Should the US government be on the hook for $15 billion?

[nsdp + 449]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

This was not a trade panel, it was about taxation.

Rules of practice and procedure are the same for every arbitration.  What applies in a tax case applies to tariffs and discrimination. Try otherwise and you wind up like Guliani. Wood, Powell ETC. https://bipartisanreport.com/2021/07/08/judge-rules-against-powell-giuliani-wood-in-election-lies-case/

Courts and arbitration panels do not take kindly to buffoons. Baffoons include management and witnesses as well as lawyers

Edited July 14, 2021 by nsdp
line omitted

[Ecocharger + 1,477]

7 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Tax on trade. 

Not a trade tribunal.

[Ecocharger + 1,477]

6 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The major change was to eliminate the section that TC is suing under. However a legacy clause allowed for suit to be brought under the old NAFTA law for 3 years. 

 

Like I said, the action is being brought under "national treatment", which is a universal trade clause, also available under the WTO agreement.

[Ecocharger + 1,477]

6 hours ago, nsdp said:

Rules of practice and procedure are the same for every arbitration.  What applies in a tax case applies to tariffs and discrimination. Try otherwise and you wind up like Guliani. Wood, Powell ETC. https://bipartisanreport.com/2021/07/08/judge-rules-against-powell-giuliani-wood-in-election-lies-case/

Courts and arbitration panels do not take kindly to buffoons. Baffoons include management and witnesses as well as lawyers

A trade tribunal under WTO would examine the "national treatment" clause of that agreement. Not sure why they avoided a trade tribunal. What does Giuliani have to do with trade tribunals? You really are confused again.

Edited July 15, 2021 by Ecocharger

[nsdp + 449]

20 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

A trade tribunal under WTO would examine the "national treatment" clause of that agreement. Not sure why they avoided a trade tribunal. What does Giuliani have to do with trade tribunals? You really are confused again.

No there is rule for sanctions against nutcakes who make frivolous arguments.  That was the context of the comments about Rudy, Sidney and Lin for statements made by the above and 11 others.

Obviously you need comments dumbed down so you can understand what is being said. et al. The District court held a hearing on Monday to determine the the punishment for the dumb statements made by Mr. trump's lawyers and the persons filing bogus affidavits.

[QuarterCenturyVet + 312]

22 minutes ago, nsdp said:

No there is rule for sanctions against nutcakes who make frivolous arguments.  That was the context of the comments about Rudy, Sidney and Lin for statements made by the above and 11 others.

Obviously you need comments dumbed down so you can understand what is being said. et al. The District court held a hearing on Monday to determine the the punishment for the dumb statements made by Mr. trump's lawyers and the persons filing bogus affidavits.

How can you possibly know that affidavits are bogus?

Discovery was never even started, nor was any  case of irregularities even entertained by any judge.

Don't worry though, forensic audits are coming. 

Maybe you can be an arm chair litigator for those audits. 🙄

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,555]

23 hours ago, nsdp said:

The rules of procedure and evidence  that define "national treatment" have been adopted from the PCA. You don't make them up as you go along.  45 had to learn the hard way.

You challenged my thoughts, a fool was your description. I would suggest you slip quietly  into the night. Thee very foundations of your shallow brief are insanity.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

45 minutes ago, QuarterCenturyVet said:

How can you possibly know that affidavits are bogus?

Discovery was never even started, nor was any  case of irregularities even entertained by any judge.

 

That is incorrect:

The anti-Trump conspiracy is "easily provable," Giuliani averred, based on testimony from "hundreds of witnesses, maybe thousands." But although he repeatedly faulted reporters for not reading those affidavits, he conceded that the vast majority are not available for them to read. "We have a hundred more of these," he said, referring to statements about alleged fraud in Detroit. "I can't show them to you because those people don't want to be harassed….Do you know how many affidavits we have in the Michigan case? 220 affidavits. They're not all public, but eight of them are."

