TABLE OF CONTENTS

39) HELP IS ON THE WAY (Since 2014)?‘                                                                         NATIVE SUICIDES, POVERTY, et al, LINKED TO INFO. DEPRIVATION’.                       UN’s SR, Mr. ANAYA, et al; ‘IGNORAMUS et IGNORABIMUS’.                                                 CANADA & ITS NAFTA ASSOCS., et al, CONFIRM NEED for NATIVE, W.A.D. ACCORD VOICE?

38) SPY/AGENT PROVOCATEUR for corp. China-Canada, & their Investors, or, The RELUCTANT (Ethical & Humane) PATRIOT for the Most Vulnerable (99%) of Canadians, Chinese, et al?; The Mechanism for Ascertaining whether to Stop, &/or, to Improve the Canada-China Investment Treaty, et al.

37) EXCERPTS #2 from ‘The SUBMISSION to The SUPREME COURT OF CANADA;         The SHAREHOLDERS & CORPORATIONS of CHINA, AMERICA, THE TRANS-PACIFIC NATIONS, THE EU, CANADA, E.T AL                                                                                               V.                                                                                                                                                                 The ‘HARMLESS’ CANADIAN Non-SHAREHOLDERS (Voters/Taxpayers) of Canada, et al, Both; NATIVE & Non NATIVE’.                                                                                                                            

36) BASIS for INVESTMENT LITIGATION; SUING the GLOBAL ECONOMY.

35) The ‘EMPIRE’* STRIKES BACK against Huge Indirect Taxes to pay (‘Death-Star’-Chamber) Tribunals’ Punitive Penalties? *the ‘harmless’ citizens of the Anti-Global Corporate Economy.

1) EXCERPTS #1 from ‘The SUBMISSION’ to The SUPREME COURT of CANADA;                       The SHAREHOLDERS, corporates CANADA, AMERICA, EUROPE, CHINA, The TRANS-PACIFIC NATIONS, et al,                                                                                                                      v.                                                                                                                                                               the ‘harmless’ non-shareholders (Voters/Taxpayers) of Canada, both; Native & non Native, et al.

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

34) TPP; Japan; ‘The Submission’ to The Supreme Court of Canada paves the way for Expanding & Improving the basis of the Yamada led ‘Sword & Shield’ Counter attack Suit against the Japanese gov’t, et al. TPP & other Global Corporate Treaties/’Arrangements’ signatory gov’ts. in Conflict of Interest.

33) ISDS; The Death of Democracy & Sovereignty, or, an Opportunity to Sue Global Corporate Economy & their Governments?

32) Why Native Canadians Might consider Helping Grassroots citizens of TPP nations, the EU, China, et al, to Sue Corporate Canada & its Global Corporate Assocs.

31) TPP & Global Treaties/’Arrangements’; Sovereignty vs. Cyber ‘Justice’.

30) TPP, TTIP, CETA & other Global Treaties/”Arrangements’; ‘The Three Card Monte’. How long have Global Corporate Associates been ‘Passing’ Legislation in Anticipation of Suing Once Ratified? ‘Trickle’ Up & Out Economics.

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

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

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?

26) TPP & GLOBAL TREATIES; But, If Not PUTIN; ‘The WHITE KNIGHT’…

25) C-51 ‘Anti Terrorism’ Bill; Native Canadians, et al, vs. corporate Canada & The Global Corporate Economy?

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

17) “The CETAgreement, TPPartnership, et al, SHAREHOLDERS’ (& corporate) Bill of Rights”. 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.

16) The EU’s Acknowledgement of The NOTIFICATION of CHALLENGE to CETA.

15) “CONSIDERATIONS” paid to ALL Parties to PROMOTE TPP, C-CIT & CETA “Arrangements” &/or to LIMIT “OPPOSITION” as per NAFTA, et (see; The WAD Accord)?

14) 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.

13) The THREAT ASSESSMENT; CSIS (Canadian Security Intelligence Service), et al, re; C-CITreaty, CETAgreement,TPPartnership, NAFTA, et al. Edited; Jly., 2017, included; Intro. & The 3rd Party Letter.

12) Using The WAD Accord to Improve, &/or, Eliminate the C-CITreaty (FIPA) & your (GREEN Party) letter to me.

11) President Xi Jinping; YOU’VE BEEN SERVED with “The NOTIFICATION of the Preexisting CHALLENGES to C-CITreaty”, et al.

10) The UN’s SR, Mr. ANAYA; ”IGNORAMUS et IGNORABIMUS”; “ABORIGINAL CANADIANS, INFO DEPRIVATION, & The Growing GLOBAL CORPORATE ECONOMY”.

9) PM HARPER; YOU’VE Been SERVED with; “NOTIFICATION of Preexisting CHALLENGE to the C-CITreaty (FIPPA), the CETAgrement & The TPPartnership “.

8) “NATIVE SUICIDES LINKED TO INFO DEPRIVATION; The INHUMANELY HIGH RATES of Native SUICIDES in Canada. HELP IS ON THE WAY?” (Crimes against Humanity).

7) The W.A.D. ACCORD; INFO DEPRIVATION cORP. CANADA USES GOV’T to DEFRAUD harmless non shareholders.

6) The SUPREME COURT of CANADA; Reopening All Treaties to Embrace The W.A.D. ACCORD & Its COMPENSATION; “Tsilhqot’in Decision”; JAMES BAY TREATY, et al .

5) “WELL, YOU SHOULD HAVE KNOWN”. – U.S. President George H.W. Bush; NAFTA. TPP, CETA, C-CIT, et al, NEXT?

4) SECRET TPPartnership, C-CITreaty & CETA TRIBUNALS are INSIDER TRADING; corp. Canada fears China may Blow “Arrangements” between Can. Lobbyists’ Clients & Parties’ Executives (W.A.D. Accord*)?

