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

The Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) is a double edged sword; that is…depending upon how one looks at it. That is to say that some have suggested that the ISDS & the global corporate treaties/’arrangements’ is a death sentence for democracy & the sovereignty of nations, while others look at it as an opportunity to challenge, learn, clarify, modify, re-interpret, &/or, reject the treaties/’arrangements’ based upon the grounds that they are un-ethical, immoral, &/or, legally unconscionable.

However, one of the problems of ISDS is due to the fact that there is, as of yet, no tried & acceptable ‘official’ means whereby the harmless citizens of the European Union & non-Native Canadians, et al, can sue the government of Canada (or, their EU governments), or Corporate Canada/European Union for throwing in their, the governments’, support with & for Corporate Canada & its global corporate associates at the expense of the harmless taxpayers without recourse & appeals.

And, while it may be regrettable that the harmless Canadians taxpayers have been conditioned, &/or, lead to be believe, that ‘their opposing’ political parties & ‘their’ sine cure senate (ie. upper house) has protected them & will continue to protect them from litigious economic bullies & enemies, both; foreign & domestic, they, the ‘harmless’ citizens, are continuing to be told that it is the nature of ‘their’ true democracy(ies) that by voting with an informed opinion for the party of ‘their choice’, they, the citizens of Canada, et al, are exercising their right to let their politicians make informed choices on their, the harmless voters’, behalf.

Clearly, the governments of Canada, the European Union, et al, have put themselves in the position, &/or, are preparing to put themselves in the position, of a conflict of interest by siding with the associates of the global corporate economy, and thus, the governments have made themselves unable to defend the rights of their citizens in matters concerning the aforementioned corporations and, the government itself. And, therefore, can a reasonable person conclude that the governments are succeeding in putting themselves & the global corporations above the laws of its citizens & into the hands of their own courts/tribunals (ie. the ‘Death-Star-Chamber’) where the only guilty parties, their citizens, have been predetermined by way of the agreements (ie. the treaties/’arrangements’) prior to the ISDS tribunals’ ‘litigations’?

The problem seems to be that Canadians & the citizens of the EU, et al, may be just unaccustomed to, &/or, unaware of how to challenge/confront ‘their’ governments in a manner similar to which Native Canadians have, &, are continuing to utilize, very successfully. The successful challenges of the Canadian government’s laws continues to demonstrate the basic unfairness of decisions that are un-ethical, immoral, &/or, only marginally legal, etc.

And, by failing to challenge these laws, &/or, those that are intended to render laws ‘unappeal-able’, it enables Corporate Canada & its global associates to further their control of the due diligence information & to close the access door to Corporate Canada’s power & the power of its global corporate associates.

In conclusion, here are 5 important points for the citizens of Canada & the EU, et al, to consider regarding the treaties/’arrangements’ that they may feel have been, or, are being, foisted upon them;

1) under what circumstances would Native Canadians consider co-suing the government of Canada & Corporate Canada with the citizens of the EU, non-Native citizens of Canada, et al, regarding the lack of consultation & the deprivation of the due diligence information (eg. The Compensation in The W.A.D. Accord) by the Canadian government, et al?

2) A) in order to level the playing field between:

the citizens of Canada, the EU, et al,                                                                                           and                                                                                                                                             Corporate Canada & Corporate EU,

how much of your tax dollars (ie. as a tax deduction) do you deem necessary to put towards the suing of the government of Canada, et al, & Corporate Canada, et al, as per ‘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’

&

The MERKEL (Chancellor of Germany) Letter; To Sue, or, To be Sued’?
&/or,
2) B) who would you prefer to have as the litigation funder* of the suit (see the aforementioned ‘Submission’) against the primary beneficiaries of the Canada-EU CETAgreement by the harmless citizens?
3) what constitutes a ‘good corporate citizen’ in the context of those corporations which are trying to dump their liabilities onto the ‘harmless’ citizens (ie. tort abolishment lead by U.S. corporations) of the sovereign nations that the corporations would like to operate in?