While Giuliani is confident that his mostly secret evidence would be enough to persuade "any jury," judges who have actually considered Republican claims of massive election fraud were not impressed. Last week Wayne County, Michigan, Judge Timothy Kenny ruled that the public affidavits to which Giuliani referred, which were submitted as part of a lawsuit filed by the Great Lakes Justice Center on behalf of two Republican poll challengers, provided "no basis" for ordering an independent audit or issuing an injunction against certification of the election results in Detroit.

Giuliani's claim that "thousands and thousands" of fraudulent Biden ballots suddenly appeared in the count room at Detroit's TCF Center in the middle of the night seems to be based on statements from two Republican poll watchers. Neither of them mentioned the "garbage cans" or "paper bags" that Giuliani described, and Kenny found neither of them compelling.

"I heard other challengers say that several vehicles with out-of-state license plates pulled up to the TCF Center a little before 4:30 a.m. and unloaded boxes of ballots," Andrew Sitto said. "Tens of thousands of ballots were brought in and placed on eight long tables. Unlike the other ballots, these boxes were brought in from the rear of the room….I specifically noticed that every ballot I observed was cast for Joe Biden."

Kenny said "Mr. Sitto's affidavit, while stating a few general facts, is rife with speculation and guess-work about sinister motives." He noted that Sitto did not actually know how many ballots were delivered or how many of them were marked for Biden.

Contrary to Sitto's implication that bringing ballots in "from the rear of the room" was inherently suspicious, former Michigan Elections Director Christopher Thomas said "all ballots were delivered to the back of Hall E at the TCF Center." Thomas also said the city used rental trucks to deliver ballots, which would explain the "out-of-state license plates." Kenny concluded that "there is no evidentiary basis to attribute any evil activity by virtue of the city using a rental truck with out-of-state license plates."

Another Republican observer, Daniel Gustafson, said "large quantities of ballots were delivered to the TCF Center in what appeared to be mail bins with open tops." Gustafson "offers little other than to indicate that he witnessed 'large quantities of ballots' delivered to the TCF Center in containers that did not have lids, were not sealed, or did not have marking indicating their source of origin," Kenny wrote. "Mr. Gustafson's affidavit is another example of generalized speculation fueled by the belief that there was a Michigan legal requirement that all ballots had to be delivered in a sealed box. Plaintiffs have not supplied any statutory requirement supporting Mr. Gustafson's speculative suspicion of fraud."

While she was working at a "satellite location" prior to Election Day, city employee Jessy Jacob said, a supervisor told her not to ask voters for identification. Jacob, whose claims Giuliani repeatedly cited yesterday, also said she saw other workers coach people to vote a straight Democratic ticket and accompany them to the voting booths.

"The allegations made by Ms. Jacob are serious," Kenny wrote. "In the affidavit, however, Ms. Jacob does not name the location of the satellite office, the September or October date these acts of fraud took place, [or] the number of occasions she witnessed the alleged misconduct. Ms. Jacob in her affidavit fails to name the city employees responsible for the voter fraud and never told a supervisor about the misconduct." He added that "Ms. Jacob only came forward after the unofficial results of the voting indicated former Vice President Biden was the winner in the state of Michigan."

While working at the TCF Center, Jacob said, she was told not to check whether signatures on mail-in ballots matched the names of eligible voters. She said supervisors also instructed her to "pre-date" ballots that arrived the day after Election Day.

"Ms. Jacob ascribes a sinister motive for these directives," Kenny said. "Evidence offered by long-time State Elections Director Christopher Thomas, however,
reveals there was no need for comparison of signatures at the TCF Center because
eligibility had been reviewed and determined at the Detroit Election Headquarters on
West Grand Blvd. Ms. Jacob was directed not to search for or compare signatures because the task had already been performed by other Detroit city clerks at a previous location….As to the allegation of 'pre-dating' ballots, Mr. Thomas explains that this action completed a data field inadvertently left blank during the initial absentee ballot verification process. The entries reflected the date the City received the absentee ballot."

