Bündnis “Stop TTIP”reicht Klage vor dem EuGH ein – European Commission taken to court for ‘stifling dissent’ over EU-US trade deal

TTIPStop
zur englischen Version
TTIP – Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Abkommen und Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, kurz CETA!

Das Freihandelsabkommen zwischen der EU und den USA und das CETA zwischen Eu und Kanada muss unbedingt verhindert werden.

Am Wochenende haben Zehntausende in Neuseeland gegen das TPP demonstriert, genau aus dem gleichen Grund, warum wir gegen ein Freihandelsabkommen sind.

Und schauen wir nach Guatemala und El Salvador, die Länder, die die USA unter Druck setzen, weil sie sich nicht dem Monsanto-Gesetz fügen wollen, dann müssten bei uns alle Alarmglocken läuten. Staatliche Erpressung zugunsten Monsanto? Nein, darauf lassen wir uns erst gar nicht ein. Lesen Sie dazu: Unglaublich! Staatliche Erpressung zugunsten Monsanto – US requires El Salvador to buy Monsanto’s GMO seeds or no aid money.

Kein Freihandelsabkommen mit den USA, Schluss mit den Geheimverhandlungen! Wir fordern Demokratie und Transparenz!

Die EU ist kurz davor, ein Handelsabkommen zu besiegeln, das Firmen dazu befähigt, unsere Regierungen wegen Gesetzen zu verklagen, die Bürgern den Vorrang vor Unternehmen geben. Doch was können wir schon alleine ausrichten, aus diesem Grund haben wir uns der Europäischen Bürgerinitiative „Stop TTIP“ angeschlossen. Hinter der Initiative stehen knapp 290 Bürgerorganisationen aus ganz Europa.

„Stop TTIP“ hatte Mitte Juli in Brüssel die Registrierung als Europäische Bürgerinitiative beantragt. Dies lehnte die EU-Kommission ab, weil die Aktion nicht die formalen Voraussetzungen erfülle. Nun reicht sie eine Klage vor dem EuGH ein.

Pressemitteilung: Europäische Bürgerinitiative reicht Klage vor dem EuGH ein

Stop TTIP will faire Bedingungen auch für zukünftige Initiativen

Gestern haben über 290 Bürgerorganisationen aus ganz Europa Klage vor dem Europäischen Gerichtshof (EuGH) in Luxemburg eingereicht. Gegenstand ist die Nicht-Zulassung der Europäischen Bürgerinitiative (EBI) Stop TTIP gegen die Handelsabkommen mit den USA und Kanada, TTIP und CETA. Die Bürgerinitiative fordert die EU-Kommission auf, das Verhandlungsmandat für TTIP aufzuheben und CETA nicht abzuschließen.

Die Europäische Kommission hatte den am 15. Juli gestellten Antrag auf Registrierung der Europäischen Bürgerinitiative am 11. September abgelehnt. Sie beruft sich auf zwei Hauptargumente: Das Verhandlungsmandat zu TTIP sei ein interner Vorbereitungsakt und kein Rechtsakt mit Wirkung auf die Bürgerinnen und Bürger. Außerdem könne eine EBI nur positiv formuliert werden, also darauf hinwirken, einen Rechtsakt zu erlassen, nicht aber einen solchen zu unterlassen. Beide Begründungen sind nach Ansicht der Initiatoren nicht stichhaltig.

Dabei geht es nicht nur um die Handelsabkommen: „Wir klagen nicht nur für die EBI Stop TTIP, sondern auch für weitere Europäische Bürgerinitiativen“, erklärt Michael Efler, Vertreter des siebenköpfigen Bürgerausschusses der EBI. „Wenn es um die Verhandlung internationaler Verträge geht, will die EU-Kommission die Bürgerinnen und Bürger komplett aussperren. Solange noch verhandelt wird, darf sich die Bevölkerung nicht einmischen, und wenn die Verträge erst auf dem Tisch liegen, ist es zu spät. Diese Rechtsauffassung würde auch viele künftige EBIs zu zahnlosen Papiertigern machen.“

Mit einer Demonstration von etwa 50 Bürgern vor dem Europäischen Gerichtshof unterstrichen die Initiatoren der Europäischen Bürgerinitiative ihr Anliegen. „Der Graben zwischen Europapolitik und Bevölkerung soll überwunden werden, so das übereinstimmende Credo der Politik. Doch die Diskrepanz zwischen verbalen Luftblasen und tatsächlicher Politik ist eine Zumutung. Die Brüsseler Arroganz gegenüber Europas Bürgerinnen und Bürgern ist nicht hinnehmbar! Wir werden dies – auch im Interesse der europäischen Idee – nicht akzeptieren und uns weiterhin gegen die Freihandelsabkommen CETA und TTIP zu wehren wissen“, so Blanche Weber, Mitglied im Bürgerausschuss der EBI.

