29) ‘Tired of your Political Representatives’ “Non-Answer Responses” (Talking Points)? A SIMPLE DIAGNOSTIC TEST of your DEMOCRACY.) – part 1

WHY you need to determine the COMPETENCY, &/or, SINCERITY of your Political Representatives to SHARE with you the INFO that you NEED in order to DETERMINE your family’s FINANCIAL FUTURE, et al? What are the REASONS for why they are DEPRIVING you of this INFO, et al? If the political “response” is BELIEVABLE, do need to believe it? When do you NEED a greater UNDERSTANDING of the BASIS of THEIR BELIEFS?

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

David E.H. Smith, 2173 Bradford Ave., Sidney, B.C. V8L 2C8

Aug.13, 2012

The Honorable Elizabeth May, Member of Parliament, Constituency Office, 1 – 9711 Fourth St., Sidney, B.C. V8L 2V8

Re; Accessing Information; The W.A.D. Accord, Alleged Foreigner Influence, Anti-NGP Foreigners, et al.

Ms. May (MP – Green Party) & Ms. EMILY McMILLAN (Executive Director, Green Party);

In response to a letter that I sent to you a couple of months ago, I received a letter from one of your staff dated July 31, 2012. Your staff’s response seems to indicate a little confusion as to what your understanding is of what I am asking you. Let me make it clearer by asking;

would it be fair to say that your answer to the question “Have you read The

W.A. D. Accord?” is:

“Yes” ___ , or, “No” X ?

Similarly, do you know who might have a copy of The Accord that can share it with you?

Yes___ , or, No___ .

I have a copy of one of the simpler & less comprehensive versions of The Accord. As I have been lead to believe that the traditional political parties have more comprehensive versions of The Accord, I have been trying to get a copy of their comprehensive versions. The traditional parties’ “responses” do not confirm whether they have the comprehensive versions, or, not.

As you are the Member of Parliament in the constituency that I live in, I would ask you; would you mind asking Conservative party; its Members of Parliament & its party executives, if they have copies of versions of The W.A.D. Accord that list 2 (two) items in the criteria that is embodied in The Accord?

Yes___ , or, No___ .

Similarly, would you mind asking the aforementioned Conservatives if they have copies of versions of The W.A.D. Accord that list 3 (three), &/or, more items in the criteria that is embodied in The Accord?

Yes___ , or, No___ .

Would you mind asking the aforementioned Conservatives to send to you copies of the aforementioned versions of The Accord which I can then obtain from you?

Yes___ , or, No___ .

As I mentioned, Ms. May, I do have a copy of a less comprehensive version of The Accord. Let’s see how you make out getting the aforementioned information from the Conservatives before we discuss your interest, if any, in the information & the questions in The Accord.

The second point that I’d like to resolve is; I have ask you twice about Mr. Fadden’s (Canadian Security Intelligence Service; CSIS) comment about foreign governments, &/or, organizations that he has alleged to be trying to bend the ears of Canadian politicians; ie. foreigners who are trying to influence some Canadian politicians.

Do you know which foreigners that Mr. Fadden is referring to?

Is there a problem for you in answering this question?

Yes___ , or, No___ .

Would you mind asking the aforementioned Conservatives & Mr. Fadden, which foreign organizations, other than those answering to organizations based in China, is Mr. Fadden is referring to?

Yes___ , or, No___ .

Would you mind also asking the aforementioned Conservatives & Mr.Fadden, which foreign organizations have copies The W.A.D. Accord?

Yes___ , or, No___ .

Would you mind also asking the aforementioned Conservatives & Mr. Fadden, which versions of The Accord do these foreign organizations have?

Yes___ , or, No___ .

Would you mind also asking the aforementioned Conservatives & Mr. Fadden, what are the various different ways that the information in The Accord can be used to provide the basis for an arrangement, as opposed to a legally binding treaty &/or,

contract, between a foreign organization & the executives of the Conservative party, et al, such as; the approval of the Embridge Co.’s Northern Gateway Pipeline proposal that would be a favorable outcome for, amongst others, the foreign organization, in exchange for a consideration, &/or, future considerations for the Conservative members of parliament, &/or, the Conservative party, et al?

Yes___ , or, No___ .

And, finally, would you mind also asking the aforementioned Conservatives& Mr. Fadden, what are the various different ways that the information in The Accord can be used by foreign organizations to leverage, &/or, coerce the government of Canada, et al, to approve the Northern Gateway Pipeline, et al?

