Category Archives: Commerce

Be It Known … I Chief Kathleen Robin Smith of Samahquam Indian Band will not allow myself to be stripped of my legal powers.

“As one can see … I Chief Kathleen Robin Smith of Samahquam Indian Band has been ostracised.

Be It Known … I Chief Kathleen Robin Smith of Samahquam Indian Band will not allow myself to be stripped of my legal powers.
Therefore, I Chief Kathleen Robin Smith of Samahquam Indian Band shall not take the position of Non-Voting Chair.
Furthermore, It is obvious that our Three Samahquam Councillors will indeed sign the BCRs approving the $1.6 Million that In-SHUCK-ch Nation requires in order to carry forward Eppa’s prescribed motions for our three Councillors to adopt.
I Chief Kathleen Robin Smith will not involve myself in anymore Back Door Politics. It is illegal.”

We don’t agree with the Minister of AANDC that the recent accepted UN human rights in Canada that the BCTC treaty process abides by this UN Human Rights! Kakila Hereditary Chief Clarke Smith

“We don’t agree with the Minister of AANDC that the recent accepted UN human rights in Canada that the BCTC treaty process abides by this UN Human Rights!”

Kakila Hereditary Chief Clarke Smith

” We thank the Minister of AANDC of the recent letter of reply regarding our urgent situation of fraud at treaty and logging. When you read the Loan agreement document it states it was approved by the constituents. Both documents make that statement. Over the last 20 years of this Treaty Process we constituents have never been provided the Treaty Loan Agreements for our consideration. Therefore, the documents are false thus fraud

In 2007? a letter was sent to the Chief Commissioner at BCTC asking for clarification. But no reply.

As you can see Gerard Peters is the Chief Negotiator and also Band Member of SAMAHQUAM and seems to be instructing His Employer on what to do! It the Tail wagging the Dog situation. It has been influence by the Inshuckch Treaty Chief Negotiator to vote for treaty!

Since the start of the Inshuckch treaty on October 15, 1994 at a convened AGM of SAMAHQUAM members voted no to the BCTC Treaty Loan agreements. This Resolution has never been rescinded or over ruled.

In 1997 SAMAHQUAM Chief and Council went forward with Inshuckch treaty without consulting nor consent from SAMAHQUAM Members the so called constituents.

In 1999 Sanahquam Chief and Council stopped support of this Inshuckch treaty since Inshuckch entities were not in compliance with treaty loan agreements and that Members did not have input to vote for participating with this treaty process

In 2001 A so called referendum took place for SAMAHQUAM but the Electoral Officer was non Canadian had just was released from jail and was wanted by the FBI !

In 1999 N’Quatqua with legal advice opted out of this treaty!

In 2010 Xasata First Nation with legal advice opted out of this treaty! Following that SAMAHQUAM Chief and Council re-entered this treaty without consulting SAMAHQUAM Members and thus are in breach of trust.

Most recently the SAMAHQUAM Chief and Council opted to not continue support of this treaty. And called for a referendum! Read the documents and make your own considerations

In 2011 the Chief of SAMAHQUAM signed a Forest Range agreement without Council or membership knowledge. This has been going on since 2004! Lizzy Bay Logging is a party to these logging initiatives and to date no audits of either the treaty loans and logging profits been provided to the SAMAHQUAM Members.

At the November 30, 2015 SAMAHQUAM AGM two Elders presented a resolution for a vote of non-confidence on the full SAMAHQUAM Chief and Council! At the recent May 01, 2916 SAMAHQUAM AGM the resolution was voted unanimously for the vote of non-confidence. However, the original resolution signed by the two elders was changed but was not addressed at the AGM to ask if the mover and Seconder agreed with the changes. More corruption.

Presently our Chief Kathleen got SAMAHQUAM Legal Counsel on these urgent matters. I did speak to this lawyer who confirmed he is accepting on behalf of SAMAHQUAM Chief and Council.

In 2012 we presented a resolution requesting Legal over view of this treaty process but were denied. In 1999 we did the same. Several times signed letters of petitions by elders and members and Hereditary Chiefs for legal help. Denied every time.

On July of 2015 two elders met with Troy Hunter to help us look into these fraud situations and damages to our Aboriginal a Title via the logging and surrender of aboriginal title via the Inshuckch Treaty. Both situations are in contempt of the Supreme Court of Canada Delgamuuk 1997 that ” you cannot use Aboriginal Title lands if it is going deprive future generation of their continued Use of their aboriginal rights. ” and the recent Tishlqotin Decision makes the BCTC process redundant!

Thank you

We don’t agree with the Minister of AANDC that the recent accepted UN human rights in Canada that the BCTC treaty process abides by this UN Human Rights!

Thank you”

Kakila Hereditary Chief Clarke Smith

Environmental Protection & Enhancement Policy – EPEP regarding Water.

Under Review, please note: no current or historic compacts and treaties are recognized to supersede or govern Water on / or above The Anishinabe Nations of The Great Turtle Island.

