rangerx

Obviously you have not read what I wrote, despite accusing me of doing the same. The Appellate Court in my case, ruled that the law of the affected country shall apply. I applied the to the SCOC who ruled standing but not compensation. Subsequently, the backroom deal Harper made with the secret Chinese tribunal extinguished our right to even do that. This isn't about me. It's about us, but you seem unwilling to grasp that, other than to turn it on me for no other reason than your bias. Simply put, we cannot sue China if an oil sand tanker runs aground here. And yet you wonder why people are opposed.

My standing in the SCOC is one part of a larger group of Canadians with similar standing as a single intervention. It's complicated. Each are unique in scope, but identical in stance. It had to be that way or they may have been dismissed as well. Appeal courts are not given to making new laws, only upholding existing ones. Reading back, I noticed one other correction needing to be made. I stated: Meanwhile a lower court (5th Circuit) ruled class actions were not compatible with class actions, mainly because full compensation cannot be expected from a limited fund. Should have read: Meanwhile a lower court (5th Circuit) ruled class actions were not compatible with limitation actions, mainly because full compensation cannot be expected from a limited fund.

You are correct. The Federal Court of Appeal quashed the TMX application. On Kinder Morgan's part, but not the interventions. Mine was not dismissed, based on previous rulings. My apologies. I ought to have framed it that way. I was speaking from my standing, not TMX's

Simple. No pipeline until the conditions ruled by the court are met. I listed them at the base of my last post. All I've heard since is lip service and political quackery. You included.

I'd rather not post links to my case for security reasons because it's my name v polluter, but let me give everyone some background. In the late 80's an American towing company tugboat collided with it's barge in stormy weather while attempting a dangerous maneuver. They would later be found negligent. The spill occurred in American waters, but drifted and washed ashore in Canada. (some washed ashore in America as well) The Canadian Coast Guard did not track the spill, instead relied on second hand reporting from light stations. When oil began washing ashore, they did not employ equipment for nearly a week (and was ruled deficient overall later in court), when it washed ashore on the high traffic tourist areas and sensitive habitat. The equipment deployed was unable to recover oil and ill equipped to monitor it other than the naked eye. Volunteers, groups and residents began by collecting dead birds and animals, because they were carrion and contaminating other wildlife. More than 100,000 birds died among unmeasured other animals. The polluter arrived in my town and gave a public meeting and claimed to "take responsibility for the oil spill". For 60 days, I was the volunteer coordinator, having deployed 48, 500 man hours to the clean up effort. This was 50% more than all other efforts combined, including the polluter, Coast Guard and other volunteer groups. After the spill, the polluter "took responsibility" by petitioning the 9th Circuit District Court in Oregon for a Limitation of Liability in Admiralty, an archaic statute in international maritime law. This turned the tables on the victims, causing them to become defendants rather than plaintiffs. We filed our case as a class action, with me as representative. The case had no chance, insomuch as a tactic. Limitation was denied and they were found guilty of negligence and destruction of evidence. Meanwhile a lower court (5th Circuit) ruled class actions were not compatible with class actions, mainly because full compensation cannot be expected from a limited fund. I didn't particularly like that because it was after the fact, but I understand it as well. It was the correct judgement under the circumstances. With that, the polluter petitioned our dismissal. They prevailed and the class was dismissed, however, given that our work and the spill were not in dispute, the judge lifted the petition barring additional claims and allowed us re-file as individuals. We did so. It was expensive, burdensome and we got kicked from pillar to post through two more courts. In the Supreme Courts of Washington and BC, concurrently. We petitioned in WA, and the polluter in Canada. We prevailed in both. The polluter's claim for our dismissal was denied in Canada and the American Court ruled forum non-convenus. (not convenient for the polluter). We petitioned the Appellate Court in San Francisco. They ruled we have standing, again because the work and spill were not in dispute. They also ruled they were unable to apply compensation for damages because the law of the country where the incident occurred would apply. We applied to the Supreme Court of Canada. They ruled our claims stand an no statute of limitations apply, but were unable to force an American company to pay. That's how polluters take responsibility folks. Polluters do not pay, even when found negligent and promising to "take responsibility". The question of volunteer reared itself a few times as to payment. The court ruled the prerequisite to marine salvage was volunteerism and reasonable costs were within the scope of compensation and damages. Okay, so they didn't pay, but they didn't silence me either with settlements under NDA. They petitioned the court in a SLAPP suit. It failed. More than ten years of acrimonious, protracted litigation, well into the 2000's and still nothing has changed. My case stands. The Supreme Court of Canada agreed in the case of TMX. That Canada had misrepresented it willingness and ability to act upon the behalf of Canadians during and after oil spills, partially because of how they treated us and mainly because of what the Harper did with the backroom deal with China. There are other aspects to the case as well. 1- Inadequate environmental assessments. 2- The absence of adequate spill response technologies and equipment and 3 - the utter failure to consult in a meaningful manner with First Nations and Regional Districts. Unless all those conditions change, TMX is going nowhere. Period.