By way of closing, Ms. May, I think that you may agree that as a matter of due diligence, it’s important that all of the participants in a project (including the most vulnerable Canadians & all of the Members of Parliament), such as the Northern

Gateway Pipeline project obtain, share & discuss in a safe, open forum all of the same information & alternatives, etc.?

Do you agree?

Yes___ , or, No___ .

Incidentally, Ms. May, as The WAD Accord deals with, amongst other things, the deprivation of information & its effects, I wonder if you understand the importance & significance of this element of The Accord, et al?

Do you understand the problems that are created by negotiating deals where not all of the parties are given equal access to the relevant information?

Yes___ , or, No___ .

Do you understand that the deprivation of information can, &/or, does render a party to an agreement, &/or, an arrangement “vulnerable” &/or, “disadvantaged”?

Yes___ , or, No___ .

I sincerely hope that the above will, amongst other things, minimize any of the aforementioned confusion regarding the “answers” that I am asking you for as opposed to the “confusing”, “diversionary responses” (are these what you would

call “talking points”?) that seems to satisfy your staff.

And,

Ms. May, I would like to remind you that it would be beneficial to receive your answers to the above questions “well” before the deadline for submissions to the Joint Review Panel for the Embridge Co.’s Northern Gateway Pipeline proposal; ie. August 31, 2012*. If you can not get the answers to me prior to the deadline, please Ms. May, just do the best that you can.

David E.H. Smith

– Researcher

– “Qui tam…”

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

* Reference; see; Prequel; “Using The WAD Accord to Improve, &/or, Eliminate the C-CITreaty (FIPPA)” & Ms. Eliz. May (MP) August 31, 2012 letter; see; Facebook; David Smith, Sidney, BC

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003319183540&fref=ts

**********

For more Information & Questions re; The Relationship between Human (Nature) Rights & Economics in the C-CITreaty, the CETAgreement, et al, via The WAD Accord,

see; Google,

or,

davidehsmith.wordpress.com

To access the List of RECENT ARTICLES, LETTERS & NOTIFICATIONS by David E.H. Smith,

see; davidehsmith.wordpress.com

**********

*August 31, 2012; Edited in letter below.

Re; Using The WAD Accord to Improve, &/or, Eliminate the C-CITreaty (FIPA)

& your letter to me

Ms. Elizabeth May (MP), Ms. Emily McMillan,

(Executive Director of the Green Party), et al;

Regarding your letter to me dated Nov. 2, 2012, might I humbly suggest that you just:

1) hire a consultant to keep you informed about the relationship between:

  1. A) the China – Canada Investment Treaty(C -CIT, or, aka; Foreign Investment Promotion and

Protection Agreement (FIPA)

&

  1. B) The W.A.D. Accord,

2) hire a campaign strategist that understands how to maximize the aforementioned relationship between the C-CI Treaty & The Accord, as the political parties only have until Nov. 26, 2012 to modify their positions, such as the one that you have suggested in your Nov. 2, 2012 letter to me, in order to enamour the parties with the by election voters in Calgary, Durham &

Victoria, et al.

Also, regarding your aforementioned letter to me & given your inability, &/or, your lack of desire to answer, as opposed to “respond”, to my simplest & most basic questions that I have previously sent to you going back to the early part of this last summer, I’m not sure if your statement about Prime Minister Harper preferring

“…to keep Canadians in the dark…”

is more, or, less egregious than your continuing to keep Canadians in the dark regarding the questions that I have asked you & the executives of your party, et al.

Similarly, I am not at all sure that your “darkness”, ie. the aforementioned “your inability, &/or, your lack of desire”, has greater implications for:

1) our Canadian sovereignty, &/or, Quebec’s need to escape the Compensation (& now, the Chinese) that is embodied in The W.A.D. Accord as a consequence of The Accord’s inhumane deprivation of the more, &/or, the same simplest & most basic information that I have humbly asked you about,

2) your version of a “democracy”; ie. while there are many versions of what constitutes a democracy, they all seem to have some things in common. In the Canadian version of democracy, many of the voters seem to forget that it’s the lobbyists’ clients that select the candidates (& the executives) of all of the parties operating in Canada that will be offered to the voters for the voters’ final selection/”choice”.

Regardless, Ms. May, are you suggesting that the executives of your party are not getting paid the same, &/or, similar, considerations from the relevant lobbyists’ clients as the Conservatives’ executives regarding the Treaty, The WAD Accord, et al?