All contracts made for import or export of Water must be authorized by the EPEP regarding Water.

If any contracts by sub-contracts or agencies of CANADA or THE PROVINCES, proof of the validity of such contracts must be provided to the EPEA of The Anishinabe Nations of The Great Turtle Island to comply with land and water use policies, as of Jan 2016 all inquiries for authorization to import or export water must be authorized by the Grand Council of The Anishinabe Nations. and the EPEP.

As of Jan 2016 no Companies or Agencies have applied or been authorized to import or export water by the EPEP  Environmental Protection & Enhancement  Policy Agency regarding Water.

If any companies or foreign agencies transport or export water, they are in violation of the EPEP law regulating water.  Any companies and entities currently exporting water are hereby notified to Cease & Desist immediately. Fines for such offenses of the sale or export of water from Anishinabe Nations carries a daily penalty of 1 Million Euros per day beginning as of March 31 2016.

Anishinabe Utilities Commission (AUC)

Anishinabe Nations of The Great Turtle Island Environmental Assessment – examines a project to determine what the environmental, social, economic and health implications may be; Public interest decision – the applicable AEB Board  decides whether it is in the public interest to let the project go ahead;

Approval with conditions – multiple regulators give formal approval to the project under various pieces of legislation. These approvals are in the Tribal Nations and People of The Tribal Nations interest, decision could be made by three potential boards, depending on the type of project.

The boards include the Anishinabe Utilities Commission (AUC), the Anishinabe Energy Resources Department (AERD) and The Great Turtle Island Resources Conservation Office (GTINRCO). set specific conditions under which the project can be constructed and operate; and Compliance – ensure that the project is operating within the specified approval conditions. All significant Resource and projects which affect or potentially effect the Environment will be required to go through the Anishinabe Environmental Assessment Process.

There are also environmental assessments conducted in Turtle Island which fall under the responsibility of ESRD and are mandated by EPEA regarding Water.

The Government of The Great Turtle Island, Individual Tribal Nations in the Federations, businesses and Bank institutions also undertake environmental assessment processes under their own laws and authority, for a variety of purposes.

EIA reports typically include:

• a detailed description of the project;

• the location and environmental setting for the project, and baseline environmental, social and culture information;

• the potential positive and negative environmental, health, social, economic and cultural effects of the proposed activity;

• plans to mitigate potential adverse effects and to respond to emergencies;

• information on public and (First Nations) Tribal consultation; and

• an assessment of cumulative effects .

ISO 14001 requirements are as follows

Within the ISO standard there are elements of ISO 14001 that are required to be met by organisations seeking formal recognition for their EMS. ISO 14001 requirements are as follows:

An environmental policy supported by senior management;

The identification of environmental aspects and impacts, and the identification of significant environmental impacts that the organisation may cause;

Identification of environmental compliance requirements;

The development of objectives and targets, and their environmental management programs;

Defined resources, roles, responsibilities and authorities for environmental management;

The development of competence, training and awareness procedures;

A communication process of the EMS to all stakeholders and interested parties;

The development of EMS documentation as required by the standard;

The development of document control procedures;

The development of operational control procedures;

The development of emergency preparedness and response procedures;

The development of procedures to monitor and measure operations that can have significant impact to the environment;

An evaluation of compliance procedure;

Procedures developed for the management of non-conformance, corrective and preventative actions;>

The development of a records management procedure;

A program for completing internal EMS audits and corrective actions; and

The development of procedures for management review by senior management.

Environmental Assessment for Anishinabe Nations of The Great Turtle Island

Anishinabe Nations of The Great Turtle Island Environmental Assessment – examines a project to determine what the environmental, social, economic and health implications may be; Public interest decision – the applicable AEB Board  decides whether it is in the public interest to let the project go ahead;

Approval with conditions – multiple regulators give formal approval to the project under various pieces of legislation. These approvals are in the Tribal Nations and People of The Tribal Nations interest, decision could be made by three potential boards, depending on the type of project.

The boards include the Anishinabe Utilities Commission (AUC), the Anishinabe Energy Resources Department (AERD) and The Great Turtle Island Resources Conservation Office (GTINRCO). set specific conditions under which the project can be constructed and operate; and Compliance – ensure that the project is operating within the specified approval conditions. All significant Resource and projects which affect or potentially effect the Environment will be required to go through the Anishinabe Environmental Assessment Process.

There are also environmental assessments conducted in Turtle Island which fall under the responsibility of ESRD and are mandated by EPEA regarding Water.

The Government of The Great Turtle Island, Individual Tribal Nations in the Federations, businesses and Bank institutions also undertake environmental assessment processes under their own laws and authority, for a variety of purposes.

EIA reports typically include:

• a detailed description of the project;

• the location and environmental setting for the project, and baseline environmental, social and culture information;

• the potential positive and negative environmental, health, social, economic and cultural effects of the proposed activity;

• plans to mitigate potential adverse effects and to respond to emergencies;

• information on public and (First Nations) Tribal consultation; and

• an assessment of cumulative effects .