4) what constitutes a ‘fair’ treaty, or, agreement for the citizens that host the ‘good corporate citizens’, ie. would it be preferable for the citizens of the signatory treaties/’arrangements’ if the disputing corporations would only be able to sue each other in the open courts of the sovereign nations that they would like to operate in

&

where the parties in a dispute have the responsibility for finding and presenting evidence particularly if the evidence exposes some of the unethical, &/or, illegal practices/’arrangements’ that exist in the inter-relationships between the Corporations that are presently based in Canada, their lobbyists, the executives of the parties & ‘our’ politicians, et al?

and

5) the harmless citizens of Canada & the EU might seriously consider asking the new PM of Canada, Justin Trudeau, has he even read the CETA & the other Global Corporate Treaties/’Arrangements’ and whether he understands it (competency) & is Trudeau willing to answer the taxpayers’ humble questions (sincerity) after ‘we’, the citizens, have had an opportunity to understand its financial significance to our families’ incomes with the assistance of our trade/economic lawyers?

That is to say, the citizens of the signatory nations might consider asking whether ‘their’ politicians should have to sully their ‘beliefs’ & sales pitches with ‘sordid’ facts that come from actually reading & understanding global treaties/’arrangements’?

Regardless, what happened to the new Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau’s (Corporate Canada East) promises to read, understand, share his understanding of TPP with consultation & questions from the citizens of Canada regarding the treaties, both; ‘domestic’ (ie. First Nations) & foreign (ie. global corporate) especially about how Native & non-Natives Canadians to pay much more for Corporate Canada’s liabilities by reducing transfer payments, services for health (more exacerbation toward privatization) & education, et al?

By way of closing, I look forward to reading about the readers’ thoughts, questions, feelings, improvements, etc. regarding the above. For more information regarding the basis for the aforementioned co-suing of the relevant governments & associates of the global corporate economy, I can be contacted at davidehsmith.wordpress.com

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

* litigation funder; Who is the ‘coveted’ foreign investor who said:

It’s not that we are racist in our dealings with Canadians, it’s just that we can’t stand the way that you suck-up to us.

***                                                                                                                                                       To access ‘The MERKEL Letter’ & Excerpts of ‘The Submission’, see;    davidehsmith.wordpress.com                                                                                                              ***                                                                                                                                                          For the FULL ‘Submission’, see; The SUPREME COURT of CANADA.                                      ***                                                                                                                                                          Please consider sharing the enclosed information & questions with 10 friends who will share it with 10 others…

Advertisements

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.

Another good reason for non-Native Canadians, foreign investors, et al, to support Native Canadians’ in ‘Moving Political talks’ along, Investigation into Missing Native Women, et al…
Native Canadians can Save Non-Natives Canadians, et al, from Corporate Canada’s superseding TPP, CETA & other Global Corporate Treaties/’Arrangements’? However, Under what Circumstances would Native Canadians consider helping non-Native Canadians, et al, to Co-Sue the Federal Government & Corporate Canada, et al, for Deprivation of Due Diligence Info, besides Ending the ‘Designer Racism’ & other considerations?
Non-Natives Canadians, et al, can learn a Great Deal about the Need for Litigation against Corporate Canada & its Representatives in Parliament & Congress.

While the decision to cancel the license to access & pollute a huge amount of water used for fracking by Nexen’s Chinese & Canadian investors may be good for the citizens of the Fort Nelson First Nation, the context of the decision is still unsettled & dangerous for both; Native & non-Native Canadians.

This is the second ‘set-back’ for Corporate Canada’s investors in China’s corporate energy participant, Nexen, in the China – Canada Investment Treaty (C-CIT) whereby Corporate Canada & the government of Canada (PM Harper & the executives of the ‘opposition’ parties) have sold, &/or, deliberately misrepresented to China & other potential signatories of the flurry of Global Corporate Treaties/’Arrangements’; CETA (EU), TPP (Trans Pacific nations) &, by association, the TTIP (U.S – EU), on the basis of unrealistic expectations regarding Corporate Canada’s ability to control;
1) Native politicians & Native voters in order accept unofficial (non-government, or, non-legal, sanctioned fines, &/or, awards) pay –offs
&
2) Non-Native Canadians by way of fanning the flames of the uniquely Canadian ‘designer racism’.

