nisaclaim.net

[,taxmaster]

Iogen Corp to move its 250 million cellulosic ethanol plant to P.A..
Your NISA estimated billion dollars at work. Better start locking up your land at night.

P.S. or B.S.
Grenier judicial review, I say does not apply to NISA claim in an action.
Google Federal Court Act definition of federal board, commission or other tribunal exercising power under an "Act of Parliament" not federal/provincial agreement (undertaking)see sections 2(1), 2(2) and 23(c). NNC and Appeals Sub-committee (any committee) has Canada (House of Commons) appointed members, provincial appointed members under laws of a province and Minister (member of either House) appointed members. What among numerous other things (file the case law sent to them, Harris, Mini G Man. QC cases where Canada provided evidence of contracts between, banks, farmers & Canada, Agricultural Products and Marketing,[1978]2 S.C.R. 1198 for breach of contract claim and defined buyer/seller and i.e. full list of cases at web-site info to lawyers. Finally the Plaintiffs may represent themselves. These farmers on their own behalf have scheduled hearing in July to try and fix all the lawyer omissions. If not next step 102,000 @ $100,000.00(BSE case) or $1,000,000.00(Pilot Ins. case) proposed class action and first with no lawyer (Constitutional right).

[LWeber]

http://translate.google.com/

[ColevilleH2S]

Thanks Larry that's the best laugh I had all day.

[,taxmaster]

If a federal servant under an act of the decides to go into your account and take all your money you have 30 days from when he decided to do it which could be 6 months earlier. Grenier case states your to late and you cannot do anything. Try getting a lawyer to do anything in 30 days. Renova Holdings, parsley can explain. The NISA billion dollar appeal court hearing the lawyer Paul Lewans QC didn't make sure the joint Book of Authorities (case law) with the Court and AG. You file your argument with the supported by the case law you refer to to support your argument. You don't file any cases your finished before you start, case in point (point of sale actually). How come know one knows about the first and larges class action in Sk. not statute barred (residential school cases).

[TOM4CWB]

taxmaster,

You had better take a long walk off a short pier if you expect justice out of Admiralty Law in Canada (Federal Court). This system is pure liberal justice... no jury... no common law or common sense.

We had better all pray there is a God and he will be just with liberal lawyers... The likelyhood of justice in Canada in this lifetime has about as much chance of happening as a snow....

This whole system is a scam... just ask the x-minister of RevCan Carol.

[,taxmaster]

Yes, but one can at least try to expose what has been going on in this country at the only place still available (internet 2 coming)and in the courts because that is a permanent record. This idea that you must always challenge the decision before the wrongful conduct has started the provinces standing up as has happened in Nfld. taking back their jurisdiction. One has to start looking at the provinces to deal with federal wrongful conduct.

[parsley]

,taxmaster,

I want you to know that I appreciate your time, and resolve and effort, and your financial committment. It has been honorable, and can serve to make a difference, not only in the case itself, but more importantly on how decisions about policy impementation will be established and administered in the future.

I did go to your site references and read the material. And will return to them and re-read them. And I will comment on them eventually.

The problem, as you too, have discovered, is that farmers often want a quick answer.

It seems it has taken sixty years for farmers to learn that the Wheat Board licenses nationally and markets regionally.
I recall one farmer emailing and asking if the CWB act could be explained in an executive summary. He didn't want to take the time..........



The farmer has traditionally seemed to want ONLY to grow but let others look after the rest of his business. He's paid dearly. I've noticed on this site with malt contracts, that farmers seem to indicate they signed blindly/ They didn't stroke out portions or rewrite portions.

Those who seek quick answers to comprehensive and complex issues, trying to avoid research and work on their part, are, in all likelihood, not going to be able to contribute towards a meaningful solution, anyhow.