 

 

Anishinabe Environmental assessment authority to be set up:

Anishinabe Environmental Assessment Directive (AEAD) applies to a wide range of public plans and programmes (e.g. on land use, transport, energy, waste, agriculture, etc).

Plans and programmes in the sense of the AEAD Directive must be prepared or adopted by an authority (at national, regional or local level) and be required by legislative, regulatory or administrative provisions.

An Environmental Assessment is mandatory for plans/programmes which are prepared for agriculture, forestry, fisheries, energy, industry, transport, waste/ water management, telecommunications, tourism, town & country planning or land use and which set the framework for future development consent of projects listed in the AEAD Directive.

OR

Have been determined to require an assessment under the AEAD Directive.

The AEAD procedure can be summarized as follows: an environmental report is prepared in which the likely significant effects on the environment and the reasonable alternatives of the proposed plan or programme are identified. The public and the environmental authorities are informed and consulted on the draft plan or programme and the environmental report prepared. As regards plans and programmes which are likely to have significant effects on the environment in another Member State, the Member State in whose territory the plan or programme is being prepared must consult the other Member State(s). On this issue the AEAD Directive follows the general approach taken by the AEAD Protocol.

The environmental report and the results of the consultations are taken into account before adoption. Once the plan or programme is adopted, the environmental authorities and the public are informed and relevant information is made available to them. In order to identify unforeseen adverse effects at an early stage, significant environmental effects of the plan or programme are to be monitored.

The AEAD requires the environmental authorities to be consulted at the screening stage;

the AEAD requires an assessment of reasonable alternatives (under the EIA the developer chooses the alternatives to be studied);

under the AEAD Member States must monitor the significant environmental effects of the implementation of plans/programmes in order to identify unforeseen adverse effects and undertake appropriate remedial action.

the AEAD obliges Member States to ensure that environmental reports are of a sufficient quality.

 

Under Article 102 of the UN Charter Article 98 of the UN Charter the Treaty Section

Introduction

Under Article 102 of the UN Charter, the Treaty Section is charged with the responsibility to carry out the registration of treaties and subsequent treaty actions with the Secretariat and to publish them in a timely fashion. In addition, by virtue of Article 98 of the UN Charter the Treaty Section performs the depositary functions on behalf of the Secretary-General in respect of multilateral treaties for which he acts as a depositary. Continue reading Under Article 102 of the UN Charter Article 98 of the UN Charter the Treaty Section

TITLE 15 SECTION 1692 E … 15 USC § 1692e – False or misleading representations

TITLE 15 SECTION 1692 E … 15 USC § 1692e – False or misleading representations … A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section:
(1) The false representation or implication that the debt collector is vouched for, bonded by, or affiliated with the United States or any State, including the use of any badge, uniform, or facsimile thereof.
(2) The false representation of—
(A) the character, amount, or legal status of any debt; or
(B) any services rendered or compensation which may be lawfully received by any debt collector for the collection of a debt.
(3) The false representation or implication that any individual is an attorney or that any communication is from an attorney.
(4) The representation or implication that nonpayment of any debt will result in the arrest or imprisonment of any person or the seizure, garnishment, attachment, or sale of any property or wages of any person unless such action is lawful and the debt collector or creditor intends to take such action.
(5) The threat to take any action that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken.
(6) The false representation or implication that a sale, referral, or other transfer of any interest in a debt shall cause the consumer to—
(A) lose any claim or defense to payment of the debt; or
(B) become subject to any practice prohibited by this subchapter.
(7) The false representation or implication that the consumer committed any crime or other conduct in order to disgrace the consumer.
(8) Communicating or threatening to communicate to any person credit information which is known or which should be known to be false, including the failure to communicate that a disputed debt is disputed.
(9) The use or distribution of any written communication which simulates or is falsely represented to be a document authorized, issued, or approved by any court, official, or agency of the United States or any State, or which creates a false impression as to its source, authorization, or approval.
(10) The use of any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt or to obtain information concerning a consumer.
(11) The failure to disclose in the initial written communication with the consumer and, in addition, if the initial communication with the consumer is oral, in that initial oral communication, that the debt collector is attempting to collect a debt and that any information obtained will be used for that purpose, and the failure to disclose in subsequent communications that the communication is from a debt collector, except that this paragraph shall not apply to a formal pleading made in connection with a legal action.
(12) The false representation or implication that accounts have been turned over to innocent purchasers for value.
(13) The false representation or implication that documents are legal process.
(14) The use of any business, company, or organization name other than the true name of the debt collector’s business, company, or organization.
(15) The false representation or implication that documents are not legal process forms or do not require action by the consumer.
(16) The false representation or implication that a debt collector operates or is employed by a consumer reporting agency as defined by section 1681a (f) of this title.