Melissa Carone, a Republican who was working at the TCF Center as an I.T. contractor for Dominion Voting Systems (yes, the same company that supposedly supplies fraud-facilitating software), said she "witnessed nothing but fraudulent actions take place." The irregularities allegedly included a cover-up aimed at concealing the "loss of vast amounts of data" and "untrained counter tabulating machines that would get jammed four to five times per hour."

Kenny noted that "Ms. Carone's description of the events at the TCF Center does not square with any of the other affidavits"; that "there are no other reports of lost data, or tabulating machines that jammed repeatedly every hour during the count"; and that "neither Republican nor Democratic challengers nor city officials substantiate her version of events." He concluded that "the allegations simply are not credible."

Zachery Larsen, a Republican vote challenger and former Michigan assistant attorney general, alleged that ballots were processed without confirming voters' eligibility. He "expressed concern that he was unable to observe the activities of election official[s] because he was required to stand six feet away from the election workers." He also complained that he was not allowed to reenter the TCF Center on November 4 after he left briefly to eat.

"Mr. Larsen's concern about verifying the eligibility of voters at the AVCB [absent voter counting board] was incorrect," Kenny said. "As stated earlier, voter eligibility was determined at the Detroit Election Headquarters by other Detroit city clerk personnel."

Likewise, Kenny wrote, "the claim that Mr. Larsen was prevented from viewing the work being processed at the tables is simply not correct. As seen in a City of Detroit exhibit, a large monitor was at the table where individuals could maintain a safe distance from poll workers to see what exactly was being performed."

Kenny also noted that "Mr. Larsen's claim about the reason for being excluded from reentry into the absent voter counting board area is contradicted by two other individuals." According to those affidavits, "Democratic challengers were also prohibited from reentering the room because the maximum occupancy of the room had taken place. Given the COVID-19 concerns, no additional individuals could be allowed into the counting area."

Kenny noted that Larsen never filed a formal complaint about the irregularities he said he observed. "Given the concerns raised in Mr. Larsen's affidavit, one would expect an attorney would have done so," the judge said. Instead Larsen "only came forward to complain after the unofficial vote results indicated his candidate had lost."

Maybe Giuliani's secret affidavits are more substantial than the ones that are publicly available. But until he lets a court see them, there is no way to know.

Giuliani's explanation for the failure to make any headway with allegations of systematic election fraud is that Democrats "have some friendly judges that will issue ridiculously irrational opinions just to come out in their favor." Yet Giuliani himself, while challenging the election results in Pennsylvania this week, seemed to concede that he could not prove the "massive fraud" he described yesterday.

Giuliani was asking U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann to block certification of Pennsylvania's election results, which Brann said would "invalidate more than 6.8 million votes…thereby disenfranchising every single voter in the commonwealth." Brann wondered how that outcome could "possibly be justified." Although Giuliani began the hearing by alleging "widespread nationwide voter fraud," Brann noted that none of the Trump campaign's specific claims were examples of that. Later he asked whether the practices challenged by the lawsuit should be judged by the "strict scrutiny" standard that applies to burdens on fundamental rights. "If we had alleged fraud, then yes," Giuliani replied, "but this is not a fraud case."

What about the allegedly nefarious software that Giuliani and Powell said was at the heart of the original plan to steal the election? Such claims are "unsubstantiated," if not "technically incoherent," a group of 59 computer scientists and election security experts said in an open letter published this week. "Anyone asserting that a U.S. election was 'rigged' is making an extraordinary claim, one that must be supported by persuasive and verifiable evidence," they wrote. "To our collective knowledge, no credible evidence has been put forth that supports a conclusion that the 2020 election outcome in any state has been altered through technical compromise."

Edited July 15, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[nsdp + 449]

57 minutes ago, QuarterCenturyVet said:

How can you possibly know that affidavits are bogus?

Discovery was never even started, nor was any  case of irregularities even entertained by any judge.

Don't worry though, forensic audits are coming. 