Do you disagree with the comment that the executives of all of the political parties that are operating in Canada are getting a “fair” amount of consideration from the relevant lobbyists clients regarding the China – Canada Investment Treaty(C -CIT, or, aka; Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA)? Setting aside any beliefs, assumptions, etc. that you may have, for a moment, Ms. May, have you actually asked your party executives what considerations have they received, &/or, are continuing to receive from the relevant lobbyists’ clients regarding the Treaty & The WAD Accord, et al? Is this arrangement “…a partisan issue…”?

&

3) et al.

Regarding your comment:

“I am hopeful that we can force the issue into daylight”,

it may be helpful if you listed the various different ways that you intend to accomplish this, whether your party is in power, or, not. I can also think of a few Canadians that would like to know how you intend to “un ring” the bell after the Treaty, et al, is signed & becomes enforceable &

thereby, render the vast number of non-supplicating Canadians, et al, who may want to challenge The Treaty, The WAD Accord, et al without the fear of recriminations, retributions, tax penalties, etc.

On the other hand, while some Canadians, et al, may remain “hopeful” that you will answer, not only my (“our”) previous simplest & most basic questions, but, also answer the questions in this letter to you, some may not. You may rest assured, however, that unlike you, I have no intention of forcing you to do anything about your “such blatant disrespect” because, as you point out later in your letter, “…this is not a partisan issue…”.

Regarding your statement:

“…help to educate Canadians by talking to your friends and neighbors, writing letters to the editor in local and national newspapers, calling in to talk radio shows, and filling up the comment boards of news website…”,

I’ve done this & all of those listed are still waiting for your answers to our simplest & most basic questions in order that we can continue to help you do your job. Some of the above may still be willing to “correspond” with you.

Regarding your statement:

“Realizing what the Conservatives were attempting to do…”,

does your realization enable you to answer these questions that will enable all Canadians, et al, to continue to help you do your job:

1) does the Treaty adequately protect China from having to pay any, &/or, all of the “punitive” compensation that is embodied in The WAD Accord, et al?

2) does the Treaty adequately protect the exclusive, relevant lobbyists’ clients in Canada from having to pay any, &/or, all of the compensation that

is embodied in The WAD Accord, et al?

3) does the Treaty adequately punish non supplicating Canadians via tax penalties

for challenging the Treaty on the basis of The WAD Accord, &/or, other legitimate

causes?

4) does the Treaty adequately reward the primary beneficiaries of the Treaty for

punishing the aforementioned non supplicating Canadians via tax penalties

who would like to challenge the Treaty on the basis of The WAD Accord, &/or,

other legitimate causes?

5) how can the non-supplicating Canadians, et al, use The WAD Accord to reward

& exculpate themselves from both; the C-CITreaty & the aforementioned WAD Accord compensation, et al?

&

6) et al?

Regarding, your statement:

“…are continuing to pursue all available options to stop the treaty’s approval”.

Well, Ms. May, let’s just see how sincere you are about this statement. Would you like to know some of the various different legitimate ways of stopping the treaty, &/or, how to eliminate the threat that the Treaty makes to its challengers, et al? Would you, &/or, the executives of your party be prepared to break the covenant between the lobbyists’ clients & the executives of the political parties and “sacrifice” the considerations from one of the initiating (the most relevant) lobbyist’s clients, who is unethical & less than humane, in order to stop the Treaty, &/or, to reconcile the basis for the Compensation that is embodied in The WAD Accord, et al?

What do you think would be the value for those that could provide you with the information to carry out the intention of your sincere statements? On the other hand, do you think that you, &/or, your party, &/or, some concerned Canadians put a greater value on stopping the Treaty than its promoters put on guaranteeing that the Treaty will be implemented “as is”, or, nearly “as is”?

Would you, &/or, your party, &/or, some concerned Canadians, et al, be willing to use The WAD Accord in order to render more Canadians harmless from the Treaty, &/or, the Compensation that forms the basis for The WAD Accord?

And, finally, Ms. May, which Chinese leaders (as opposed to “politicians”) have you, &/or, your party executives talked to who are trying to avoid paying any of the costs of what they perceive is a Canadian lobbyists’ client vs. taxpayers’ problem/situation/issue, &/or, et al? That is to say, Ms. May, have they, the non-political leaders of China, convinced you & your party executives that it is the amount of money that Chinese lobbyists’ clients are afraid of having to pay/contribute as a consequence of the Compensation that is embodied in the WAD Accord that is just too large?