Hintergrundinformationen zur Klageeinreichung finden Sie in unserer Presse-Information: https://stop-ttip.org/de/presse/

Das dies mehr als notwendig ist, zeigt auch unser Beitrag: Gabriel: „Hartz IV für Kraftwerke, nicht arbeiten aber Geld kriegen….”.

Noch Ende September hatte Gabriel im Bundestag betont, dass er gegen die umstrittenen Schutzklauseln für Investoren in beiden Verträgen sei. Entsprechendes hatte auch ein SPD-Konvent beschlossen. Nun deutete der Wirtschaftsminister einen Kompromiss an. Er glaube nicht, dass „ein kompletter Verzicht auf Investitionsschutz eine echte Option ist“. Genau das haben wir bei dem Freihandelsabkommen der EU mit Singapur lesen dürfen. Die EU-Kommission stimmte Schiedsgerichten wie bei TTIP zu, dies unbemerkt von der Öffentlichkeit! [Lesen Sie dazu: Why So Secret? Freihandelsabkommen EU-Singapur! EU stimmt Schiedsgerichten wie bei TTIP zu]

 European Commission taken to court for ‘stifling dissent’ over EU-US trade deal

StopTTIP Logo.jpg wird angezeigt.On Monday morning the Stop TTIP coalition, consisting of over 300 civil society groups from across Europe, are filing a lawsuit against the European Commission at the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. The lawsuit relates to a decision that was made by the Commission to block a ‘European Citizen’s Initiative’ (ECI) on the controversial EU-USA trade deal known as TTIP and a similar deal with Canada (CETA).

In September 2014 the European Commission was accused of ‘stifling citizens’ voices’ after it rejected a proposal to hold a ‘European Citizens’ Initiative’ against the trade deals. The Initiative, which had been launched by trade unions, social justice campaigns, human rights groups and consumer watchdogs, if successful would have forced the Commission to review its policy on the deals and to hold a hearing in the European parliament.

Michael Efler, a representative of the ECI’s citizens’ committee said: “We are not only appealing for the sake of the Stop TTIP ECI, but also for future European Citizens’ Initiatives. When it comes to the negotiation of international treaties, the European Commission wants to exclude citizens. While they are being negotiated, people are told not to interfere and when final contracts are put on the table, it’s too late. The Commission’s legal position effectively prevents any future ECIs on international agreements.“

Despite the Commission’s rejection of the European Citizen’s Initiative, campaign groups and trade unions launched a second self-organised petition calling on the Commission to scrap the trade deal that has so far gathered more than 850,000 signatures in just over a month. They are calling on the Commission to to stop negotiations on TTIP and not to complete CETA but so far the Commission denied those voices a hearing in favour of continuing to negotiate in secret.

Around 100 people were holding a demonstration at the front of European Court of Justice against both the trade deals and the Commission’s rejection of the ECI. Blanche Weber, a member of the ECI’s citizens committee: “The gap between European politics and people is to be overcome – according to the rhetoric of politicians. However, the discrepancy between this spin and actual politics is a disgrace. Brussels’ arrogance towards Europe’s citizens is unacceptable! We will continue to defend ourselves against TTIP and CETA – also for the sake of European democracy.”

Background information: https://stop-ttip.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Media_backgrounder_ECJ_lawsuit.pdf

This press release online: https://stop-ttip.org/european-commission-taken-court-stifling-dissent-eu-us-trade-deal/

First the human, then the economy !

Stoppt diesen Wahnsinn! Erst der Mensch und dann der Markt, die Welt gehört uns allen!

