Picon, The NAFTA ch.11 court ( a International Court ) has no Jurisdiction to order a Soverign Country to do a thing, likeas give Bill a License and Zoning so that he can produce and sell MMJ.
The NAFTA court can only render equitable relief in the form of monetary damages. In Bills case it was 15 Billion.
But because Bill is seeking equitable relief in a Canadian court, any future NAFTA ch.11 claim would be barred from being heard.
Its like the doctrine of double jeopardy. When a court of proper jurisdiction decides a matter that matter is decided and may not be re argued. Its called the Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel or res judicata.
see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res_judicata
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateral_estoppel
https://www.iisd.org/itn/2008/09/12/canadian-...-us-court/
Sorry Picon but NAFTA is dead, Bill won't be fighting any class action claim on our behalf. Because Bill is arguing in a lower court the matter will be heard and therefore equitable relief will be decided. Therefore the Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel will Bar Bill from bringing the SAME CLAIM for ( equitable relief ) .
________________________________________________
It is now easier to sue Bill for damages for breach of fiduciary duty for not following through with our Appeals for both a license and zoning and for misleading investors in his latest 10q report.
page 9
NOTE 2 – GOING CONCERN
" While the Company is attempting to obtain a license from Health Canada and generate revenues," ...quote
When Bill abandoned our right to Appeal both Zoning and a License he abandoned any hope at obtaining a license. He abandoned his fiduciary duty to his shareholders to try on Appeal.
page 10
NOTE 3 – CONTINGENCIES AND UNCERTAINTIES
On March 11, 2015, the Company’s application for a license to produce marijuana for medical purposes was formally rejected by Health Canada. The Company filed an application for judicial review in Canadian federal court on April 10, 2015 in order to obtain a reversal of this decision. The outcome of this legal proceeding cannot be predicted. The file is currently making its way through the legal process in Federal Court in Canada.
" Most recently, the license sought by the company under the MMPR has been declared to be of no force and effect by the Federal Court (but that declaration is put on hold for 6 months to allow the government to deal with new legislation). "
" Based on these legal findings, the company has decided to withdraw its application for Judicial Review. "
*********A License used or sought under the old MMJ program has not been declared of no force and effect. IN FACT......
While portions of the Unconstitutional legislation is being corrected
A License holder retained their right to produce and sell,
Any application that was under review / waiting for approval for a MMJ license will still be considered by HC.
Any Denial of a License, That applicant would retain the right to Judicial review / Appeal.
Picon,
The courts most recent ruling has no weight on our Appeal for a license because the ENTIRE MMPR program was not ruled unconstitutional ON ITS FACE, in every word, sentence and clause.
Bill has mislead and lied to Us, it now is easier for the Individual shareholder to sue Bill, rather than a Country Under NAFTA ch.11.
But the Individual shareholder still does have a valid NAFTA claim but they will have to go it alone because Bill waived Nafta when he filed in the superior court of Canada.
The NAFTA court can only render equitable relief in the form of monetary damages. In Bills case it was 15 Billion.
But because Bill is seeking equitable relief in a Canadian court, any future NAFTA ch.11 claim would be barred from being heard.
Its like the doctrine of double jeopardy. When a court of proper jurisdiction decides a matter that matter is decided and may not be re argued. Its called the Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel or res judicata.
see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res_judicata
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateral_estoppel
https://www.iisd.org/itn/2008/09/12/canadian-...-us-court/
Sorry Picon but NAFTA is dead, Bill won't be fighting any class action claim on our behalf. Because Bill is arguing in a lower court the matter will be heard and therefore equitable relief will be decided. Therefore the Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel will Bar Bill from bringing the SAME CLAIM for ( equitable relief ) .
________________________________________________
It is now easier to sue Bill for damages for breach of fiduciary duty for not following through with our Appeals for both a license and zoning and for misleading investors in his latest 10q report.
page 9
NOTE 2 – GOING CONCERN
" While the Company is attempting to obtain a license from Health Canada and generate revenues," ...quote
When Bill abandoned our right to Appeal both Zoning and a License he abandoned any hope at obtaining a license. He abandoned his fiduciary duty to his shareholders to try on Appeal.
page 10
NOTE 3 – CONTINGENCIES AND UNCERTAINTIES
On March 11, 2015, the Company’s application for a license to produce marijuana for medical purposes was formally rejected by Health Canada. The Company filed an application for judicial review in Canadian federal court on April 10, 2015 in order to obtain a reversal of this decision. The outcome of this legal proceeding cannot be predicted. The file is currently making its way through the legal process in Federal Court in Canada.
" Most recently, the license sought by the company under the MMPR has been declared to be of no force and effect by the Federal Court (but that declaration is put on hold for 6 months to allow the government to deal with new legislation). "
" Based on these legal findings, the company has decided to withdraw its application for Judicial Review. "
*********A License used or sought under the old MMJ program has not been declared of no force and effect. IN FACT......
While portions of the Unconstitutional legislation is being corrected
A License holder retained their right to produce and sell,
Any application that was under review / waiting for approval for a MMJ license will still be considered by HC.
Any Denial of a License, That applicant would retain the right to Judicial review / Appeal.
Picon,
The courts most recent ruling has no weight on our Appeal for a license because the ENTIRE MMPR program was not ruled unconstitutional ON ITS FACE, in every word, sentence and clause.
Bill has mislead and lied to Us, it now is easier for the Individual shareholder to sue Bill, rather than a Country Under NAFTA ch.11.
But the Individual shareholder still does have a valid NAFTA claim but they will have to go it alone because Bill waived Nafta when he filed in the superior court of Canada.
2
HONOR is ENERGY, positive ENERGY,
it has no FACE, SO what's FUELING the NEGITIVE ?
it has no FACE, SO what's FUELING the NEGITIVE ?