As all of Corporate Canada’s traditional parties (minus the Green party) support the secret Tribunals’ ‘arrangements’, Corporates China & Canada are desperate to avoid having the secret Tribunal of the C-CITreaty financially punish the taxpaying voters prior to the federal election. Corporate Canada is even more desperate to make sure that the decision by the post-election Tribunal deciding in favor of the Chinese & Canadian investors will not:
1) tip-off the Canadian voters & cause the voters to reject the yet to be ratified TPP & CETA
&, perhaps more importantly,
2) tip-off the voters in the U.S., the European Union, the Trans Pacific nations, et al.
And, finally, the Nexen investors have to wait until after the Canadian Oct., 2015 election in order for the faux ‘opposition’ to put some distance between itself & those ‘evil followers of Harper’ (ie. the Conservatives), even though they, the faux ‘opposition’ (the Liberals & the New Democrats), are also supporters of the means to inhumanely & secretly punish the ‘harmless’ voters, both; Native & non-Native, of Canada.

And, if one understands why President G.H.W. Bush explained to Canadians ‘Well, you should have Known’* regarding Corporate ‘America’s’ (ie. Canadian investors, et al, in American companies doing business in Canada) reneging on the FTA as per the soft lumber ‘dispute’, then perhaps one might understand why Presidents Bush, Obama, et al, might very well say the same thing to his fellow American voters & the voters in all of the other potential signatory nations.

And, while some** have concluded that Corporate Canada’s ‘handling’ of grassroots Canadians, particularly, Native Canadians, continues to be repugnant, it may be worthwhile to point out that while grassroots Canadians have been conditioned/educated to defer to government imposed ‘compromises’ & to be reluctant to engage in legal battles, ie.‘suit-adverse’, as opposed to litigious Americans, Native Canadians have wisely & successfully determined that litigation is the only way to get around the secret arrangements that benefit a few band members for the period of an election cycle by engaging in litigation that benefit the entire community by questioning, testing, buttressing & furthering the rights of Native Canadians.

And, while non-Native Canadians do not have the benefit of having the financial & institutional capabilities to sue Corporate Canada & the government of Canada, grassroots non-Native Canadians may find a vast common ground with Native Canadians, whereby Native & non-Native Canadians can exercise & increase the benefits of their version of ‘democracy’ by establishing effective means of checks & balances over the combined forces of Corporate Canada & the representatives that they choose for the voters to select as Members of Parliament. One of the means for accessing the aforementioned checks & balances arises from creating the forums for all Canadians, et al, to share, improve & discuss, etc., the information & the questions in The W.A.D. Accord*** (also referred to as ‘The Australian Question’) which is intended to prevent Native & non-Native Canadians, et al, from continuing to be deprived of the due diligence information that can provide the basis for the more informed financial planning of their families & communities.

Therefore, by looking at the context of the decision to turn down Nexen’s fracking license one can get a better understanding of why Corporate Canada has anxiously help develop the aforementioned Treaties/’Arrangements’ that would supersede the benefits in The WAD Accord & its Compensation while continuing to deprive & now, after the ratifications, legitimize Native & non-Native Canadians, et al, of the information in the Treaties/’Arrangements’ & legitimizing (ie. making it legal for Corporate Canada &/or its Associates to make any & all secret, self-serving arrangements in the future).

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

*see; ‘Well, you should have Known’ at davidehsmith.wordpress.com
** Who is the ‘coveted’ Chinese investor who stated:
‘When it comes to dealing with Canadians (Corporate Canada & their politicians?) it’s not that we are not racist, we just can’t stand the way that you suck up to us’.
And, which Canadians are coveting this potential Chinese investor & his global associates? ***The W.A.D. Accord, see; Google, or, davidehsmith.wordpress.com
**********
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…

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

The Threat of the Unknown/Secrets.

Global Corporations no longer sue each other, but, sue the lil’ guy via your Signatory Gov’t. without Your Defense Input & NO Appeals. Your Gov’t. Can’t sue the Global Corps.
If ‘your’ politician hasn’t read & understood the TPP, et al, then why are YOU listening to an Expensive, but, Uninformed Opinion based upon ‘Beliefs’ & not Facts? (Please see; ‘Tired of your Political Representatives’ “Non-Answer Responses” (Talking Points)? A SIMPLE DIAGNOSTIC TEST of your DEMOCRACY’. See; davidehsmith.wordpress.com)
What is the Info that Corporate Canada (& PM Harper) is Depriving the other Treaty Signatories of & How much will the Deprivation Cost the harmless lil’ guy in Canada, New Zealand, et al? You Should Have Known (later)… (the Secret?), so Just say ‘No’ now.