So what is it then? Pipeline or constitution? You're obviously pro-pipeline, correct? How does that affect your constitutional stance?

From what I read, you're cock sure the pipeline will be built. There's a thing called the Supreme Court of Canada that says otherwise. Unless you know something I don't, what's been done to change their position? edit: no less to appease conservatives who voted the current cycle

Is that all you got? Not much of a rebuttal. Oh wait, you don't have one. You're perfectly fine with monkeying around with the constitution if it suits you, but scream from the rooftops when it doesn't, It is astounding. At the very height of it, really.

Indeed. The last conservative PM saw to that. It affected my class action, directly. https://www.newsweek.com/new-treaty-allows-china-sue-canada-change-its-laws-270751

No need to apologize. You're fine with the removal of our constitutional rights and leaving citizens holding the bag for the pollution it causes. Thank you for clearing that up.

Indeed they've failed us, but politicians ought not be our go-to guys for information on these topics because you know as well as I do how that comes out. I'll admit there are those who want tar sand stopped entirely. I'm not in that camp. I'm in the it's okay so long as you're responsible camp, but that never gets discussed because it's almost always conflated into something it's not. Alberta isn't just tar sand. It has plenty of good quality crude. It has standards and regulations for extraction and transportation. It has responsible companies and workers. Largely, they have trucks, trains and pipes that are well maintained and operated by responsible people. My issue is not with them or that. We all clearly understand that reduction of emissions ought to be the priority, one small percentage point at a time, not increasing it with the the sham that is the tar sand deal. My issue is with Harper selling our resources while they are still in the ground and for allowing secret tribunals to penalize us for reneging on any aspect. China will only pay X/barrel, irrespective of the price of oil at the cap, yet can refuse the oil at the base. That's not fair to any Canadian, pro or anti. China has not provided one iota of spill recovery equipment nor can they be sued if they spill it on our shoreline,(or at least not before going through the IMO and Admiralty Law which is exceedingly burdensome and costly). As if litigating wasn't hard enough as it is, Harper took away that right from us all together. The secret agreement dictates government cannot sue China on behalf of individual or groups Canadians, so if it spills on us, we lose on every level. That's going backwards, because in 1989, I had more rights then, but they still never paid anyway. The Appellate Court in San Fransisco ruled my claim stands and the law of the affected country shall prevail. Instead of bucking up and suing the polluter on behalf of Canadians, Harper secretly changed the law so we lost that right instead. It's third world treatment. Yet where are the so-called constitutionalists on the issue? Crickets. So in retort, all I'm saying is you can't tell one (large) portion of the country that they must allow access, give up our lands and waterways for something where we gain no economic benefit and carry all the risk and liability at the same time.