3) HUMAN NATURE; How Cultures & Traditions can be used to explain Bullying & Info Deprivation to Protect the Power of “Death-Pots”.

Advertisements

39) HELP IS ON THE WAY (Since 2014)? ‘NATIVE SUICIDES, POVERTY, et al, LINKED TO INFO. DEPRIVATION’. UN’s SR, Mr. ANAYA, et al; ‘IGNORAMUS et IGNORABIMUS’.                                                   CANADA & ITS NAFTA ASSOCS., et al, CONFIRM NEED for NATIVE, W.A.D. ACCORD VOICE? 

   

(CAN)- 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”; see; Google)                                                                                           and

the high rates of:
1) SUICIDES,
2) poverty,
3) disenchantment,
4) unemployment,
5) despair,
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 thesuicides, 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:
davidehsmith.wordpress.com

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, et al, are utilizing know about the aforementioned relationship? And, do they concur, or, not?

How much of the enclosed information & questions Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Prince Zeid bin Ra’ad, High Commissioner for Human Rights was Iran’s Mr. Mohammad Javad Larijani, Sec-General High Council Human Rights, et al, able, &/or, willing to confirm.

Sincerely,

David E.H. Smith
– Researcher
– ‘Qui tam…’

***

Also see; ‘The Basis of Litigation as an Investment; Suing The Global Corporate Associates’ at davidehsmith.wordpress.com

38) SPY/AGENT PROVOCATEUR for corp. China-Canada, & their Investors, or, The RELUCTANT (Ethical & Humane) PATRIOT for the Most Vulnerable (99%) of Canadians, Chinese, et al?; The Mechanism for Ascertaining whether to Stop, &/or, to Improve the Canada-China Investment Treaty, et al.

Re; The recently proposed C-CI Treaty’s “penalty protection”, promotion of Investors’ Dividends, the Alberta Securities Commission Treaty Input and The W.A.D. Accord, et al.

Mr. Rice,                                                                                                                                                   Alberta Securities Commission, et al.

As many of the executives of Canada’s most lucrative corporations covet the Chinese investor & his associates, and are continuing to try to render him to be beholden to their corporations, particularly in the development of the natural resources that are continuing to be found in Canada, and who said:

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

I think that you will agree that the aforementioned “sucking up” to the “coveted” investor with the offer of privileged arrangements in the absence of, or, with the deliberate deprivation of information, not only increases the vulnerability of the “coveted” investor and the shareholders of their investments in the natural resource companies in Canada, but, the deprivation of the information greatly increases the vulnerability of Canadian investors, as well.

In the investment industry there is no substitute for good, solid information. The aforementioned “sucking up” that the “coveted” foreign investor is referring to are the privileged arrangements that the “coveted” foreign investor is being offered by elements within corporate Canada, particularly, their western chapters, as a substitute for good, solid information. The deliberate deprivation of the “coveted” foreign investor of the information makes him, his associates and their shareholders vulnerable. As a consequence of being deprived of the information some Canadians and Europeans are not surprised that the “coveted” foreign investor has insisted upon remedies that would render him harmless. Hence, the objectionable “remedy” in the Canada-China Investment Treaty (C-CIT, aka; FIPA).

Part of the information that the “coveted” foreign investor, and others, are being deprived and of which his shareholders depend upon, provides the basis for The Compensation that is embodied in The W.A.D. Accord. The Accord has raised some due diligence questions for all of the potential investors who have suggested that they have an interest in investing in the development of the aforementioned Canadian natural resources and its financing.

For those who are still not familiar with The WAD Accord (aka; The Australian Question), or, its more recent developments, The Accord asks if the particular amount of money in The Compensation to be paid annually (and/or, retroactively) to those who have been deprived of the information in The Accord, is adequate. And, if you are not familiar with how The WAD Accord is continuing to effect your endeavors & those of the shareholders, then you might consider obtaining a copy of The WAD Accord. As the less comprehensive version of The Accord is a matter of the public record, it can be accessed directly by way of the submission:

“Towards a More Informed Opinion regarding the Environmental Impact & Context of the NGP (Pipeline), et al”.*

If you have any difficulty accessing The WAD Accord that is embodied in the aforementioned submission, then let me know and I can provide it to you.
The WAD Accord has raised some due diligence questions; some of them are:
1) what is a reasonable amount for the “coveted” foreign investor, the Canadian shareholders and others to pay as their portion of the Compensation; annually and retroactively?
2) how can the “coveted” foreign investor and perhaps others exculpate themselves from having to pay their portion of the Compensation?
3) how can the “coveted” foreign investor minimize the deprivation of the information as it effects his investments in Canada and via the Canada-China Investment Treaty? That is to say, what are the various different mechanisms for making the legitimate improvements to the Treaty without being penalized for bringing them up for the consideration of the other potential Canadian and potential Chinese investors, or, others?
4) how will the continuing deprivation of the aforementioned information regarding The WAD Accord, et al, continue to adversely effect the security of short and long term investments in Canada’s natural resource sector as demonstrated by:
a) the growing protests, such as; “Idle No More” and acts of “civil disobedience”, etc. in Canada,
b) the arrangements involved with Native Canadian self-governance and land claims settlements, etc.,
c) sovereignty association to avoid the “inhumanity” in the basis for The WAD Accord and thus, eliminate the need to be exculpated (ie. at what point is moving to a sovereign Quebec, or, elsewhere, a prudent investment?)
and
d) the less than “democratic” element that is evolving in Canada, particularly in western Canada?
and
5) do you understand that as consequence of the “coveted” foreign investor’s due diligence research that he, the shareholders and the others are “reluctant” to be associated with those Canadians who are facing the charges for their deprivation of the aforementioned information, such as:
a) depraved indifference,
b) reckless endangerment,
c) malicious intent
d) “deliberate ignorance”
and
e) etc.?
6) do the shareholders support the “coveted” foreign investor’s disdain for the corporate Canada’s representatives in the federal government who are trying to off load the encumbrances, liabilities, and other, hidden costs of some greatly improvable treaties which have very questionable intents, such as the Canadian government’s treaties with Native Canadians, by introducing even more contentious, but, superseding treaties such as the Canada-China Investment Treaty to “protect” some privileged Canadian taxpayers and some investors? How much do you think it will cost the shareholders to cover the costs of re-opening the existing non WAD Accord treaties and re-negotiating the treaties with the 610+ Native communities across Canada in order to reconcile the previous, expedient arrangements of the precursor of what has become corporate Canada? How long do you think these due diligence negotiations will take before the aforementioned, Canadian natural resources can be ethically extracted, transported to our ports and borders for their sale to the global market? Will the extraction, transportation, sale, etc. of Canada’s natural resources be sufficient to cover the other hidden costs of the aforementioned natural resources developments, as well?
and
7) et al?