Are these questions for the aforementioned Chinese leaders, et al, too onerous for your

understanding of the interrelationships between human nature, business/finance & one’s desire to appear polite/tolerant regarding “cultural-ism” & racism vs. “racism”?

By way of closing, Ms. May, I will not use this opportunity to nudge/remind you, your staff, &/or, your party’s executives that you can re-try to illuminate me & other Canadians, et al, with your sincere & humble consideration of all of my (our) questions & your ability to answer them succinctly & in a timely manner. I would also suggest that if you do not have the information, &/or, have not found anybody to answer the aforementioned questions, would you mind just saying so?

And, if you do not know, & do want to know, then why don’t you just ask me; who knows? And, if you do not understand the significance of some, &/or, any of the questions, &/or, information that I have provided you, et al, then, just ask me.

On the other hand, don’t you think that the voters, et al, have to hear the Green Party (or, other) say:

“We (the Green Party) wouldn’t trade the continuation of the voters deprivation of this aforementioned information for 10, or, 100, or, a majority of House of Commons seats to protect the less than ethical lobbyists’ clients that are controlling the Conservatives, et al”.

Ms. May, Ms. McMillan, et al, do you want to get cracking on these questions & the

enclosed together? Yes ___ , or, No ___?

Sincerely,

David E.H. Smith

– Researcher

– Qui tam…

P.S.1 – In regard to The WAD Accord, have you found it yet? And, if so what do you think is the significance of The Accord?

Do you understand how The Accord, in conjunction with the other material in my submission to the Enbridge Co.’s NGP Joint Review Panel, can be used by the Chinese, et al, to improve The Treaty, et al?

What are the other positions that are presented in the submission “Towards a More Informed Opinion…” that will enamour your party with the Canadian voters, et al?

Was the Privy Council’s Office helpful in accessing from C.S.I.S. the names of some of the intelligence services that CSIS, et al, would prefer to be utilized in order to start getting the aforementioned information directly to the most vulnerable ie. the most disadvantaged, Canadians in a politically deniable manner?

Which intelligence services do the Canadian lobbyists’ clients suggest are “less than preferable” in helping to start getting the aforementioned information directly to the most vulnerable Canadians in a politically deniable manner?

And, what, if any, attempts have you made to clarify the above, &/or, the enclosed with C.S.I.S., et al?

P.S.2 – Do you think that some of the aforementioned questions helps you, your executives, Canadians voters, &/or, et al, to check some of the assumptions of Canadian voters, et al, &/or, to distinguish some of the beliefs of Canadian voters, et al, from that which is understandable &/or,

just believable?

Can the same be said of your answers to the aforementioned questions?

Ms. May, we are not in an ecclesiastic edifice; let’s not pretend otherwise.

You can access The W.A.D. Accord by following the thread below to my submission in the enclosed copy of my letter to Mr. Stewart Phillip,

or,

you can contact directly:

Ms. Colette Spagnuolo

Process Advisor, Northern Gateway Project

GatewayProcessAdvisor@ceaa-acee.gc.ca

22nd Floor, 160 Elgin St. Ottawa ON K1A 0H3 | 22em etage, 160, rue Elgin, Ottawa ON K1A 0H3

cc.

*********

For more Information & Questions re; The Relationship between Human (Nature) Rights & Economics in the C-CITreaty, the CETAgreement, et al, via The WAD Accord,

see; Google,

or,

davidehsmith.wordpress.com

To access the List of RECENT ARTICLES, LETTERS & NOTIFICATIONS by David E.H. Smith,

see; davidehsmith.wordpress.com

*********

28) TPP, Global Treaties/’Arrangements’ & Sovereignty

All of the signatory countries og the Global Corporate Treaties/’Arrangements’ have legislation similar to SEC. 108. SOVEREIGNTY. (a) UNITED STATES (ie. the ‘host’ country) LAW TO PREVAIL IN EVENT OF CONFLICT, 1986 (re; … in the event of conflict with a ‘foreign’ country).

The point of the flurry of global corporate treaties/’Arrangements’ is that these laws of the host countries allegedly inhibit/retards/prevents the investment in businesses & industries, and thus,                                                                                                                                                                        deprive corporations & their shareholders of profits/dividends, particularly in the development, extraction, financing, servicing, etc. of natural resources in environmentally conscientious countries like Canada.