The rest of your post is valid in your concerns, even though I'd differ on who's the better spender/saver. No point in going around in circles there. However, your outlook on pipelines entirely misses the point. The issue has been conflated into demonizing pipelines themselves, not the issues surrounding them. Tar sand is hugely abrasive, unlike other liquified or gaseous products. Then there is the issue of the solvent. The biggest point that gets missed is to support the pipeline, the inbound tankers are loaded with it. By virtue alone, this automatically doubles the risk to the environment. Compound that with an increase in traffic, it's another four fold. At the end of the day, we on the coast are 8x at greater risk. This is also the reason why pipeline flows cannot be reversed to Ontario. One only needs to examine the tar sand spill in Kalamazoo to know the extent of damage, the difficulty to clean it up and the protracted nightmares dragged out in the courts. I run an aquaculture operation and the cost of crop insurance won't be increased, it will be denied altogether. I suppose we could find an underwriter, but it would be too costly in an already marginal industry. The same applies to beach resorts and residents, fishermen, first nations and a whole lot more. Steven Harper killed Coast Guard stations. He scrapped ships. He closed the Kits spill base. He sold tar sand to China and allowed a secret tribunal to sue Canada for reneging on any part of the deal. That is why Trudeau had to go along with it, his hand was forced or Canada would pay dearly, and for what? I've been around the block with oil companies and their spills. I led volunteers in a major incident in the late 80's and spent 10 years in every court in the US and Canada. I prevail, but could not make them pay. NOTHING has changed. Not one depot for equipment, not one at the ready, not one crew trained, nothing. The assertion that "they" will have safe response in place, no less a supposed world class one is a pipe dream and little else. I was a co-ordinator for the Alaskan fishermen and an advisor to the Governor of Alaska during the Exxon Valdez spill. I was with the Canadian crew from Red Deer, who extinguished 85% of the oil well fires in Kuwait after the Gulf War. Do we need add first nations issues and eminent domain? Do we need to discuss the stability of the terrain in BC? I'm sick and tired of platitudes that lead nowhere. I'm ashamed of the ignorance and arrogance of Albertans toward anyone but themselves. Quite simply put, if they don't give a rat's ass about us, our environment and our livelihoods so they can piss and moan about pennies at the pump or manipulate who's in power, where should our care begin? I'm all for using oil responsibly, so long as we are proactive reducing emissions. It's baby steps. Fractions of a percent each step. Tar sand to China (at a loss no less) flies in the face of all that. Carbon tax provides funds to clean spills and compensate losses. It's an incentive to develop newer, cleaner technologies. I challenge you (or anyone for that matter) to show me ONE incident of greater than a thousand tonnes spilled, where the polluter was prompt in their response, diligent in their cleanup and forthright in compensation. Truth is, you can't. Nobody can. Go ahead MigL, I'm sure you'll tell me I need to live under a rock for my criticisms, but remember one thing. Edison invented the light bulb which brought us into a new era. Surely you don't mean to suggest he should have worked in the dark because he hated candle makers and lamplighters? That's the narrative I have have to deal with every day, with Albertans and narrow minds back east. No sir, I'm no bleeding heart liberal. I'm in Trudeau's face on this issue. My case stands as precedent in the TMX case and stands in Canadian, US and International Maritime and Admiralty law. It's not about a pipe or jobs, it's about corruption, greed and the law.

Not to mention, Sheer who neglected to tell us he is an American. His excuse was, we didn't ask. As though we didn't need to know? Who does that? He had paid Trump operatives on his campaign and when asked about it, said "we have all kinds of volunteers all across Canada with diverse backgrounds". He was nothing but double speak. Period. When asked about women's issues, he could not come up with a single policy, program or assurance. He was about eminent domain and stripping rights from first nations and shoving a flimsy pipeline carrying dirt oil through impassible terrain and pristine water at a financial loss, sold out by then conservative PM Steven Harper. Canadians remembered that. I'm no fan of Trudeau, especially for his part in the TMX debacle, but he's nowhere near the insidious entity as Sheer and as I said previously, it was the conservatives who got us in that mess in the first place. The same goes for SNC Lavalin. That was conservative's doing and Trudeau became the boogie man for their own undoing. They mewled about Trudeau "paying off terrorists" when in reality it was Harper, who violated a youth offender's constitutional right to a fair trial. Trudeau merely settled, to save money and further embarrassment. The Conservatives, Liberals and PPC ran negative, finger wagging campaigns. The NDP and Bloc ran straight talk. The Greens fell flat, having aligned themselves with conservatives. Jagmeet Singh was articulate, compassionate and avoided the rancor for the most part. He made his viewpoints clear, including TMX. Alberta didn't like that, which tells me all I needed to know. Same with the Bloc Q. I'm no separatist, but their campaign was honest and pretty much free of the American style of nasty as well. Not the result I'd have wanted, but pretty much as I expected and I'm okay with it. Moreover, we dodged a bullet and sent a loud and clear to conservative America. We dodged a bullet and said it loud and clear that we refuse to go down the tubes Trump style. Doug Ford and Donald Trump are the living, breathing examples of why conservatives are unfit to govern at this moment in time. Clearly on point, thank you. +1