Regardless, the “coveted” foreign investor, and, perhaps others, as well, is very concerned about being penalized for his need to obtain the due diligence information that you, he and others are being deprived of via corporate Canada’s “facial”, but, dangerous attempt to circumvent any of the encumbrances/liabilities presented by the existing “arrangements”, and/or, treaties, that the government of Canada has made on behalf of corporate Canada, and/or, others, by way of the creation of the superseding Canada-China Investment Treaty.

As you and the shareholders are probably as concerned as the “coveted” foreign investor is regarding the continuation of being deprived of the aforementioned information about the basis of The Compensation that is embodied in The WAD Accord and other areas of the information deprivation that will continue to prevent you and the shareholders from making the financial and ethical decisions that enable you to maximize the value of your investments, you can learn more about The WAD Accord and how you can show your support for the “coveted” foreign investor’s discontent with corporate Canada and their (corporate Canada’s) representatives in Ottawa without being penalized by contacting me at the enclosed address, or, by discussing the above with your contacts with the government of China.

And, finally, would you prefer that the shareholders have equal access to the information in this letter, the aforementioned submission, etc., or, do you prefer that the information will continue to be used by privileged groups who can use the deprivation of the information for their exclusive profit? And, as I asked Canadian Security Intelligence Service and other organizations, which groups do you think would like to use the aforementioned information in order to further destabilize the global economy that corporate Canada is trying to increase its benefits from? And, do you have any preferences as to the location of the country where you, stock brokers, shareholders and others can attend tax write-off seminars** in order to learn more about the above and how the information will continue to effect the financial well being of you and the shareholders? Is there a particular winter month that you would prefer to get away to attend the aforementioned seminars?

I am not sure if I agree with those potential participants who have suggested that the deprivation of the information and the penalties in the C-CITreaty for improving the access to the prerequisite information is the culmination of corporate Canada’s contribution to the global arrangements and demonstrates corporate Canada’s desire and intent to close “their gates to their castle Canada” to protect their privileged few members from an effective “democracy” and its “costs”. And, while a great deal has been accomplished in the research and the dissemination of the aforementioned information to most of the potential participants who have suggested an interest in developing the aforementioned natural resources, etc., there is more to be done. By showing your support of the “coveted” foreign investor you can obtain more of the due diligence information and the alternatives that are shaping, both; the “coveted” foreign investor’s global arrangement of investments and the shareholders’ arrangements, you can help eliminate, amongst other things, the “potential” for insider trading based upon the aforementioned information that substitutes good, solid information with “the sucking up”, once and for all.

Incidentally, have you discussed with your contacts in China (and perhaps Europe) and the potential shareholders/investors who are interested in the development of the natural resources that are continuing to be found in Alberta and Canada, the uncertainty and the potential for further loss of profits that are being caused by the penalties for trying to improve the recent version of China-Canada Investment Treaty (C-CIT, aka; FIPPA) and the recent attempts to enable the C-CI Treaty to supersede existing treaties, such as the existing treaties with Native Canadians. That is to say that the aforementioned penalties and attempts to supersede threatens to expose the legal , but, “unconscionable” intent of “The Net Effect” arrangements whereby the taxpayers are penalized for attempting to render themselves informed and harmless while the investors/shareholders increase their “profits” the more that the taxpayers, et al, attempt to legitimately obtain the aforementioned information in order to improve China-Canada Investment Treaty (C-CIT), et al.

Do you think that some of the potential domestic & foreign investors may not realize that the means exist to ascertain whether the financial penalties paid by Canadian taxpayers for allegedly criticizing, &/or, improving the C-CI Treaty, et al, are just another way of unethically, and perhaps, illegally raising the value of the investors’ natural resource, et al, stock and their dividends’ at the expense of the other concerned parties? Similarly, what do you think are the various different ways to determine whether the legitimate, due diligence questions that the concerned parties are, & will be, asking you & some of the other financial, &/or, government institutions, are being answered in order that the potentially penalized individuals can make more informed opinions & decisions regarding the processes, procedures, arrangements, et al, that are being made by the type of democracy that is evolving in Canada in the context of the global economy? What are the new penalties for the abuse of the aforementioned “higher dividends penalties”? Has the primary, direct beneficiary of the aforementioned natural resource developments corporate Alberta & Canada set aside adequate funds to pay for the investigation, prosecution, etc. of the alleged “higher dividend abusers”? How much do you think is a reasonable amount to set aside for the investigations, prosecutions, etc. of these alleged “higher dividend abuser” crimes given that many other areas of financing the investigations, prosecutions, etc. of other crimes have been reduced to the point of almost legalizing the alleged crimes, or, at least, make them profitable? What do you think is a reasonable amount of time before the aforementioned institutions get back to you with the aforementioned information in order that you can consider their information/proposal/arrangements & thus, enable you to form the basis of more informed opinions & decisions?

