

Mr. DAN HILTON:

1) acknowledge their receipts of the aforementioned “NOTIFICATIONS of Preexisting CHALLENGES” for the consideration of the potential European shareholders, non shareholders, et al, in the projects that can be generated by the CETAgreement, it would enable, among other things, all of the potential participants to compare the relevant improvements to the CETAgreement with those of the other participants & thereby:

1) minimize, &/or, eliminate the divisive nature of the information deprivation within the European Union, et al

&

2) enhance, &/or, maximize the benefits (ie. the direct cash dividends & other) to, both; the shareholders & the non shareholders in Europe, China & Canada, particularly in the area of co manufactured products.

However, there are still many potential investors of the aforementioned CETAgreement projects, both; European & Canadian, who are not sure that they agree with those members, &/or, participants in the proposed CETAgreement, who have suggested that corporate Canada & its shareholders may have set aside more than adequate funds to pay for the necessary development of the aforementioned projects in order to maximize the shared (Canada – EU) net profits after paying the total costs of, for instance, designing & operating the CETAgreement’s dispute mechanisms & non public tribunals

and

the costs of:

1) corporate Canada defending the CETA CHALLENGES made by:

a) the EU’s members & its shareholders

&

b) the EU’s & Canada’s non shareholders

&

2) corporate Canada “prosecuting” EU offenders,

while continuing to render the non Canadian shareholders harmless & free of any associated costs*.

Consequently, there are many Canadians, Europeans, et al, who are continuing to insist that they need to review &, if possible, to improve upon the specific means that the EU is proposing to address these prerequisite issues, so that they might be further “guided” in their approval of your proposal & their subsequent approval of corporate Canada’s proposals regarding this proposed CETAgreement in order that all Canadians can avoid being informed again & after the fact :

“Well, you should have known. (President George H. Bush on NAFTA dispute “resolutions”)

and

“We (the Canadians) did our best in (under) regretful (onerous) circumstances”. (paraphrased; PM Stephen Harper on the U.S not honoring the decisions of NAFTA dispute tribunals)

For the other information that may lead you, corporate Europe Union & their shareholders and the EU’s non shareholders, et al, to a greater certainty regarding what corporate Canada may be sharing with you regarding the accessing of the aforementioned, Canadian natural resources, I can be contacted c/o:

David E.H. Smith, 2173 Bradford Ave., Sidney, British Columbia, CANADA. V8L 2C8.,

You & the other CETA’s potential participants can access more of the relevant articles that I have researched & posted on Facebook (& several online newspapers, et al) at:

David Smith, Sidney, British Columbia.

And, as an impetus for Prime Minister Harper & the liaison between corporate Canada’s, et al, lobbyists & the Canadian political parties,

Mr. DAN HILTON,

to acknowledge their receipt of their “NOTIFICATIONS of Preexisting CHALLENGE to the Canada – EU Comprehensive Economic & Trade Agreement”, I’ll informed them, et al, of the receipt of your acknowledgment.

I’ll also pass along the Prime Minister’s acknowledgment of his receipt of his (the Canadian government’s, & thereby, corporate Canada’s) copy of “The NOTIFICATION of the Pre Existing CHALLENGE to the CETA” & the aforementioned information, etc., to you as soon as soon as I receive his acknowledgement.

Incidentally, I hope that you will understand that by the EU utilizing the enclosed, &/or, any other information that I have provided you with, it will not give the EU an unfair advantage over the Canadians, & thus, it will not give the Canadians, or, any third parties, a basis for making other “CHALLENGES” to the CETA.

On the contrary, one of the purposes of “The Pre existing CHALLENGE” is to eliminate the basis for corporate Canada, et al, utilizing the aforementioned information as a basis of challenging the EU at a later date. However, by acknowledging the “Pre existing CHALLENGE”, it does not prohibit some non shareholders from utilizing corporate Canada’s funds to successfully challenge, both; corporates Canada & European Union & then, being compensated by corporates Canada & Europe Union at a later date.

Therefore, as a means of exculpating corporate EU from the aforementioned costs, the representatives of European Union, its potential shareholders & non shareholders, you, et al, might consider “Renditioning” (ie. by a third party) the relevant information that the non shareholders (ie. the most vulnerable Native & non Native Canadians, et al)

are continuing to deprived of (for instance; the information regarding The Compensation embodied in The WAD Accord) & thus, prevent the further spread of the economic disadvantages (such as; municipal & national bankruptcies & the aforementioned unconscionable high rates of poverty, unemployment, despair, suicides, disenchantment, etc. that are found in many communities across Canada)

and

the continuation of the global funneling of the instruments of commerce, ie. monetary value, into the reserves of fewer & fewer people in the “growing global economy”.

