NAFTA's legacy: the worst agreement we ever signed

[I think not]

I think that example is perfect to show that 'free trade' shouldn't be able to be called 'free' if there is even one exemption.
Who do you think proposed that some lumber would be exempt? It certainly wouldn't have been Canadian Companies or any agent acting on their behalf. The other possibility is the importer. Even though cheaper lumber should have meant some benefits to those that use lumber it would have caused lay-offs in their lumber industry. That would affect the profit margin for some American Company, so it got exempted.
Is it free trade if energy is already set as having it's rules? Current rules would seem to favor cheap oil to the US even if OPEC prices went through the roof.
Even that might not be totally bad if Canada got a reduction for importing some other goods that that came close to what was lost. When one party gets to set the import price and the price they get for their exports they have the best position.
Who gets to keep the tariff money? If a Canadian company has a board for sale for $10 and a tariff of $5 is imposed and a few boards are sold (rather than a lot) who gets the extra $5/board?

How does free trade work if America can impose sanctions Canada if we want to buy a cup of sugar from Cuba? (by rights it is something that they shouldn't even be able to comment on)

The creation of the nau would also mean our security would take a real dive. The little color codes the States have would not disappear, we would come under them. We would require 'protection' from those who America has deemed as being a threat to them. If those phantom enemies ever came home to roost Edmonton would be a valid target, right now nobody cares about Edmonton, other than how the hockey team is doing.
It should really be called an insecurity package since that is our direction.

If Canadians want a preview of what could happen if things did go 'wrong' take a look at the way the coal-mines were run not all that long ago. The workers got just enough to last till their next payday. That always just covered 'room and board', there was no such thing as 'saving' or 'owning'.

Is this an accurate summary of the difference between Common Law and Admiralty Law.
Common Law benefits the one who works for a company. A person is just a person, a company has different rights and obligations than a person has to the country they live in. Taxes should be paid by the companies. What shareholders take home these days should go into govt coffers. Those stupid-ass high salaries of the heads of companies should be more in line with what the lowest paid is able to purchase. Government acting properly for the people would be very effective in handling those types of issues.
Maritime Law is more or less corporate law, a company is a person with all the rights of a 'common person', not paying taxes (exemption, grants, subsidies, etc) means the greater part of any profit goes into their pockets (a few even though there are many).

I have heard that when Canada does an assessment on it's assets, they can, and do, include a 'common person' as being worth "X" dollars. At birth they estimate how much money he will make in his lifetime. (estimated from national figures, all wages/number of employed in any given year), that would seem to make us 'property of' something. It might just be a figure banks can use to determine how big a loan a country is good for in terms of being able to pay back, with interest, over many decades.

You can't argue against Maritime Law using the rules that apply to Common Law. In Maritime Law there shouldn't be any 'employees' we should all be viewed as 'independent contractors'.

MHz,

I'd love to respond to you, but I have no clue what you message you are trying to convey. It's possibly me, it's been a long day.

 

[MHz]

Which type of law would any opposition to NAU have to use in court?
http://www.detaxcanada.org/cmlaw1.htm
[SIZE=+1]New information about the US Constitution has come to light since this paper was written. That information may effect the value of some of the following information. The Constitution was never properly ratified; and, is , therefore, not a proper Common Law constitution. It appears that it is being used as a Roman Law 'operating orders' or 'ship's orders'; as, all bodies politic and corporate are make-believe ships in the Roman system. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]The UNITED STATES is a corporation, and Congress is a 'body politic' - both being Roman style incorporations (make-believe ships) under the original creation/ownership of the Pontifex Maximus (Pope) of the (still existent) Holy Roman Empire. All Roman Law documents (so-called constitutions; but, in fact, are 'ship's orders' of make-believe ships), when used as the guide to operate a country under Roman Law, always contain a "notwithstanding" clause (In the US Constitution, it is the 'general welfare' clause). This allows the "captain of the ship", the President, or a designated officer (judge or Cabinet member) leave to disregard any provision of such a constitution at his discretion. 'The CAPTAIN may deviate from ANY 'rules or regulations' when he DEEMS it necessary for the GOOD of the ship.' That is a basic maxim of the Law of the Sea, and totally within the 'common sense' realm of operating a ship relative to safety and profitability; however, it is devastating to the unalienable rights of an individual free will man or woman living upon the land. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Also, it has recently come to light that the court systems operate their admiralty type law within the confines of a 'contract' in all of the British, and former British Empire. The clerk of the court, the prosecuting attorneys, and the judges proffer the contract, and the defendant blindly and ignorantly accepts the offered contract by acquiescence and obedience to court orders and sentences. A defendant convicted and sentenced, even by a jury (in an admiralty/equity court) only need to inform the judge that he/she refuses the offered contract and/or sentence of the judge. As a contracting party, the defendant does not have to accept a contract by imposition against his/her free will. As has happened, when such a refusal of the contract is made, the judge will use legal trickery and bluster to attempt to get the defendant to accept another contract. The defendant need only to continue with: "I do not accept your sentence." Or, where applicable: "I do not accept your offer of contract." The latter statement may be placed upon served court documents and returned (signed and dated) to the clerk of the court."[/SIZE]
I readily admit to not trying to what is proposed in the last paragraph above. LOL Nor have I ever seen anybody try it, nope, not 1. Would I like to see somebody else try it, you bet. If I had some extra cash I might even try to use it to get out of a parking ticket. I would hate to see 'killers' be able to use it. I suppose the 'rest of the family, could use the same argument when they were before a judge for taking matters into their own hands.

[SIZE=+1][/SIZE]


Canada would also be operating under the same principle.