And, perhaps more importantly, what do you think is a reasonable amount of time before you & the aforementioned institutions get back to me & the shareholders who will potentially be operating in the area of your commission, with the aforementioned information in order that we can consider the information/proposal/arrangements from all of the relevant institution, & thus, enable us to form the basis of more informed opinions, decisions & more informed questions?

In conclusion, Mr. Rice, given the large impact that the recently proposed C-CI Treaty will have upon the economy and investments in Alberta, I was wondering how much input did your Alberta Securities Commission have bringing about the penalties for criticizing, challenging, &/or, improving the Treaty?
And, given the overwhelming stake that the potential domestic and foreign investors may have in the natural resources based companies that are under the provincial jurisdiction of your securities commission,
would you please share with me how the penalties in the recently proposed Canada-China Investment Treaty can:
1) protect the aforementioned potential investors from the existing treaties that the government of Canada has with Native communities located in Alberta, et al,
and
2) promote the value of these investments and increase the investors’ dividends?

Regardless, I’ll inform the government of China, et al, that you have received the enclosed information and legitimate questions. I can also convey to the government of China, et al; 1) your interest in clarifying your concerns regarding the penalties that may eliminate value of “The Net Effect”, 2) your willingness to consider the alternatives that can greatly appreciate the level investments in the present and future projects that are handled by your province’s securities commission and 3) et al. On the other hand, Mr. Rice, what do you think is a reasonable portion for your investors to contribute to the aforementioned Compensation? That is to say; the portion that your investors/shareholders contributes to The Compensation will encumber and marginalize “The Net Effect” while your investors take their capital elsewhere.

I look forward to reading about your understanding of the above concerns and your answers to the enclosed questions.

Sincerely,

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

P.S. Do you agree with those who have suggested that the China National Offshore Oil Corporation’s (CNOOC) purchase of Alberta based Nexen Co. is an important prerequisite that enables corporate China to sue the dividend poor Canadian taxpayers for their continuing to challenge the corporate backers of the C-CI Treaty & their corporate attempts to illegitimize the aforementioned human rights & environmental rights issues that are legitimate prior to The Treaty & evade the legitimacy of these rights by superseding & punishing Canadian voters by way of The C-CI Treaty.

* “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) that contains, amongst other things, The W.A.D. Accord.
The submission can be accessed via the Internet by contacting:

Ms. Colette Spagnuolo,
GatewayProcessAdvisor@ceaa-acee.gc.ca
Process Advisor, Northern Gateway Project
(22nd Floor, 160 Elgin St. Ottawa ON K1A 0H3)
regarding:
Public Registry; File #A43076

**tax write-off seminars – see; “Towards a More Informed Opinion…” Canadians might consider writing to, as opposed to “talking” to, the politicians who are living in your constituencies to get them to walk you through the process that they, the politicians, are utilizing to set up the necessary mechanisms for handling your families travel costs, etc. to take you to the aforementioned information that they have been depriving you of for too long.

For more Info. & Questions re; The Relationship between Human (Nature) Rights & Economics in the C-CITreaty, the CETAgreement, et al, via The WAD Accord,
see; davidehsmith.wordpress.com

 

37) EXCERPTS #2 to ‘The SUBMISSION to The SUPREME COURT of CANADA; The SHAREHOLDERS & Corporations of CHINA, America, the Trans-Pacific nations, the EU, Canada, et al v. The ‘harmless’ Canadian NON-shareholders, et al, both; Native & non Native’. For The FULL SUBMISSION, see; The Supreme Court of Canada

Letter to The Justices of The Supreme Court of Canada Continued; “Will The Court Consider…”; Toward more Informed Opinions & Conclusions

In conclusion, while I do not want to displease The Court, nor, do I want The Court’s displeasure directed at me, or/my research, it is important that in the interest of clarity, to pose some further questions regarding a typical situation that speaks to the intent of the “Arrangements” of corporate Canada, its associates, its shareholders, et al.

 Following Mr. Paul Palango’s premises in his book “Dispersing the Fog” to a logical conclusion, that is to say; as a consequence of;

1) the government of Canada’s  (& thus, its associated lobbyists, the party executives, and now, its global corporate associates, et al), the interference, interruptions, termination & “deliberate under funding”, etc. of investigations of corporation Canada, et al, by way of the political relationship between the Government of Canada & the top leaders of the RCMP, et al,

and

2) United State’s:

A) “renegining” on the decisions by the dispute reconciliators against the U.S. versus Canada in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)

&

p. 81

B) the symbolical chastising of Wall Street’s (U.S.A.) investment community as a consequence of its probe to check the lack of consequences for the international impact that the Wall Street Investment “Meltdown” and the Goldman Sachs malfeasance which may still be detrimentally effecting economies around the world, including Canada,

then, the above actions &, in some cases lack of action, has encouraged & emboldened the leaders of corporate Canada, et al, & its shareholders, et al, to further protect itself & its global associates from its Canadian liabilities, responsibilities, etc.  by creating off-shore companies as a means of associating with their limited liability companies that operate in Canada, &/or, other signatory nations and is presently being legitimized by the aforementioned:

i) Canada – China Investment Treaty,

ii) Trans Pacific Partnership,

iii) EU – Canada Comprehensive Economic & Trade Agreement

&

iv) et al.

 

Corporate Canada has caused Canadian laws to be created for the prima fascie purposes (intent) of serving corporate Canada’s internationalist interests, not as “good corporate citizens”, but, in their intersts of cooperating with their associates that are based in other countries in order to cross sue (by way of The Tribunals) the NON shareholders in all of the signatory countries.