Maybe you can be an arm chair litigator for those audits. 🙄

The affidavits had to be attached to the original pleadings dummy.  It never reached discovery because the pleadings were defective on their face and did not comply with the Federal Rules of Evidence.  Better yet Counsel Did not attach a SWORN STATEMENT in compliance with FRCP 11 that he/she had examined the affidavits and knew the statements there in to be true and correct.  Therefore the matter was never properly filed before the court. Those affidavits were done by amateurs.  Mrs. Powell and I were both admitted to the Western District of Texas at the same time.  Bill Blagg would not keep her when he took over as USA. The defense bar took advantage of too many mistakes. Google the Express News Coverage of the trial of Oliver Neal Paulson. He was acquited because of her mistakes.

Edited July 15, 2021 by nsdp

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

..

Edited July 15, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

4 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Not a trade tribunal.

Yes it was a trade tribunal. The Permanent Court of Arbitration hears many trade disputes. The Xl pipeline case has a very good chance of ending up there. The choice is ICSID or UNCITRAl. The latter is the Permanent Court of Arbitration.

TC is filing a legacy NAFTA claim

News Release – TC Energy Corporation (TSX, NYSE: TRP) (TC Energy or the Company) announced today it has filed a Notice of Intent to initiate a legacy North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) claim

Here is the NAFTA rule:

Article 1120: Submission of a Claim to Arbitration

1. Except as provided in Annex 1120.1, and provided that six months have elapsed since the events giving rise to a claim, a disputing investor may submit the claim to arbitration under:

 

(a) the ICSID Convention, provided that both the disputing Party and the Party of the investor are parties to the Convention;

(b) the Additional Facility Rules of ICSID, provided that either the disputing Party or the Party of the investor, but not both, is a party to the ICSID Convention; or

(c) the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules.

http://www.sice.oas.org/trade/nafta/chap-111.asp#Sec.B

UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules

The PCA frequently provides full case administration support in arbitrations under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. The Secretary-General of the PCA also serves certain special functions in regard to the role of the appointing authority under the Rules.

https://pca-cpa.org/en/services/arbitration-services/uncitral-arbitration-rules/

Edited July 15, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[Ecocharger + 1,477]

21 hours ago, nsdp said:

No there is rule for sanctions against nutcakes who make frivolous arguments.  That was the context of the comments about Rudy, Sidney and Lin for statements made by the above and 11 others.

Obviously you need comments dumbed down so you can understand what is being said. et al. The District court held a hearing on Monday to determine the the punishment for the dumb statements made by Mr. trump's lawyers and the persons filing bogus affidavits.

Which has precisely nothing to do with trade rules. You deserve some sort of prize for wandering off topic to a championship degree. I guess the topic itself is too hot to handle.

[Ecocharger + 1,477]

20 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

That is incorrect:

The anti-Trump conspiracy is "easily provable," Giuliani averred, based on testimony from "hundreds of witnesses, maybe thousands." But although he repeatedly faulted reporters for not reading those affidavits, he conceded that the vast majority are not available for them to read. "We have a hundred more of these," he said, referring to statements about alleged fraud in Detroit. "I can't show them to you because those people don't want to be harassed….Do you know how many affidavits we have in the Michigan case? 220 affidavits. They're not all public, but eight of them are."

While Giuliani is confident that his mostly secret evidence would be enough to persuade "any jury," judges who have actually considered Republican claims of massive election fraud were not impressed. Last week Wayne County, Michigan, Judge Timothy Kenny ruled that the public affidavits to which Giuliani referred, which were submitted as part of a lawsuit filed by the Great Lakes Justice Center on behalf of two Republican poll challengers, provided "no basis" for ordering an independent audit or issuing an injunction against certification of the election results in Detroit.

Giuliani's claim that "thousands and thousands" of fraudulent Biden ballots suddenly appeared in the count room at Detroit's TCF Center in the middle of the night seems to be based on statements from two Republican poll watchers. Neither of them mentioned the "garbage cans" or "paper bags" that Giuliani described, and Kenny found neither of them compelling.

"I heard other challengers say that several vehicles with out-of-state license plates pulled up to the TCF Center a little before 4:30 a.m. and unloaded boxes of ballots," Andrew Sitto said. "Tens of thousands of ballots were brought in and placed on eight long tables. Unlike the other ballots, these boxes were brought in from the rear of the room….I specifically noticed that every ballot I observed was cast for Joe Biden."