Furthermore, many citizens of the European Union, et al, are continuing to ask; why should the citizens of the EU give the less than scrupulous global corporate “citizens” who are the primary beneficiaries of the CETA another potential means of increasing their abuses & “unethical” profits by way of enhancing their ability to increase their deprivation of information via the CETA’s secret tribunals that employ mechanisms & procedures that are “un improvable” by the non shareholders, et al, in their determination of disputes & the awarding of financial penalties that are to paid for by the taxes of the non shareholders & the further reductions of services, particularly in the areas of health & education services? Why do corporates Canada & EU think that the harmless, taxpaying, non shareholders are willing to let them (corporates Canada & EU) use their taxes to increase the value of the shareholders’ CETA dividends, et al? Who do you think the 95% – 99% of the EU’s citizens, ie. the non shareholders, want to pay for the CETA’s penalties; the CETA’s cash beneficiaries, or, the non shareholders? And, therefore, what are the various different ways that:

1) the Canadian beneficiaries of the CETA can arrange for the Canada’s taxpaying, non shareholders to pay dividend enhancing “penalties” to corporate EU & its shareholders

&, conversely,

2) the EU beneficiaries of the CETA can arrange for the EU’s taxpaying non shareholders to pay dividend enhancing “penalties” to corporate Canada & its shareholders?

Do the potential participants understand how lucrative this CETA conflict of interest is whereby the exclusive beneficiaries control:

a) the deprivation of the relevant information

b) the self-regulating, self- policing & self-adjudicating of their policies

&

c) determination of the amounts of their financial damages, punitive penalties & awards by way of their secret tribunals that may have different versions of “ethical”, &/or, “humane” considerations, as opposed to, “legal” considerations, than the 95% – 99% of the EU’s penalty paying, non shareholders, et al?

How much do you & the non shareholder citizens of the EU want the opportunity to consider the reasonableness of the ratio between:

a) the cash, front money

&

b) the future money that will be paid to the non shareholders by way of cash dividends

that they are being offered in order to consider approving, &/or, improving the CETA? At the least, is it not just prudent that the non shareholders be given the means to:

1) further investigate the enclosed issues, questions, etc.

&

2) discuss & consider the information & alternatives in forums that are free of the fear of retribution

before agreeing to the proposed CETA?

Therefore, as the CETA presently stands, with many of the potential participants:

1) continuing to be:

a) deprived of the aforementioned information

&

b) deprived of the answers to their questions

&

2) just beginning to learn that the non shareholders will be “forced” to pay the CETA’s financial penalties & bear “most” of the risks,

how much room do you & the citizens of EU, et al, think that there is for deniable abuses of the CETA “system”?

And, finally, regarding:

A) your due diligence research of the “renditioning” of The W.A.D. Accord information, et al,

&

B) your concerns about the consequences of misconstruing the intent of circumventing, &/or, superseding the basis for “The Pre existing CHALLENGE” (The Compensation & non shareholders’ uninformed burden as a consequence of the CETA, et al),

I suggest that you, the members of the EU & your citizens discuss the various ways that it can accomplished the aforementioned “greater certainty” with the following individuals & groups:

1) Mr. Geng Huichang, Minister of State Security (MSS) for the People’s Republic of China in Beijing via; Ambassador Kong Quan, 11, avenue George V – 75008 Paris, France

and

2) Mr. Al Monaco, President, Enbridge Co., 3000 Fifth Avenue Place, 425 – 1st Street S.W., Calgary, Alberta, Canada. T2P 3L8

3) Secretary-General of Iran’s High Council for Human Rights, Mr. Mohammad Javad Larijani,

Tehran, Iran via; Iran’s Ambassador to the U.N., Mr. Mohammad Khazaee,

or,

Ambassador Ali Ahani, Iranian Embassy, 4, ave. d’Iena, 75016 Paris, France,

4) the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mr. Navanethem Pillay,

Palais Wilson, 52 rue des Pâquis, CH-1201 Geneva, Switzerland

5) Secretariat of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (Member; Mr. Gervais Nzoa), United Nations, Room S-2954, New York, NY, 10017

&

6) President Peter Tomka, International Court of Justice, Peace Palace, Carnegieplein 2, 2517 The Hague, The Netherlands.