As it was noted in the Synopsis, page 7, to the article entitled “Native Suicides Linked to Information Deprivation”, the United States served notice around, or, about the 1980’s to other countries that American based corporations that are also operating in other countries, would no longer be a “good corporate citizens” of its host countries. That is to say that these American corporations would follow American economic policies & would not necessarily support the economic policies of the host countries.

The significance of American corporations becoming “NON good corporate citizens” while operating in other countries becomes apparent when one considers that Canadian corporations, by way of their representatives in the government of Canada, & the other signatories of the aforementioned “arrangements”, are implimenting a means whereby they can become “non good corporate citizens” of, not only the host countries that they operate in (&/or, where the corporations would like to operate in), they are becoming by way of the “arrangements”, “non good corporate citizens” of their home counties, as well.

These laws become more significance when looked at in the context of the aforementioned tribunals for the new Treaty, Agreement(s), Partnership “arrangements”. These “arrangements” enable corporate Canada & their new global corporate associates

p. 82

to access their reciprocal “recovery pool” of the potential profits that the collabrative, global shareholders could derived from the development of the natural resources that are continuing to be found in Canada, et al, by enabling the corporations to sue the harmless, Canadian NON shareholders, et al, by way of the government of Canada, et al.

Similarly, corporate Canada & its shareholders can enjoy the financial benefits from the reciprocity of being enabled to sue the NON shareholders of other countries by way of the collaborative governments which are also willing, &/or, anxious to partake in the financial rewards derived from the victimizing of the harmless NON shareholders who are living in the other signatory countries.

These statements raise some very intesting questions for the Court, such as:

given that the tribunals are secret, just how frivolous can the “decisions” of The Tribunals get in order to obtain punitive; damages, fines, penalties, etc., before a “frivolous” decision offends the Supreme Court of Canada, et al?

And, given the pattern of “political” interference, interuption, termination of and

deliberate underfunding of police investigations, etc. that Mr. Paul Palango has documented in “Dispersing the Fog”, can the Court compel the government:

a) to cease & desist in its interference, etc.,

b) to adequately fund investigations, particularly when the investigations are into the somewhat obscured means that were, &/or, are continuing to be employed by the lobbyists, et al, of corporate Canada & the executives of the political parties that are operating in Canada, to manifest the aforementioned “arrangements” within Canada & with its global economic associates (ie. investigations into how the “arrangements” are causing, &/or, have caused a secret coup d’état” of the democratratic process in Canada, et al)?

Are there existing laws, &/or, remedies that can adequately protect, &/or, compensate the harmless NON shareholders that can render him/her whole? Or, is that the intent of the secret “arrangements”, ie. too ensure that no laws have been passed, &/or, will be passed that would make their secret “arrangements”, immediately recognizable as being “illegal” once the “arrangements” have been ratified? Under what circumstances would

the Court act unilaterally in order ascertain the sincerity & competency of the direct and indirect financial beneficiaries of the “arrangements”.

How long will the victims, the NON shareholders, who have been already been harmed by the costs of the development of the “arrangements”, etc.

and

who will be penalized & who will be continued to be damaged by way of the on-going secret “arrangements” once the “arrangements” are ratified, have to suffer?

It may be regrettable that corporate Canada, et al, may feel justified with

p. 83

aforementioned harm as it may be outweighed by corporate Canada’s “wisdom”and its  benevolence for creating “some” non consensual jobs that the shareholders and their corporate leaders find so dangerous, &/or, beneath their dignity, that they have no intention of doing the jobs themselves, but, are “offering” the jobs to the NON shareholders, or, failing that, to immigrant workers from the aforementioned signatory countries?

Regardless, there are many financial advantages for corporate Canada & its associates

that necessitates the continuation of their secrecy. For instances; the secrecy enables the utilization of untraceable money (ie. legally, &/or, illegally gained money) by the signatories’ off-shore companies, by the Tribunals to sue the agreeable Government of Canada, et al, for the tax dollars of the deliberately uniformed (ie. information deprived), &/or, misinformed, harmless NON shareholding Canadian tax payers.

By utilizing unaccountable (secret) off shore goods & services ( particularly, over

insurances), such as; administrative & legal fees that the associated limited liability companies in the host countries might incur, enables corporate Canada, its associates and their shareholders to inflate their true costs and thereby, either minimizes the taxes that they pay to the host countries, or, can also be used as a means of receiving tax credits, job creation funds, economic development funds, et al, from the  NON shareholders via the agreeable, signatory host countries. Therefore, it is necessary that corporate Canada & its associates and their shareholders move & hide as much of their profits and “costs” off shore from the deliberately underfunded Canadian, et al, accountants, investigators & investigative organizations, such as; the RCMP and Revenue Canada.

In addition, the off-shore companies can sell its shares on the basis of the unfettered decisions of the signatories’ tribunals. Aren’t the off-shore companies which are protected by The Tribunals a very convenient method of laundering money, whereby the off-shore companies can use, & will be used by criminal enterprises in order to legitimize their proceeds, or, to pay for the corruption of government officials who are being paid directly,

or, via future considerations for their support, &/or, their lack of opposition to

the development & ratification of the superseding “arrangements”& enterprises? And, therefore, isn’t the purpose of the design & manifestion of the “arrangements” and its Tribunals, to facilitate a very large & secret criminal enterprise with some legitimate & semi-legitimate companies taking a very limited amount of the liability while placing almost all ofthe enterprises’ finances, accounting, profits, etc. beyond the jurisdiction of the government of Canada, &/or, The Court?