Netzfrauen
deutsche Flagge
Weitere Artikel zum Thema Freihandelsabkommen:

Freihandelsabkommen und der Filz

ERST CETA DANN TTIP – Zwei große Schritte in die falsche Richtung

Auch in den USA wird gegen TTIP protestiert – First the human, then the economy

Netzfrauen: Europäische Bürgerinitiative fordert Verhandlungsstopp bei TTIP und CETA

Was wird aus unserer Bioqualität wenn TTIP kommt –  Geht es uns dann wie den US-Bürgern?

TTIP- Der Ausverkauf der Bildung

TTIP – das allgemeine Unwissen

4 Kommentare » Schreibe einen Kommentar

  1. “BUT, WILL CHINA, et al, SUPPORT PUTIN (B.R.I.C.S., et al); The WHITE KNIGHT”?

    TPP, CETA, C-CIT SHAREHOLDERS & NON Shareholders AWAIT SUPREME COURT of CANADA’S, et al, FINDINGS, et al, to PROCEED. FINDINGS OF HIGHEST COURTS of the TPP & EU NATIONS DIFFER FROM CANADA’S, et al?

    It will be good for, not only the NON shareholders of the enterprises that will be generated by the on-going global „cooperation“ of corporate treaties, agreements, partnerships, et al, including the China – Canada Investment Treaty, The Trans Pacific Partnership, the EU – Canada CETA,
    but,
    for the potential shareholders, as well,
    who are quite interested to know if President Xi Jinping (China) will support Russia as a co-member of B.R.I.C.S. when President Putin uses his potential role as „The White Knight“.

    And, while President Putin’s potential support as “The WHITE KNIGHT” in the development of the CETAgreement, et al, litigation below can dramatically off-set the hundreds of billions of dollars due to the present & future sanctions leveled by American led, et al, corporations & financial institutions via their governments‘ signing their global corporate economic treaties/”arrangements”,
    and the potential for making trillions of dollars for the Russian economy over the next 30 – 40 years & beyond,
    are the citizens (SHAREHOLDERS & NON shareholders) of Germany & JAPAN just being prudent in wanting to wait for the outcome of:
    1) the submission to The SUPREME COURT of CANADA & the highest court in Germany, et al, to make their findings regarding “The Submission”:
    „The SHAREHOLDERS & Corporations of AMERICA, et al
    v
    the harmless Canadian NON shareholders, et al“?

    and
    2) „The MERKEL (Chanc. Germ.) Letter; To Sue, or, Be Sued”?
    (see; davidehsmith.wordpress.com )

    Have the federal representatives of the nations that are the potential signatories of CETA, TPP, et al, willingly provided the NON shareholders of China, Canada, Europe, the Trans Pacific nations, et al, with the aforementioned information? Are the federal representatives, et al, depriving the NON shareholders of Canada, et al, of the due diligence information that enables the family of the NON shareholders of Canada, et al, to make informed decisions regarding their financial planning?

    And, would a reasonable person conclude by a preponderance of the evidence, &/or, beyond a reasonable doubt, that these documents, et al, demonstrate that the SHAREHOLDERS of AMERICA, CANADA , the EU & Trans Pacific nations, et al, really do not care which NON shareholders pay them the punitive penalties, etc., by way of their secret (“Death-Star Chamber”) TRIBUNALS, as long as its not the SHAREHOLDERS who pay & not their corporations regardless of which country the corporations:
    1) operating from,
    2) maintain their headquarters,
    3) use to do their cyber banking, accounting, „taxation“, etc.
    &
    4) et al?

    And, re; the CHINA – Canada Investment Treaty, is it understandable why the “coveted” Hong Kong investor & his associates are “concerned” with the aforementioned findings of The SUPREME COURT of CANADA, et al, & the effects of the findings, et al, on the EU, AMERICA, the Trans Pacific nations, et al, treaties with CHINA, et al?

    In regard to arms sales; how about the sale of arms (non nuclear) in general in regard to the „trade“ treaties that are continuing to be secretly negotiated and how will the Tribunals, both; B.R.I.C.S. & non BRICS, adjudicate, decide & penalize the NON SHAREHOLDERS for the sale of legitimate, semi- legitimate & „illegal“ sales of arms within the signatories nations & the those of others, &/or, unaligned? Of particular, interest is China, which does have an treaty with Canada, which puts China „at odds“ with other arms manufacturing & nuclear powers that it (China) does not have any „arrangements“ with.
    Are these types of questions that your politicians & the corporate lobbyists calls „forget-me-nots“ („Buyer Beware“) that will be (maybe) worked out after the fast tracked signatures are obtained?