Kenny said "Mr. Sitto's affidavit, while stating a few general facts, is rife with speculation and guess-work about sinister motives." He noted that Sitto did not actually know how many ballots were delivered or how many of them were marked for Biden.

Contrary to Sitto's implication that bringing ballots in "from the rear of the room" was inherently suspicious, former Michigan Elections Director Christopher Thomas said "all ballots were delivered to the back of Hall E at the TCF Center." Thomas also said the city used rental trucks to deliver ballots, which would explain the "out-of-state license plates." Kenny concluded that "there is no evidentiary basis to attribute any evil activity by virtue of the city using a rental truck with out-of-state license plates."

Another Republican observer, Daniel Gustafson, said "large quantities of ballots were delivered to the TCF Center in what appeared to be mail bins with open tops." Gustafson "offers little other than to indicate that he witnessed 'large quantities of ballots' delivered to the TCF Center in containers that did not have lids, were not sealed, or did not have marking indicating their source of origin," Kenny wrote. "Mr. Gustafson's affidavit is another example of generalized speculation fueled by the belief that there was a Michigan legal requirement that all ballots had to be delivered in a sealed box. Plaintiffs have not supplied any statutory requirement supporting Mr. Gustafson's speculative suspicion of fraud."

While she was working at a "satellite location" prior to Election Day, city employee Jessy Jacob said, a supervisor told her not to ask voters for identification. Jacob, whose claims Giuliani repeatedly cited yesterday, also said she saw other workers coach people to vote a straight Democratic ticket and accompany them to the voting booths.

"The allegations made by Ms. Jacob are serious," Kenny wrote. "In the affidavit, however, Ms. Jacob does not name the location of the satellite office, the September or October date these acts of fraud took place, [or] the number of occasions she witnessed the alleged misconduct. Ms. Jacob in her affidavit fails to name the city employees responsible for the voter fraud and never told a supervisor about the misconduct." He added that "Ms. Jacob only came forward after the unofficial results of the voting indicated former Vice President Biden was the winner in the state of Michigan."

While working at the TCF Center, Jacob said, she was told not to check whether signatures on mail-in ballots matched the names of eligible voters. She said supervisors also instructed her to "pre-date" ballots that arrived the day after Election Day.

"Ms. Jacob ascribes a sinister motive for these directives," Kenny said. "Evidence offered by long-time State Elections Director Christopher Thomas, however,
reveals there was no need for comparison of signatures at the TCF Center because
eligibility had been reviewed and determined at the Detroit Election Headquarters on
West Grand Blvd. Ms. Jacob was directed not to search for or compare signatures because the task had already been performed by other Detroit city clerks at a previous location….As to the allegation of 'pre-dating' ballots, Mr. Thomas explains that this action completed a data field inadvertently left blank during the initial absentee ballot verification process. The entries reflected the date the City received the absentee ballot."

Melissa Carone, a Republican who was working at the TCF Center as an I.T. contractor for Dominion Voting Systems (yes, the same company that supposedly supplies fraud-facilitating software), said she "witnessed nothing but fraudulent actions take place." The irregularities allegedly included a cover-up aimed at concealing the "loss of vast amounts of data" and "untrained counter tabulating machines that would get jammed four to five times per hour."

Kenny noted that "Ms. Carone's description of the events at the TCF Center does not square with any of the other affidavits"; that "there are no other reports of lost data, or tabulating machines that jammed repeatedly every hour during the count"; and that "neither Republican nor Democratic challengers nor city officials substantiate her version of events." He concluded that "the allegations simply are not credible."

Zachery Larsen, a Republican vote challenger and former Michigan assistant attorney general, alleged that ballots were processed without confirming voters' eligibility. He "expressed concern that he was unable to observe the activities of election official[s] because he was required to stand six feet away from the election workers." He also complained that he was not allowed to reenter the TCF Center on November 4 after he left briefly to eat.