All of the signatory countries 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 and federal) 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 domestic corporations, ie. Corporate Canada,
& their relationship to the Canadian government by way of Corporate Canada’s lobbyists paying considerations to the executives of the political parties.

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 on going 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 act 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 un discernible, but, ‘not unwelcomed’ manner by the un conscientious 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?

By way of closing, I look forward to reading about your thoughts, your questions, your feelings, your improvements, etc., & those of your readers, regarding the enclosed.

If you should have any more questions or problems with this issue, &/or, any other, I can be contacted at the enclosed numbers & addresses.

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…

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.

Americans, Japanese, et al, look forward to working with Savvy Slave Trading Malaysians & Slick Cultural ‘Genociding’ Canadians. ‘But, we didn’t know’.

Will Pope Francis & other leaders Intercede with Prayer against PM Harper, Corporate Canada, The Canadian Establishment, et al, for Continuing to Blame & Punish those who are continuing to be Deprived of the Due Diligence Info and Continuing its Cultural Genocide? Protecting the Human Rights of Unborn Native Canadians, et al.
Traditional Canadian Parties Demanding Supplicance to Corporate Canada & its Global Corporate Assocs. is an unholy sin?

Canada’s Big 3 Traditional Parties tell Voters; For NO to Global Treaties/”Arrangements’ just VOTE for the GREEN Party.
ANTI-Globalists (GREENs) PROHIBITED from ‘Corp.Can.’s Election’ DEBATE…

But, will the lil’ guy get 10 years to read, consider, discuss & improve upon (with lawyers paid by Global Corporate Assocs.)?
by David E.H. Smith, ‘Qui tam…’

After New Zealand’s PM admitted that medicines will cost more, have the citizens of New Zealand & other TPP nations also noticed similar moves like Canadian Prime Minister Harper below? ‘To help pay for the harmless taxpayers ‘guilty transgressions’ against Global Corporations in Canada, Prime Minister Harper has recently cut the funding for health care by $36 billion dollars’. (please article below)

***
There is absolutely no ethical reason for hyping a mountain of corporate ‘arrangements’ to screw the harmless, lil’ guy by espousing the legitimate benefits of reducing tariffs & referring to the arrangements as ‘trade’ treaties?

The fact of the matter is the TPP, TTIP, CETA & other Global Treaties/”Arrangements’ are not about how much trade, but, who the signatory corporations prefer to trade with & how to ‘Vichy’ their profits while ‘undermining’ the AIIB, et al. And, if one understands the basic economic law that
there is only a finite amount of global value & that it does not grow, or, shrink, it just moves around, then, one might be able to understand that the TTIP, CETA & the other Global Treaties/’Arrangements’ are the means for just such moves; they are just attempts to move the value of the signatory nations to the (‘global’) corporations that are presently located in these nations. These ‘moves’ only make economic sense if the value that is moved to the global corporations is at the expense of the non-shareholders (via ‘their’ governments), whether the non-shareholders are citizens of the signatory nations, or, not.

And, while the aforementioned reorganization will cause an increase in employment in some sectors of the signatory Global Corporations it will be off-set by:
1) the devaluation of the operational costs as jobs move to the signatory nations with the lowest cost of employment,
&
2) the decrease of jobs in other sectors which will be lost entirely to non-signatory nations which have un competitively low wages.

Other ‘secret’ cost shifts from the corporations to the harmless, individual tax payers include:
1) the systematic move from one corporation suing another corporation, to both corporations suing the harmless taxpayers in secret (‘Death-Star’) Tribunals; but, with no defense, nor, appeals for the harmless taxpayers (see; ‘The MERKEL Letter’*),
2) the prohibition of governments to sue the signatory corporations; ie. what was previously (prior to the treaties) illegal, &/or, unethical is now ‘legal’ in the new jurisdiction of the cyber Tribunals (the U.S., et al, Corporations that have craved for Tort Reform are getting Tort Abolishment),
3) the provisions to make more secret add-ons at later dates with no public consultations,
&
4) et al.