    And, what do you think is the significance of the line in The Submission to The Supreme Court of Canada “…And, lest one forgets that the revelation of the present perilous international treaties/”arrangements” began with the regard for the rights of Native Canadians as per the Treaties/”arrangements” that corporate Canada & the Government of Canada have “foisted” upon Native Canadians…”? What are the various ways that this line will cost the SHAREHOLDERS, et al?

    On the other hand, it may be worth repeating,
    „What the TREATY of VERSAILLES was to the 20th century (WWII) 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 CET Agreement, the C-CI Treaty, the TPP, et al, and The WAD Accord
    & List of RECENT ARTICLES, LETTERS & NOTIFICATIONS by DEHS,
    see; davidehsmith.wordpress.com

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

    Re; The European Union – Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA)
    and The W.A.D. Accord & Its Compensation.

    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.

    CHANCELLOR Merkel;
    In the matter of the C.E.T.A. and The W.A.D. Accord (THE ACCORD),
    as corporate Germany, and/or, the Government of Germany may be in the process of being:
    1) misled,
    2) misinformed,
    and/or,
    3) deliberately deprived of relevant due diligence information, et al, by corporate Canada,

    and/or, the Government of Canada
    regarding:
    1) the risks,
    2) the liabilities,
    3) the responsibilities
    and
    4) et al,

    that corporate Canada, and/or, the Government of Canada may be attempting to:
    1) avoid paying,
    or,
    2) dilute the amount of,
    and/or,
    3) etc.,
    of its/their contribution(s) to The Compensation that is embodied in THE ACCORD (aka; “The Australian Question”) by way of the design, the development and the
    ratification of THE AGREEMENT and its Tribunals(s),

    and,

    as the attempts at the aforementioned
    “avoiding”, and/or, the “diluting” may be construed as acts
    of guilt of, but, not limited to:
    1) corporate Canada,
    2) the Government of Canada,
    3) the other signatories to THE AGREEMENT,
    4) THE ASSOCIATES
    and
    5) et al,

    raises the due diligence questions regarding the charges against:
    1) corporate Canada,
    and/or,
    2)the Government of Canada,

    for deliberately failing to provide (the) due diligence information to its (THE) ASSOCIATES

    page 1 of 3

    and

    2) raises the due diligence questions regarding the MUTUAL charges against all of THE ASSOCIATES to THE AGREEMENT, for deliberately failing to provide (the) due diligence information regarding THE ACCORD and The Compensation to THE SHAREHOLDERS, and/or, THE POTENTIAL SHAREHOLDERS,
    and thereby,

    THE SIGNATORIES to THE AGREEMENT and THE ASSOCIATES are in the process of creating and developing an ENTERPRISE for purposes, but, not limited to:
    A) defrauding,
    B) manipulating the value of Initial Public Offerings (IPOs), stocks, and/or, other financial
    instruments that may be a product of THE ENTERPRISE and its subsequent ventures,
    C) insider trading
    D) racketeering
    and
    E) et al,
    and,
    as a consequence of the creation and the development of the new, secret and superseding jurisdiction by THE ASSOCIATES, and, thus, the creation of the “de facto”
    jurisdiction, and the creation of THE TRIBUNAL(s) in order to:
    1) PROTECT:
    A) THE ASSOCIATES,
    B) the Government Signatories to THE AGREEMENT,
    C) the proceeds of the alleged criminal ENTERPRISE
    and
    D) et al,

    by preventing:
    A) investigations,
    B) evidence and testimony,
    C) findings, decisions,
    determinations, and/or, conclusions
    and
    D) et al,

    from being:
    A) conducted,
    and/or,
    B) disclosed, and/or, made public,
    and thereby, render any, and all, judgements, and findings by the courts of lesser, and/or,
    “non” jurisdictions against:
    A) THE ASSOCIATES, and/or, their representatives,
    B) THE ENTERPRISE,
    C) the subsequent, and/or, associated ventures, et al,
    and
    D) the Government Signatories to THE AGREEMENT,

    to be; moot, null, void, and/or, without merit,
    and thus,
    render any actions against the aforementioned ASSOCIATES, et al, unenforceable
    and,
    provide the basis for “net” counter-suits against THE NON SHAREHOLDERS by way of the Governments of THE NON SHAREHOLDERS, that is to say the Government of Canada, et al,

