RADICALPRESS.COM radicalpress/?p=3177 AUGUST 29, 2013 PM HARPER: You’ve Been Served With Notification of Pre-Existing Challenges by David E.H. Smith August 22, 2013 by admin HarperServed PM HARPER: You’ve Been Served With Notification of Pre-Existing Challenges by David E.H. Smith Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Leader, Conservative Party of Canada Mr. DAN HILTON, Executive Director CP Mr. Edward Fast, Minister for International Trade & Minister for Asian-Pacific Gateway I do not mean to rude, but, please do NOT thank me for any interest that I may, or, may NOT have regarding the existing, un-ratified Canada – China Investment Treaty C-CIT; (FIPA) and the Canada – EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA); I am just doing my due diligence research which will enable me, et al, to ascertain whether to support, improve, or, reject the Treaty, and/or, Agreement. However, as a consequence of your not answering the simplest and most basic questions regarding: 1) the basis for The Compensation that is embodied in The W.A.D. Accord (a.k.a. The Australian Question) and the lack of certainty regarding the proportions that corporates: Canada, China & European Union will pay for total amount of The Compensation that is embodied in The W.A.D. Accord as a consequence of the C.-C.I. Treaty and the Canada – EU C.E.T. Agreement and 2) the lack of certainty regarding corporates: Canada, China and European Union agreements to pay for total amount of the costs of the punitive penalties, damages, costs, administrative, legal fees, etc. that may arise as a consequences of: A) the CHALLENGES to the C.-C.I. Treaty and the Canada – EU C.E.T. Agreement, B) the costs of the on-going research and dissemination of the information regarding the C.-C.I. Treaty and the Canada – EU C.E.T. Agreement to all of the parties that have expressed an interest in the development of the natural resources that have been found, and are continuing to be found, in Canada and thereby, render the non shareholders, et al, of the enterprises that can be derived from the aforementioned Treaty, and/or, Agreement, harmless and thereby, prevent any abuses of the aforementioned costs, such as, using to the costs of The Challenges to increase the “profits” of the shareholders and the relevant corporations, please be advised that: YOU HAVE BEEN SERVED with: “NOTIFICATION of Pre-Existing CHALLENGE to the CANADA – CHINA INVESTMENT TREATY” and “NOTIFICATION of Pre-Existing CHALLENGE to the CANADA – EUROPEAN UNION COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC and TRADE AGREEMENT”. Is corporate Canada’s funding pool and those of corporate China and corporate European Union, adequate to pay the aforementioned innocent, and/or, harmless taxpaying voters’, et al, for any and all of the aforementioned costs of 1) “Pre-existing Challenges” to the Canada – China Investment Treaty C-CIT) and the Canada – EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) and the “After the Fact Challenges” if The Treaty and/or The Agreement are implemented/ratified? Do you also understand that by not answering the aforementioned simple and most basic questions it will be an admission of guilt and will enhance the punitive damages awarded to non shareholders if and/or when the aforementioned Treaty and/or the Agreement have been ratified? Would you please acknowledge that you have received the aforementioned C-CIT and CETA notifications? Do you, Misters Harper, Hilton & Fast acknowledge that you have received the enclosed C-CIT & CETA notifications and the relevant references* in order to access the less comprehensive version of The W.A.D. Accord, including The Compensation? Sincerely, David E.H. Smith Researcher “Qui tam…” cc. P.S. – Did you not get my emails regarding the aforementioned “NOTIFICATIONS” or is there something wrong with your email addresses? Do you suggest that we correspond by registered mail? *Reference: For those who may not be familiar with The WAD Accord and/or its recent developments, The Accord can be accessed on line by way of the submission entitled: “Towards a More Informed Opinion regarding the Environmental Impact and 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, [email protected] Process Advisor, Northern Gateway Project (22nd Floor, 160 Elgin St. Ottawa ON K1A 0H3) regarding: 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? [email protected] *********** TARGETING 95% – 99% CANADIANS (the Most Vulnerable Native & non Native Canadians) by “Unethical & Inhumane” Arrangements between Canadian Lobbyists’ Clients/Parties’ Executives; EU may consider “Renditioning Info” in CETA CHALLENGE; CHINA Unprotected with C-CIT? President Jose Barroso (EU Commission), President Herman Van Rompuy (EU Council), 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 Pre-existing CHALLENGE to the Canada – EU Comprehensive Economic and 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 and 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 Pre-existing CHALLENGE to the Canada – EU CETA Agreement” is essential in preventing any divisiveness in the EU (i.e. any desires to make separate and/or private arrangements) and/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 and corporate EU and its shareholders, et al, not ask too many questions about: 1) who and when some of the other participants, such as the Chinese, et al, have received the information regarding a) their “NOTIFICATION of the Pre-Existing CHALLENGE” and/or The COMPENSATION that is embodied in The W.A.D. Accord, et al, and b) the other participants’ suggested improvements to the CETA and/or Canada – China Investment Treaty (C-CIT) and their sharing of the information which can help exculpate the potential shareholders from their having to contribute a disproportionate amount for The Compensation and perhaps reduce the amounts that most EU taxpayers may have to pay for the CETA’s punitive penalties, etc., 2) the process and mechanisms whereby the participants of the CETAgreement and/or the C-CITreaty can find remedies and compensations as a consequence of the aforementioned information deprivation and 3) et al. Presidents Barroso, Van Rompoy and 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 and thereby further assist you to attain a greater understanding of some of the other problems such as: the support and/or the lack of support for The Agreement by the various other Canadian interest groups and 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’ and 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 and/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 and are continuing to be found, in Canada and, 3) et al. I suggest that you consider reviewing and sharing more of the relevant, online information by accessing: 1) Facebook; David Smith, Sidney, British Columbia and, 2) Enbridge Co. regarding the submission entitled: “Towards a More Informed Opinion regarding the Environmental Impact and 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, [email protected] Process Advisor, Northern Gateway Project (22nd Floor, 160 Elgin St. Ottawa ON K1A 0H3) regarding: 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?; [email protected] President Jose Barroso (EU Commission) and 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 2173 Bradford Ave., Sidney, British Columbia, CANADA. V2L 2C8. Furthermore, by your organization’s members, both shareholders and non shareholders, insisting that Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his parties 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 Pre-existing 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 and/or eliminate the divisive nature of the information deprivation