Isn’t the intent of the aforementioned enterprise to ensure that profits & expenditures will be remain hidden & can not be repatriated to Canada & other legitimate

p. 84

jurisdictions, and thus, the profits can not be frozen, or, seized during any investigation, &/or,

litigation,

or, used as damages, &/or, punitive damages, in unfavorable awards by way of The Court on behalf of judgements favoring the NON shareholders?

And, furthermore, by having the ownership of the assets that are to be used in the

devlopment & financing of the natural resources that are continuing to be found in Canada, off-shore, the assets & the interests of the signatory nations can be protected by foreign militaries which can prevent the seizing of its assets in Canada and the bulk of its assests that are off-shore, etc.?

Do the NON shareholders have to pay the aforementioned:

1) developmental costs of the “arrangements”

2) the penalties & damages

&

3) et al,

while they wait for a test case to be heard by The Court, and while corporate Canada, et al, becomes further emboldened, gains more momentum & further entrenches itself laterally into more financial institutions, etc., before The Court can step in?

And, finally, there are a number of other points that I am presently researching and developing. One of them, I will leave with you to consider and that is;

as corporate Canada, its associates, its shareholders, et al, appear to be intent upon:

1) maximizing the privilege of secrecy regarding their arms length control of the Canadian economy, et al, to conduct their:

A) project financing,

B) accounting,

C) administration,

D) procurment of goods & services; and

E) payment of costs, such as; salaries, bonuses, stock dividends, etc.

F) manufacturing

G) taxes

and

H) et al,

off-shore,

and thus, making it deliberately difficult for any, or, all of assests being forfeited

2) minimizing, &/or, eliminating their costs, liabilities, resposabilities, etc.

and

3) using the Tribunals as a means of raising funds, profits, etc. in order to recuperate what might otherwise might be legitimate, and/or, illegitimate costs of doing business, etc, aren’t corporate Canada, its associates, its shareholders, et al, indicating that they

p. 85

are, not only ,“non good citizens of Canada”, but, they are people and companies which are suggesting to The Court, et al, by way of their actions, that they do not want to be welcomed in Canada,

and thus,

the aforementioned “non good citizens of Canada” are indicating their desire to be treated by the NON shareholders, including the members of The Court, as persona non grata?

On the other hand, by demonstrating:

1) a willingness to repatriate the aforementioned benefits, assests, etc.

2) take ownership ofthe aforementioned liabilities, responsibilties, etc.,

3) by demonstrating a willingness to develop only environmentally friendly & sustainable businesses, industries & enterprises,

and

4) et al,

might be looked upon favorably by the NON shareholders and TheCourt.

By way of closing, I look forward to reading:

1) your acknowledgement of this letter & the enclosed

&

2) about The Court’s thoughts, its answers to the aforementioed questions that have been raised as a consequence of the research, The Court’s questions, its comments, its improvements, etc., regarding the above & the enclosed material.

And, does the enclosed information & questions give us the hope that it can assist The Court in understanding the aforementioned “arrangements” that are meant to:

1) circumvent the jurisdiction of the the Court,

2) punish, &/or, take unfair advantage of, by secret means, the NON shareholding Canadians, both; Natives & non Natives

&

3) et al?

Is there anything else that I can do, or, any other information that I might be able to provide The Court with in order to:

1) further demonstrate to The Court, et al, the damages, undue hardships, etc. that the aforementioned “arrangements” are causing, &/or, will cause to the NON shareholders

&

2) give The Court  a  greaterunderstanding of the necessity for asking the future litigents the “broader”questions in order to breach the secrecy of corporate Canada, et al, &

repair the damage that is being perpetrated upon the NON shareholders & the Canadian

version of “democracy”?

p. 86

As the secrecy & information deprivation may be claimed to be privileged by the protection of the relationship between a lawyer & his/her client, I would hope that the

The Court would take into consideration that the information that I am sharing with the Court has yet to be classified as “privileged”, or, protected in the interests of “national security”.

One of the questions that this statement has raised is; at what point in the commission of a crime, or, a non legal action, can the lawyer/client confidentiality be abused in order to facilitate the crime(s)? That is to say; at what point can the confidentiality be used as another form of deception by secrecy, & /or, deprivation of information (for the purposes of, amongst other things, minimizing/preventing due diligence investigations). And, at what point in the “privileged” crime is the aforementioned confidentiality between a lawyer and a client (or, a priest & a penitent) no longer “guaranteed”?

And, by providing the information to The Court it will hopefully help the members of the

Court to develop some questions for the representatives of corporate Canada, et al, that the Court might not otherwise have the knowledge to ask.

Furthermore, by providing the information to The Court it will cause corporate Canada:

1) to share corporate Canada’s understanding of the information that I am providing to The Court, with The Court, the most vulnerable Canadians, the non shareholders, et al,

and

2) to declare their intentions & financial information in the openness of The Court & the public, as opposed to their severely limiting the availability of their financial information, et al, to the secret (”Star Chamber”) Tribunals provided by the aforementioned “arrangements”.

Please note, that in providing the information in this submission to The Court I have tried to:

1) eliminate the use of characterizations

&

2) minimize the number of conclusions that I have made in order to leave it up to the Court to draw its own conclusions.

On the other hand, would it be presumptuous, &/or, impudent, if I asked The Court; could we agree that the enclosed material raises:

1) some very disturbing questions regarding the direction & intent of what the public may have previously referred to as the “good corporate citizens of Canada”,

and

the rights (particularly, the right to due diligence information) of the harmless NON shareholders vs. the shareholders & their global corporate leaders,

etc.,

2) some worisome questions regarding the changing interrelationships between

p. 87

economics  the “democratic” and the political process in Canada; ie. by moving the accountability & profits, etc. of corporate Canada off-shore to where the economic decisions will be removed from Canadian scrutiny, but, will continue to “de-sovereignize” Canada, etc.

and

3) some alarming questions regarding the usurping of the authority of The Court to adjudicate the adversarial positions between:

the corporations that are supported by the congress of the federal government of Canada & the enterprise of the global corporate economy via their Tribunals (their “courts”) & their international sanctions, etc.

and

the non shareholders,

in order to make the harmless NON shareholders whole again & compensate them as to be determined by The Court.