And some don't even know what the issue is. I'd be glad to write something on my blog sometime in the future if you'd like.email me.

btw, ,taxmaster, sometimes the ears and eyes belonging to those sows have never even seen or heard of a silk purse. Pars

[,taxmaster]

Parsley the great concern I have seen is the begging banks and other venture capitalist buying up millions of acres of all the prime farm land in the world.(site referenced earlier on post Seized etc.). As my family was one of the first settlers in Saskatchewan (NWT) escaping the tenant farming in Europe, I would hate to go back to the old system where you become a trespasser in your own country to foreign banks, commodity traders and oil companies.I see the the farmers being driven from the land by a world policy backed by......?
Anyhow back to our claim, it appears based on the new evidence uncovered the Boyko's and/or their lawyer should Rule 399 (fraud on the court)based on the alleged fabricated evidence(14 years striped sun tan, proposed 1994 Minutes on point of sale guidelines not adopted by ag ministers as stated voting or NNC per Rasa Ratkauskas confirming in cross)now before the FC. Also confirmed IT Ruling requested for Boyko judicial review and concealed from the court, a breach of the Federal Court Rules, stating to report gross on the grain ticket as revenue and shipping as an expense or NISA defined eligible expense. That judicial review application could be converted to a claim and merge with the class action. The now estimated billion dollar adjustment not law. Remind you of the CWB case on the changes not law. Same case two different outcomes. The other at the same time is a class on lawyers for their alleged negligent negligent business practice of not using the info made available plus the old Pilot Ins. case claims. The class at est. 102,000 @ $100,000.00 as in the BSE case punitive or the $1,000,000.00 in Pilot Ins. case. Access to justice may negate the use of lawyers based on NISA case history. Rule 120 order comment by Justice Barnes.

[parsley]

I read the pdf's. I also note that there have not been land purchases/ targets in Canada that are stated in the PDF, which I found interesting.Any comments on why? 40 below climate?

Btw,ie,15 thousand cows in NZ is quite a herd if you have ever visited there.

Countries with palaces full of money, will grab land wherever they can rather than currency.

Eventually, the likes of Brazil will regret the loss of large parcels to foreigners who lack similar interest and focus.

Citizens with no property to live on, and no agrarian substance to feed themselves, will react like exposed larvae; experts in only wriggling.

I am not up to speed on the Nisa claim, although I did read it some years ago. and re-read portions again this week. I need one and one half more brains and 48 hour days. LOL Pars

[parsley]

btw, I went through, and tried to get through my thick skull, the diff between net and gross applications, and the impact down the road the difference would have made. You've breathed it morning noon and night for years. I sniffed a little.

So, be patient with the readers on AV.
We have many miles to go before we sleep. LOL

Pars

[,taxmaster]

The Claim was based on in 1998 the NISA admin. instructed the farmers to re-define the shipping costs(defined eligible expense) on the grain tickets as a grain purchase (20%-40%) and deduct it off the amount the 3% matching contribution was calculated on for the on account money in the NISA accounts. This was done by threat of audit or audit. In Sept. 1999 a NISA requested IT Ruling came telling NISA the proper reporting of grain sales and NISA apps. were to be filed the same as IT returns and were your IT farm statements to Rev. Can.. At this point they should have known was wrong. (alleged fraud). CFIB informed the Minister this was being done in the west (only) on a inter-provincial across Can. program.Each year since then other programs were based on NISA averaged amounts, 2% Enhance.,13.5% CSAP,8.1% Risk Man.,2.67% TISP,5.43% FIPP,8.75% GOPP,2.72% COPP,2.63% Kickstart. We attempted adjustment to gross for Kickstart as allowed but was reversed.
The last time I gave the case law to the lawyer which again he never used, I copied to the Minister of Justice, Carol, and Sask. Law Society. Somewhere down the road there may be a judicial inquirery on NISA and a number of people are going to have to explain their actions or lack thereof on this matter. Conspiracy is 50% and up on a cover-up. 5 years and over don't expire if I remember right from RCMP who I sent info. The winds can change as a former Prime Minister being grilled is finding out.