And therefore,                                                                                                                                                                by creating a new superseding global jurisdiction with its own secret legal tribunals (for ‘dispute resolutions’) the ‘aggrieved’ businesses can ‘sue’ the encumbering ‘lesser’ jurisdictions (state, county & municipalities) at the global level, where the ‘guilty’, lesser jurisdictions do not pay out of their right pocket (ie. state taxes), but, do pay out from their left pocket (federal taxes) with all other Americans who have agreed to ratify the treaties without the representation of the individual state to defend itself, or, hear the evidence against the individual state, or, appeal the decisions, &/or, the amounts to be awarded, etc.

Some have suggested that the treaty/arrangements seem to lend itself to abuse by the global (not including the members of BRICS) corporate economy. But, because the tribunals, the disbursement of the legal fees (whatever they decide to charge), damages (as high as they want), etc. are working in secret, it has been argued, it really won’t matter to the grassroots of America because poor is still poor.

Therefore, one of the many points considered in

‘The Submission’:                                                                                                                                         ‘The SHAREHOLDERS & Corporations of AMERICA,  Canada, the EU, the Trans Pacific nations, et al                                                                                                                                                   v                                                                                                                                                                               the harmless Native & non Native Canadian NON shareholders, et al”    

is; what are the various different ways that the harmless Native & non Native Canadians, et al, can be heard by the federal courts to defend itself against foreign corporations                                                                                                                                                          and                                                                                                                                                                        Corporate Canada & its relationship to the Canadian government by way of Corporate Canada’s lobbyists paying the executives of the political parties considerations.

This relationship is considered in ‘The MERKEL (Chancellor of Germany) Letter; To Sue, or, Be Sued’ which is part of ‘The Submission’ to The Supreme Court of Canada.                                   (‘The MERKEL Letter’ & excerpts of ‘The Submission’ can be accessed at                davidehsmith.wordpress.com)

And, if the taxpayers can’t get together to pay the high cost of long term litigation, who are the interested parties that would consider suing the ‘global’ corporate economy on a contingency basis (ie. investment litigation)? And, who could get Corporate America, &/or, their corporate associates to pay?

President Putin, et al, might consider paying for the litigation just to embarrass Corporate America & the Global Corporate Economy; ie. making money while depriving the Global Corporate Economy of their aspirations to create their (capitalist) version of the global subjugation of communism…

Putin, et al, might also consider the litigation in a more serious manner in order to off-set the American led sanctions against Russia as per the situation in the Ukraine.

Similarly, one might consider under what circumstances would Warren Buffett, or, the ‘coveted’ Hong Kong investor, et al, might consider financing the litigation? Would their involvement re-stabilize the world for ‘honest’ businesses that are respectful of the lesser jurisdictions, et al?

On the other hand, how would Corporate America, their corporate associates and their Shareholders respond to being socially shunned, deprived of services/business, access to state/municipally owned roads, sewers, water, etc., let alone become the recipients of civil disobedience? That is to say, under what circumstances would Corporate America & their Shareholders, et al, begin to react like ‘good corporate citizens’ of their host countries, including at home in the U.S. of A., when the alternative is for them being treated in an unwelcomed manner (persona non grata) & encouraged to leave with their families while being prevented, limited, &/or, regulated from being able to conduct business in the U.S., &/or, with respectful American businesses, &/or, any level of American governments?

It may be regrettable that as a consequence of the treaties/’Arrangements’ the present under-funding of the investigations into the illegal money laundering by terrorist related drug cartels, et al, would be further be eroded as their illegal/secret profits will be encouraged to be invested in the Global Corporate Economy in an undiscernible, but, ‘not unwelcomed’ manner by the unconscientious global corporate economy.

By way of closing, there are any number of processes & procedures of law that will be deliberately circumvented by the developers (including the thousands of the most successful & devious lawyers in the signatory nations) of the treaties/’Arrangements’ with provisions for secretly increasing the abuses in perpetuity.

And, given the severe blow that the treaties/’Arrangements’ are giving to our ‘democracies’ 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…”

***                                                                                                                                                                                   For more Information & Questions re; The Relationship between Human (Nature) Rights & Economics by way of the TTIP, the CET Agreement, TPP, C-CI Treaty, et al, and  The WAD Accord                                                                                                                                                                    & List of RECENT ARTICLES, LETTERS & NOTIFICATIONS by DEHS,                                        see; davidehsmith.wordpress.com

***                                                                                                                                                                                 Please consider sharing the enclosed information & questions with 10 friends who will share it with 10 others…