Regardless, I do hope that The Court will share with me some of its concerns with me regarding the above & the enclosed

and

will take the time to write to me & provide some hope that The Court intends to eliminate, &/or, minimize the basis the anxiety & fear that I, and so many Canadians are living with that I mentioned at the outset of this submission, other than to suggest that The Court will take the aforementioned information & questions under advisement, etc. at the appropriate time, such as when the Court may hear “the” relevant case that specifically addresses a particular piece of the aforementioned information, &/or, questions.

And, finally, I have endeavored to be concise in my writing & editing of this submission, but, the significance of the article’s content may have suffered as a consequence (Brevis esse laboro, obscurus fio; Latin). Similarly, I apologize for the lumpiness of some of the material, but, the necessity of sharing the enclosed information, questions, etc. is predicated upon the September 28, 2014 deadline when PM Harper has made public his intention to make a formal statement regarding “conclusion” to the EU – Canada CETAgreement.

Sincerely,

David E.H. Smith

– Researcher

– “Qui tam…”

***   

For EXCERPTS (#1) to ‘The SUBMISSION to The SUPREME COURT of CANADA;

The SHAREHOLDERS & Corporations of CHINA, America, the Trans-Pacific nations, the EU, Canada,  et al

v.

The ‘harmless’ Canadian NON-shareholders, et al, both; Native & non Native’.

see; davidehsmith.wordpress.com

For The FULL SUBMISSION, see; The Supreme Court of Canada

***                                                                                                                                 

Also, FULL Articlesee, 
36) ‘The BASIS for TREATIES/’ARRANGEMENTS’ LITIGATION as an INVESTMENT’;

davidehsmith.wordpress.com

***
Also see; 4) ‘INSIDER TRADING’ (The Need for Secrecy), davidehsmith.wordpress.com
***
Please consider sharing the enclosed information & questions with 10 members of your family, friends, associates in order that they can use the due diligence info to make more informed decision about their families‘ financial planning, & then they can share it with 10 others…

36) BASIS for INVESTMENT LITIGATION; SUING the GLOBAL ECONOMY.

 

BASIS for INVESTMENT LITIGATION; SUING the GLOBAL ECONOMY.

 

Re; ‘The Submission’ to The SUPREME COURT of CANADA:

‘The SHAREHOLDERS & Corporations of AMERICA, China, Canada, the EU, the

Trans-Pacific nations, et al
v.
the (harmless) Canadian NON shareholders, both; Native & non Native, et al’

 

1) The most vulnerable Aboriginal Canadian community members (95% – 99% of Aboriginal Canadians) are being deprived of the due diligence information regarding the criteria for ascertaining the health & robustness of an Native Canadian community’s economy.

 

2) A psychologist agreed that there is a relationship between the DEPRIVATION of the aforementioned information

and

the unconscionably high rates of SUICIDES, etc. that are found in many of the Aboriginal communities across Canada.

 

3) As a consequence of being deprived of the aforementioned information the most vulnerable Aboriginal Canadian community members are entitled to be COMPENSATED as per The W.A.D. Accord.

 

4) The most vulnerable NON Aboriginal Canadian community members (95% – 99% of NON Aboriginal Canadians) are being deprived of the information regarding the most vulnerable Aboriginal community members’ deprivation the aforementioned criteria

and

are forced to pay billions for the NON criteria based Native enterprises that are unhealthy & which prevent the most vulnerable Native community members from obtaining the benefits of their robust economies.

 

5) As a means of avoiding, &/or, diluting any, &/or, all of corporate Canada’s contribution to the aforementioned Compensation, corporate Canada is, & will continue, to pay considerations (lobbying) to the government of Canada via the executives of the political parties operating in Canada, et al, to promote the development of the superseding secret Tribunals of the present treaty ‘arrangements’ which have been designed to punitively punish the harmless Canadians NON shareholders, both; Native & NON Native, for allegedly encumbering corporate Canada, its associates and their shareholders (ie. The Global Corporate Economy) from the potential profits that might be derived from the development of the natural resources that are continuing to be found in Canada.

 

6) As corporate Canada & its shareholders, the government of Canada, the executives of the political parties that are operating in Canada, et al, are;

  1. A) depriving the harmless NON shareholders of Canada, the USA, the EU, the Trans Pacific nations, et al, of the risks associates with the treaty ‘arrangements’, such as; being forced to pay any & all of the punitive damages of the trade Tribunals,

&/or,

  1. B) depriving the harmless SHAREHOLDERS & corporate leaders of the USA, the EU, the Trans Pacific nations, et al, of the risks associates with the treaty ‘arrangements’, such as; being forced to pay any & all of the punitive damages of the trade Tribunals,

&/or,

  1. C) have not conducted their due diligence investigations of the risks involved with development of the superseding tribunals in order that corporate Canada, et al, can share their information with the NON shareholders, et al,

&/or,

  1. D) are preventing the RCMP, et al, from conducting investigations of the aforementioned risks by way of more political interference,

&

  1. E) et al,

 

corporate Canada & its shareholders, et al, are liable.

 

To Access the Relevant Reference Material:

  1. A) The W.A.D. Accord & its Compensation (aka; The Australian Question),

see; davidehsmith.wordpress.com

or,

Google.