    page 2 of 3 and

    2) SECRETLY ADJUDICATE, determine and enforce “net” decisions against THE NON SHAREHOLDERS
    and the lesser provincial/state and municipal governments via the agreeable SIGNATORY Governments (that is to say; The
    Government of Canada, et al) by way of:
    A) punitive; fines, penalties,
    and/or, damages,
    B) trade sanctions
    and
    C) et al,
    for depriving THE ASSOCIATES of the profits that could be derived as a consequence of the unimpeded, and/or, unencumbered development of the ventures of THE ASSOCIATES and THE ENTERPRISE,
    and, as a consequence of the
    aforementioned actions, and others,
    I am compelled to inform you of this notification.

    Other charges that have been raised against:
    1) THE ASSOCIATES, and/or, their representatives,
    2) THE ENTERPRISE,
    3) the subsequent, and/or, associated ventures, et al,
    4) the Government Signatories to THE AGREEMENT
    and
    5) et al,
    are:
    1) deliberate ignorance,
    2) malicious intent,
    3) depraved indifference,
    4) reckless endangerment
    and
    5) et al.

    In conclusion, as the Government of Germany has publicly acknowledged its concern about the “Investor-State Dispute Settlement” (I.S.D.S.) in THE AGREEMENT, I would ask you, Frau Bundaskanzarin Merkel, if you might be amenable to discussing the merits of enjoining in a suit against:
    1) corporate Canada,
    2) the Government of Canada
    and
    3) et al?

    Sincerely,

    David E.H. Smith
    – Researcher
    – “Qui tam…”
    page 3 of 3

    ******
    Please consider sharing the enclosed information & questions with 10 members of your family, friends, associates in order that they can use the due diligence info to make more informed decision about their families‘ financial planning, & then they can share it with 10 others…
    ******
    For more Information & Questions re; The Relationship between Human (Nature) Rights & Economics by way of the C-CI Treaty, the CET Agreement,
    TPP, et al, and The WAD Accord
    & List of RECENT ARTICLES, LETTERS & NOTIFICATIONS by DEHS.
    see; davidehsmith.wordpress.com

  3. ‚The Submission‘; The SUPREME COURT of CANADA;
    ‚The SHAREHOLDERS, corporates CANADA, AMERICA, EUROPE, CHINA, The TRANS PACIFIC NATIONS, et al,
    v
    the harmless non shareholders of Canada, both; Native & non Native, et al‘.

    CETAgreement, TPPartnership, C-CITreaty, et al; More Taxes & Less Services to pay The SHAREHOLDERS (Tribunals).

    “WILL The COURT CONSIDER…?”

    And, lest one forgets that the revelation of the present perilous International treaties/”arrangements” began with the regard for the rights of Native Canadians as per the Treaties/”arrangements” that corporate Canada & the Government of Canada have “foisted” upon Native Canadians…

    Are YOU Depriving your Highest Court of the INFO to Decide Against the Global Corporate Economy?
    Has Frau Bundaskanzarin Angela Merkel (Germ.) shared the Info with YOU?
    by David E.H. Smith

    (CAN.)…Therefore, as a consequence of the aforementioned abuses that have been listed in the enclosed research articles & the dire peril that these abuses puts the NON shareholding Canadians in, both; Native & non Native, et al, as an elaborate, ”inhumane”, ”unethical”, “immoral” & probably, criminal, enterprise, the writer humbly asks; under what circumstances would The Court consider the following?

    1) Will The Court consider ensuring that any further attempts by off shore enterprises, such as the aforementioned attempts by the global corporate “arrangements”, including
    corporate Canada & its associates within the government of Canada, et al, as a “reciprocity pool” of shared “secret decisions” against the non shareholders of Canada, et al,
    will be dealt with punitively.

    2) And, in the interim, until The Court can make a determination of any wrongful intent, &/or, abuses of the ”arrangements” as a criminal enterprise,
    will the open & public Supreme Court of Canada consider
    preventing the further use of the non shareholders‘ tax dollars from being used to make any, &/or, any more secret decisions against themselves, ie. the NON shareholders.