Even if the Tories won a landslide, I would not deride Canada. It's my home and we are greatly respected around the globe. Even before this night has ended, the sore losing is quite apparent. "Bad for Canada" is an alarmist's take on the outcome. It's anti-democratic at it's height. Western alienation you say? Like that's a new thing? We have been getting the shit end of the stick from both side of the house since it's bricks were laid. I don't like it either, but I can live with it, because our standard of living in BC is among the highest in the country. If our revenue helps a school or hospital in the Maritimes, I'm all for it. Our quality of life is outstanding, especially when compared to other countries. I love to travel, but I never have misgivings about leaving, because I'm coming home to Canada. Quebec.... now that's something yet again. I'm French Canadian, but a nationalist. Not a separatist. Most of the PQ seps are not even French, but immigrants who assimilated by learning French. After a couple of centuries of speaking a bastardized, anglicized version of archaic French, they like to think that makes them distinct. I beg to differ. My family were Ste. Marie among the Huron in Ontario long before confederation and remain to this day, despite being nearly completely wiped out in the Matheson Fire of 1916.

A liberal minority. Not my first choice for PM, but our local guy, (not a liberal) kept his seat. Trudeau is fair game for my anti-TMX position and I'll persist in my voice and abilities to that end. Maxime Bernier had his ass handed to him. Zero seats, including losing his bid. Just so our American friends know, Bernier emulated the Trump campaign style and it blew up in his face. Andrew Sheer was horrible candidate and would have been a worse leader. For the life of me, I don't know why the Tories didn't run Peter MacKay. He would have made a considerable difference and swung a lot of liberal votes. Jagmeet Singh ran a good campaign, well spoken and straight forward. Quebec didn't like that though, apparently. The BQ picked up several seats. 32 at the time of this post. It's all far from perfect, but I think it was good day for Canada.

I voted. For the man, not the party. Our local rep is an incumbent and he's done a very good job. On more than one occasion he has garnered unanimous, bi-partisan support on important bills that affect me directly and my community at large. I hope your candidate of choice performs as well also. Win or lose, it's my license to complain.

I'm sure the SDNY would like to have a little chat with him once he's ousted/resigns/voted out.

Any bets Lindsay will be fawning over Trump within the week like the good little sycophant he is?

That would depend on the circumstances. Theft is a crime, but there's mitigating circumstances when there's no other alternative. That's justice and one reason why mandatory sentencing isn't.

It's often burdensome, but compensation for victims of crime is justifiable.

True, on one hand. On the other, justice is reparation or compensation to aggrieved parties and/or accordingly, the modification of law(s) to protect the public interest.

He claims he's under audit. A lie. An audit does does bar anyone from releasing them. So a lie on top of another lie. He said he would release them after the audit. Another lie. Audits take days and weeks, perhaps maybe a year, but certainly not years. Either he's under audit for every year of his life or only some, which ones? Then of course he's been implicated for inflating his net worth for loans, which is bank fraud. Meanwhile he's also been implicated for deflating his net worth, which is tax fraud. He's been implicated retaining money from his so-called charities, which is reprehensible. no less fraudulent. He paid hush money to porn actresses and Playboy bunnies in violation of campaign finance laws. All this (and more) from a man who racially accused Barack Obama of not being a natural born citizen of the USA all the while DEMANDING he produce his birth certificate and LYING about "his people finding out things in Hawaii". Do you deride those who demanded Hillary be locked up?

Wrong, when an authority has a reasonable cause to show a crime has been committed, they can access whatever information that's germane to prosecuting the case. Hence warrants of search or subpoena to gain access to related documents or witnesses.

Cheez Whiz was originally made in the UK, but found it's way into the US market after WW2. It's not really cheese, but nevertheless it's concocted from whey (a protein byproduct of milk), oil, sodium-heavy flavorings and other ingredients that make it yellow and shelf-stable. It's not very nutritious, but it tastes okay and kids like it. I really like it on celery sticks. Oddly enough, it's quite good with peanut butter in sandwiches too. Kraft Dinner on the other hand is horrible these days. I'm not sure when they changed the formula, but it used to be really creamy and cheezy, but now it tastes like chemical mush. So Annie's it is, especially the white cheddar.

The ball is in the Republican's court. So long as they do nothing, it's entrenched into their history for all to remember.