  1. B) ‘The MERKEL (Chancellor of Germany) Letter; To Sue, or, Be Sued?’,

see; davidehsmith.wordpress.com

or,

Google.

  1. C) Excerpts from ‘The Submission’ to The Supreme Court of Canada:

‘The harmless Canadian NON shareholders, et al, both; Native & non Native

v.

The SHAREHOLDERS & Corporations of AMERICA, the EU, Canada, et al’.

see; davidehsmith.wordpress.com

or,

Google.

For the FULL ‘Submission’,

see; The Supreme Court of Canada.

&

  1. D) More political Interference of RCMP investigations;

see; ‘Dispersing the Fog’, Paul Palango.

 

 

35) The ‘EMPIRE’* STRIKES BACK against Huge Indirect Taxes to pay (‘Death-Star’-Chamber) Tribunals’ Punitive Penalties? *the ‘harmless’ citizens of the Anti-Global Corporate Economy

The ‘EMPIRE’* STRIKES BACK against Huge Indirect Taxes to pay (‘Death-Star’-Chamber) Tribunals’ Punitive Penalties?                                                                                       *the ‘harmless’ citizens of the Anti-Global Corporate Economy                                   

Japan; TPP & the other Global Corporate treaties/’arrangements’;                                    ‘The Submission’ to The Supreme Court of Canada paves the way for Expanding & Improving the basis of the Yamada led ‘Sword & Shield’ Counter-attack Suit against the Japanese gov’t, et al. TPP & other Global Corporate Treaties/’Arrangements’ signatory gov’ts. in Conflict of Interest.

TPP, et al, Just in Time to protect carcinogenic ‘Round Up’ & other Toxic products & Foods; the Future of ‘Legal’ Poisoning of harmless Customers starts NOW. Taxes Cut as Gov’ts pass Lawsuit Costs to harmless citizens?

(CAN.) – The TPP & the other global corporate treaties/’arrangements’ provides that the signatory governments will, not only, be no longer able to sue corporations for not adhering to the laws of their host countries & thereby, replace the desire of American lead corporations for tort reform with tort abolishment, but the TPP will also place the signatory governments in positions of a conflict of interest in regard to their own harmless citizens who are being forced to find their own, non-governmental means of enforcing existing & future laws that have been passed by way of:

1) the secrecy of unethical lobbyists for the benefits of their wealthy corporation clients & their shareholders,                                                                                                                                     &/or,                                                                                                                                                                    2) the ethical desire to compete with other countries by passing laws that  protect & enhance the well-being of its citizens regarding their health care, education, worker safety, environment, transfer payments, etc.

However, it seems that it is only recently that the harmless citizens of Japan are learning that due to Corporate Canada’s, &/or, the government of Canada’s, anxious desire to impress its TPP corporate associates, &/or, the citizens of Japan, et al, with:

1) its unencumbered access to the natural resources that are continuing to be discovered in Canada,

2) its ability to ‘manage’ Native Canadians in regard to accessing the aforementioned natural resources in Canada                                                                                                                         &                                                                                                                                                                            3) et al,

Corporate Canada, &/or, the Canadian government has misinformed its corporate associates & deprived its corporate associates of due diligence information (eg. the Canadian government, et al, is continuing to deprive Native Canadians, et al, of the information & questions in The W.A.D. Accord),  which will greatly affect the costs of developing the aforementioned natural resources, and thus, as a consequence of Corporate Canada’s, &/or, the Canadian government’s actions it has given the harmless citizens of Japan, et al, the basis for:

1) not only, suing Corporate Canada, &/or, the government of Canada, via the Canadian government,                                                                                                                                                  but for:                                                                                                                                                               2) also expanding & improving upon Mr. Yamada’s existing suit against the Japanese government, &/or, Corporate Japan, et al, as well.

And, thus, Corporate Canada, via their lobbyists to the Canadian government, are most anxious to escape from their liabilities by a rapid ratification of the TPP, et al.

Therefore, the Japanese group, led by Mr. Masahiko Yamada, who are suing their government regarding the Trans-Pacific Partnership on behalf of themselves & the citizens of Japan, might seriously consider suing Corporate Canada, in order to ensure that they, the harmless citizens, do not end up having to ‘contribute’ any of their tax dollars to pay for The Compensation in The W.A.D. Accord, et al, & thereby, prevent Corporate Canada from escaping its liabilities by way of the ratification of the TPP, et al.

Furthermore, by suing Corporate Canada &/or, the government of Canada, by Mr. Yamada’s group, would enable the harmless citizens of Japan as a ‘sword’ & a ‘shield’ to prevent the government of Japan from using any of tax dollars of the harmless citizens of Japan to further punish the harmless citizens, ie. the ‘shield’ & to provide the monies necessary from the punitive damages, on an on-going basis, to continue to fight the future capricious forays & assaults against the harmless citizens’ democracy and counteract the damages to it, etc. caused by Corporate Japan, the government of Japan, et al, ie. the ‘sword’.

Please see the reference material below:

‘The Submission’ to The Supreme Court of Canada: ‘The SHAREHOLDERS & Corporations of JAPAN, America, China, Canada, the EU, the TransPacific nations, et al,                                                                                                                                                                   v.                                                                                                                                                                       the (harmless) Canadian NON shareholders, both; Native & non Native, et al’    (see; davidehsmith.wordpress.com)

which includes:                                                                                                                                       1) The W.A.D. Accord,                                                                                                                           2) ‘The  MERKEL (Chancellor of Germany) Letter; To Sue, or, Be Sued?’                                 &                                                                                                                                                                   3) et al.

‘The Submission also considers:                                                                                                                1) what is a ‘good corporate citizen’                                                                                                            &                                                                                                                                                                          2) which are not good corporate citizens to conform, or, to make the corporations persona non grata.