You, et al, might also consider contacting the aforementioned individuals & groups in order to see what are some of the solutions that may be in the process of being adopted by some of the other participants that helps the executives of the Canadian parties to avoid the appearance of breaking some of its arrangements (&/or, “covenants”) with some Canadian lobbyists, et al, in a politically deniable manner and thus, provide a greater “guarantee” of the certainty of the success of the CETA (eg.. using what has been learned from the experiences with the un ratified Canada – China Investment Treaty) for, not only the share holders, but, the non shareholders, as well. The aforementioned individuals & groups can also share with you their improvements to The W.A.D. Accord, & thereby, help you to exculpate most of the citizens of the EU from having to pay a disproportionate amount of the aforementioned Compensation

&

help you to minimize, &/or, eliminate a large portion of the basis for “The Preexisting CHALLENGES” to the CETA & its potential penalties & punitive awards for damages, etc.

It may be an encouraging sign that many Europeans, et al, agree that by just “legalizing” the proposed procedures & practices by way of the CETAgreement, &/or, attempting to use the CETA to circumvent these contentious ethical issues, it can not release the direct beneficiaries of The CETAgreement from the aforementioned compensations, etc.

And, while the above information provides a much greater certainty for the EU shareholders, the aforementioned, simple improvement to the CETA, also provides the non shareholders with the information for the basis for much more informed opinions as to whether they might consider working for (with) any of the organizations, &/or, companies that have suggested that they have an interest in developing the aforementioned Canadian natural resources & the subsequent more equitable proportion of the aforementioned co manufactured of products.

By way of closing, there is another important question that I’ll leave you, et al, with;

would your potential EU shareholders in the projects that may derived from the CETAgreement consider paying the direct cash dividends in The W.A.D. Accord to both; the most vulnerable Native & non Native, non shareholders, who are being deprived of the aforementioned WAD Accord information & thus, are being deprived of the opportunity to provide their humble consideration of The Compensation that is embodied in The Accord,

in exchange for

more favorable terms for your shareholders in other areas of the CETAgreement by way of the aforementioned Canadian, et al, lobbyists’ clients, such as corporate Canada, the Assembly of First Nations, et al?

Or, another way of asking the question is;

under what circumstances would the potential EU shareholders, et al, in the aforementioned CETAgreement projects consider:

1) making the aforementioned “renditioning” of The W.A.D. Accord information to:

a) the aforementioned “most vulnerable ” Canadians, both; Native & non Native

&

b) the most vulnerable citizens of the European Union, ie. The EU’s non shareholders,

&

2) the exclusive use of a corporate Canada’s funding pool to pay the costs of, among other things, “The CETA CHALLENGES” that arise from the aforementioned, privileged deprivation of the relevant information, both; the ‘Preexisting Challenges’ & the ‘After the Ratification Challenges’

as a means of creating a much greater certainty for the value of the shares of your potential EU shareholders & the corporate European Union?

As we know that there is much more to be accomplished in order to “guarantee” the aforementioned “greater certainty”, I look forward to more questions & the sharing of information regarding the enclosed & other, from the members of the EU Commission, EU Council, EU Parliament, corporate EU & its shareholders, its potential shareholders and non shareholders, et al.

Sincerely,

David E.H. Smith

– Researcher

– “Qui tam…”

*Have the non shareholders of the EU & Canada had the opportunity to consider & then, perhaps, approve of their paying for the following other related CETA costs that corporate Canada & its potential shareholders may feel entitled to be covered by using the tax dollars of the non shareholders;

1) financing of the projects,

2) infrastructure,

3) extraction,

4) manufacturing,

5) maintenance,

6) legal,

7) administrative,

8) equal lobbying & advocacy to “disadvantaged” groups & individuals that may be harmed by “the development”,

9) the costs of designing, operating & obtaining the public approval of the dispute mechanisms & non public tribunals that may be associated with “the developments”, et al,

9) environmental protection,

10) “catch all” indemnities,

11) cost for over run by private insurance,

12) target tax reduction schedules & service increases schedules (particularly in the areas of:

a) the reductions to health care service waiting time,

b) expanded educational funding, etc.) to non shareholders as a consequence of their approval of “the development” complete with an approved Compensation fund for missing the aforementioned targets, etc.

&

c) et al,

13) the increase in the proposed proportions of the co manufacturing that will be developed in Canada, as opposed to being manufactured in Europe, &/or, elsewhere

&

14) et al.

cc.