To help pay for the harmless taxpayers ‘guilty transgressions’ against Global Corporations in Canada, Prime Minister Harper has recently cut the funding for health care by $36 billion dollars. Not only do these funds reward the Global Corporations (to pay for present-future punitive developmental costs, penalties, etc.), but, it gives the Corporations the funds to purchase national health care systems of Canada & the other signatory corporate states whose health care functions are being deliberately exacerbated in anticipation of the secret intent of the Treaties/’Arrangements’; acquisition of national health care & pharmaceutical systems. Other public services are similarly being made vulnerable in preparation for corporate take-overs. Surprisingly, the Canadian province of Saskatchewan seems to be particularly resilient to the pressures from Corporate Canada & its Global Corporate Associates, at least for now.

However, where the real money is to be made in the secret
Treaties/’Arrangements’ is not in the ‘three card Monte’ (ie. Zero net effect) trade area of the treaties, but, in the moves in finance. Perhaps the most significant move here is from a system that is barely accountable in open courts, such as:
1) the money laundering of HSBC, et al, on behalf of drug & terrorist groups,
2) Enron’s unregulated (fraud, insider trading**, etc.) manipulation of electrical power-services,
3) the unregulated & fraud induced (Chase bank; ‘fine before no crime, nor, time’, et al) melt-down of Wall St. in the 2008 (the ‘tactical probe’ before the ‘invasion’ of the Global Treaties/’Arrangements’)
&
4) et al,
to a system of secret tribunal ‘arrangements’. In other words, the illegal practices that were barely detectable due to the deliberate underfunding of the regulators
&
the political interference of the investigations by the Dept. of Justice (U.S.),
will enable the practices of HSBC, Enron, Chase, et al, to not only live on but, expand exponentially & internationally.

The advocates of the Global corporate economy can warmly point out that the lil’ guy will no longer have to pay for the costs of the governments regulating, policing, investigating, prosecuting & incarcerating (?) financial felonies & misdemeanors as these duties will fall under the new cyber-jurisdiction.

This ‘cost savings’ begs the questions:
1) what are the various different ways that these costs savings can be made contractually binding in an agreed upon reduction of taxes of the harmless taxpayers,
2) what constitutes a ’good corporate citizen’ in the post treaty ratification world
3) how many pieces of legislation have Corporate Canada & its Global Associates encouraged, sponsored, &/or, paid a consideration to have passed in anticipation of suing the harmless individual taxpayers for windfall profits after the Treaties/’Arrangements’ have been ratified &
4) et al?

And, finally, it may be regrettable that nowhere in the discussion of the flurry of Global Treaties/’Arrangements’ has there been any mention about what will be the destabilizing consequences for the signatories due to;
1) the deliberate deprivation of information (particularly, Canada, re; The W.A.D. Accord & its Compensation) that is increasing the unrealistic expectations of the other signatories, potential signatories, et al,
2) the signatories making geopolitical side deals with non-members which have the appearance of being at the expense of the other corporations of the treaty signatories
&
3) et al?
DEHS *** For more on ‘The MERKEL Letter’, see; ‘The MERKEL (Chancellor of Germany) Letter’; To Sue, or, Be Sued’ ; excerpts from “The Submission’ to The Supreme Court of Canada;
The SHAREHOLDERS and corporates Canada, America, the EU, the Trans Pacific nations, et al v. the harmless non shareholders of the Canada, both; Native & non-Native).
at
davidehsmith.wordpress.com
***
For more on Insider Trading, see; ‘INSIDER TRADING; TPPartnership, CETA & C-CITreaty TRIBUNALS Need to be SECRET; Corporate Canada fears China may Blow “Arrangements” between Can. Lobbyists’ Clients & Parties’ Executives (re; The W.A.D. Accord*)?’
at
davidehsmith.wordpress.com
Also see; TPP, TTIP, CETA, Global Treaties/’Arrangements’ & Sovereignty
at davidehsmith.wordpress.com

***
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…

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

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…

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.