    3) Furthermore, can, or, will The Court consider ordering the return of any & all of the tax dollars that have been used by the government, &/or, corporate Canada & their lawyers, et al, that have been used for the development of the aforementioned “arrangements” of a what The Court may determine to be a criminal enterprise (for examples; a) as a means of using/legitimizing off-shore money, et al, b) laundering money from the proceeds of criminal enterprises, &/or, c) going toward the funding of “criminals”, et al, who may be involved in other criminal, or, unethical, or, inhumane, immoral enterprises),
    and thus,
    the tax dollars have not been used for the purposes that the taxpayers had intended, such as; for goods, services (particularly to police organizations & judiciaries for their investigation of, not only the aforementioned secret/privileged relationship between corporate Canada via its lobbyists
    and
    the executives of the relevant political parties,
    but, the alleged wrong doing by others, as well),
    programs, health, education, etc. that are consistent with the NON shareholders‘ understanding of what “good” government entails
    and
    return the tax dollars with punitive penalties paid to the NON shareholding Canadians, both: Native & non Native, et al.

    Similarly, given the reckless endangering situation that the government, et al, has placed the NON shareholders in, can, or, will the Court ensure that the necessary funds will be spent for their, the NON shareholders‘, intended purposes in order to “guarantee” these services, et al,
    and
    consider ordering corporate Canada, its shareholders & their lawyers, advisers & service beneficiaries of the present “arrangements” will be paid with their own funds, prior to presenting their future “adventures”, &/or, “arrangements” to:
    A) The Court, &/or, its representatives
    and then,
    B) the NON shareholders for their consideration, discussions, improvements, &/or, rejections, et al,
    in open forums that have eliminated the fear of recriminations, retributions, etc. by corporate Canada, its shareholders, The Tribunals, et al.

    4 A) And, lest one forgets that the revelation of the present perilous International treaties/”arrangements” began with the regard for the rights of Native Canadians as per the Treaties/”arrangements” that corporate Canada & the Government of Canada have “foisted” upon Native Canadians who have been deliberately deprived of the due diligence information, such as the information in The W.A.D. Accord, et al,

    I am compelled to ask The Court:
    will the Court consider whether, or, not The Court’s recent “Tsilhqot’in Decision”, makes
    it easier for corporate Canada, its global economic associates, their shareholders, et al, to sue the Tsilhqot’in First Nation & other Native communities in Canada
    and thereby, to seek financial relief from the harmless NON shareholding, non Native Canadians via the Government of Canada? And, will The Court consider preventing
    any unrelated hardship to the NON shareholders as a consequence of the creation of the
    aforementioned Tribunals & corporate Canada & its associates intent to obtain the unencumbered access to the natural resources that are continuing to be found in Canada & irrespective of Native title to these lands & its resources?

    B) And, similarly, does the plan espoused by the American born Tom Eugene Flanagan which would enable First Nations communities to become municipalities, also make it easier for corporate Canada, its associates, et al, to sue Native communities, or, seek remedies from the Government of Canada (ie. from the NON shareholders) for any encumbrances that the new, Native municipalities, et al, might impose upon the development, &/or, access to the aforementioned natural resources, etc.?

    (And, regarding the settlement of Native land claims that are presently before Canadian courts, & will continue to be before the courts for some time, the following question can help The Court a great deal in these deliberations, and that is; how were Europeans convinced to settle in North America in the first place & in particular, the land that became known as Canada?)

    5) Therefore, can I only hope that given the enclosed information about the abuse, the potential for abuse & the intent of the aforementioned Tribunals which is:
    A) to abuse & to limit The Court’s ability to hear…

    *******
    Please consider sharing the enclosed information & questions with 10 members of your family, friends, associates in order that they can use the due diligence info to make more informed decision about their families‘ financial planning, & then they can share it with 10 others…
    *******
    To SHARE Information & Questions re; The Relationship between Human
    (Nature) Rights & Economics in 1) the C-CI Treaty, the CET Agreement, TPP, et al, and 2) Native Canadian Treaties via The WAD Accord,
    see; davidehsmith.wordpress.com
    …For Excerpts of ‚The Submission‘ to The Supreme Court of Canada,
    see; davidehsmith.wordpress.com
    …For the FULL Submission
    see; The Supreme Court of Canada.

Schreibe einen Kommentar

Pflichtfelder sind mit * markiert.