within the European Union, et al and 2) enhance and/or maximize the benefits (ie. the direct cash dividends and other) to, both the shareholders and the non shareholders in Europe, China and Canada, particularly in the area of co-manufactured products. However, there are still many potential investors of the aforementioned CETAgreement projects, both European and Canadian, who are not sure that they agree with those members and/or participants in the proposed CETAgreement, who have suggested that corporate Canada and 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 and operating the CETAgreement’s dispute mechanisms and non-public tribunals and the costs of: 1) corporate Canada defending the CETA CHALLENGES made by: a) the EU’s members & its shareholders and b) the EU’s and Canada’s non shareholders and 2) corporate Canada “prosecuting” EU offenders while continuing to render the non-Canadian shareholders harmless and free of any associated costs*. Consequently, there are many Canadians, Europeans, et al, who are continuing to insist that they need to review, and 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 and their subsequent approval of corporate Canada’s proposals regarding this proposed CETAgreement in order that all Canadians can avoid being informed again and 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 and 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 at or by way of: David E.H. Smith, 2173 Bradford Ave., Sidney, British Columbia, CANADA. V8L 2C8 You and the other CETA’s potential participants can access more of the relevant articles that I have researched and posted on Facebook (and several online newspapers, et al) at: David Smith, Sidney, British Columbia. And, as an impetus for Prime Minister Harper and the liaison between corporate Canada’s, et al, lobbyists and the Canadian political parties, Mr. DAN HILTON: to acknowledge their receipt of their “NOTIFICATIONS of Pre-existing CHALLENGE to the Canada – EU Comprehensive Economic and 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, and thereby, corporate Canada’s) copy of “The NOTIFICATION of the Pre-existing CHALLENGE to the CETA” and 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 and/or any other information that I have provided you with, it will not give the EU an unfair advantage over the Canadians and 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 and European Union and then, being compensated by corporates Canada and 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 and non-shareholders, you, et al, might consider “Renditioning” (i.e. by a third party) the relevant information that the non-shareholders (i.e. the most vulnerable Native and non-Native Canadians, et al) are continuing to deprived of (for instance; the information regarding The Compensation embodied in The WAD Accord) and thus, prevent the further spread of the economic disadvantages (such as municipal and national bankruptcies and 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, i.e. monetary value, into the reserves of fewer and 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 and “unethical” profits by way of enhancing their ability to increase their deprivation of information via the CETA’s secret tribunals that employ mechanisms and procedures that are “un-improvable” by the non-shareholders, et al, in their determination of disputes and the awarding of financial penalties that are to paid for by the taxes of the non-shareholders and the further reductions of services, particularly in the areas of health and education services? Why do corporates Canada and EU think that the harmless, taxpaying, non-shareholders are willing to let them (corporates Canada and 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, i.e. 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 Canada’s taxpaying, non-shareholders to pay dividend enhancing “penalties” to corporate EU and its shareholders and 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 and 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 and self-adjudicating of their policies and c) determination of the amounts of their financial damages, punitive penalties and awards by way of their secret tribunals that may have different versions of “ethical”and/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 and the non-shareholder citizens of the EU want the opportunity to consider the reasonableness of the ratio between: a) the cash, front money and 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 and/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 and 2) discuss and consider the information and 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 and b) deprived of the answers to their questions and 2) just beginning to learn that the non-shareholders will be “forced” to pay the CETA’s financial penalties and bear “most” of the risks, how much room do you and 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, and B) your concerns about the consequences of misconstruing the intent of circumventing and/or superseding the basis for “The Pre-existing CHALLENGE” (The Compensation and non-shareholders’ uninformed burden as a consequence of the CETA, et al), I suggest that you, the members of the EU and 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 and 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 and 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 (and/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 (e.g., 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 and groups can also share with you their improvements to The W.A.D. Accord and thereby help you to exculpate most of the citizens of the EU from having to pay a disproportionate amount of the aforementioned Compensation and help you to minimize and/or eliminate a large portion of the basis for “The Pre-existing CHALLENGES” to the CETA and its potential penalties and punitive awards for damages, etc. It may be an encouraging sign that many Europeans, et al, agree that by just “legalizing” the proposed procedures and practices by way of the CETAgreement and/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 and/or companies that have suggested that they have an interest in developing the aforementioned Canadian natural resources and 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 be 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 and 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 and b) the most vulnerable citizens of the European Union, i.e. The EU’s non-shareholders and 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 ‘Pre-existing 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 and Canada had the opportunity to consider and then, perhaps, approve of their paying for the following other related CETA costs that corporate Canada and 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 and advocacy to “disadvantaged” groups and individuals that may be harmed by “the development”, 9) the costs of designing, operating and obtaining the public approval of the dispute mechanisms and 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 and 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. and 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 and/or elsewhere and 14) et al. PM HARPER: You’ve Been Served With Notification of Pre-Existing Challenges by David E.H. Smith radicalpress Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Leader, Conservative Party of CanadaMr. DAN HILTON, Executive Director CPMr. Edward Fast, Minister for International Trade & Minister for Asian-Pacific Gateway Like · · Share
Posted on: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 21:11:55 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015