"Mr. Larsen's concern about verifying the eligibility of voters at the AVCB [absent voter counting board] was incorrect," Kenny said. "As stated earlier, voter eligibility was determined at the Detroit Election Headquarters by other Detroit city clerk personnel."

Likewise, Kenny wrote, "the claim that Mr. Larsen was prevented from viewing the work being processed at the tables is simply not correct. As seen in a City of Detroit exhibit, a large monitor was at the table where individuals could maintain a safe distance from poll workers to see what exactly was being performed."

Kenny also noted that "Mr. Larsen's claim about the reason for being excluded from reentry into the absent voter counting board area is contradicted by two other individuals." According to those affidavits, "Democratic challengers were also prohibited from reentering the room because the maximum occupancy of the room had taken place. Given the COVID-19 concerns, no additional individuals could be allowed into the counting area."

Kenny noted that Larsen never filed a formal complaint about the irregularities he said he observed. "Given the concerns raised in Mr. Larsen's affidavit, one would expect an attorney would have done so," the judge said. Instead Larsen "only came forward to complain after the unofficial vote results indicated his candidate had lost."

Maybe Giuliani's secret affidavits are more substantial than the ones that are publicly available. But until he lets a court see them, there is no way to know.

Giuliani's explanation for the failure to make any headway with allegations of systematic election fraud is that Democrats "have some friendly judges that will issue ridiculously irrational opinions just to come out in their favor." Yet Giuliani himself, while challenging the election results in Pennsylvania this week, seemed to concede that he could not prove the "massive fraud" he described yesterday.

Giuliani was asking U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann to block certification of Pennsylvania's election results, which Brann said would "invalidate more than 6.8 million votes…thereby disenfranchising every single voter in the commonwealth." Brann wondered how that outcome could "possibly be justified." Although Giuliani began the hearing by alleging "widespread nationwide voter fraud," Brann noted that none of the Trump campaign's specific claims were examples of that. Later he asked whether the practices challenged by the lawsuit should be judged by the "strict scrutiny" standard that applies to burdens on fundamental rights. "If we had alleged fraud, then yes," Giuliani replied, "but this is not a fraud case."

What about the allegedly nefarious software that Giuliani and Powell said was at the heart of the original plan to steal the election? Such claims are "unsubstantiated," if not "technically incoherent," a group of 59 computer scientists and election security experts said in an open letter published this week. "Anyone asserting that a U.S. election was 'rigged' is making an extraordinary claim, one that must be supported by persuasive and verifiable evidence," they wrote. "To our collective knowledge, no credible evidence has been put forth that supports a conclusion that the 2020 election outcome in any state has been altered through technical compromise."

I thought that "nsdp" was wandering wildly and incoherently into a wilderness of irrelevance, but Jay, you take the cake here. Wildly off topic and nonsensical.

[Ecocharger + 1,477]

20 hours ago, nsdp said:

The affidavits had to be attached to the original pleadings dummy.  It never reached discovery because the pleadings were defective on their face and did not comply with the Federal Rules of Evidence.  Better yet Counsel Did not attach a SWORN STATEMENT in compliance with FRCP 11 that he/she had examined the affidavits and knew the statements there in to be true and correct.  Therefore the matter was never properly filed before the court. Those affidavits were done by amateurs.  Mrs. Powell and I were both admitted to the Western District of Texas at the same time.  Bill Blagg would not keep her when he took over as USA. The defense bar took advantage of too many mistakes. Google the Express News Coverage of the trial of Oliver Neal Paulson. He was acquited because of her mistakes.

Again you are wildly and incoherently off topic...you sure you studied trade law? Is that why we have lost all those trade challenges under NAFTA? You were sitting in with the peanut gallery?

[Ecocharger + 1,477]

18 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Yes it was a trade tribunal. The Permanent Court of Arbitration hears many trade disputes. The Xl pipeline case has a very good chance of ending up there. The choice is ICSID or UNCITRAl. The latter is the Permanent Court of Arbitration.

TC is filing a legacy NAFTA claim

News Release – TC Energy Corporation (TSX, NYSE: TRP) (TC Energy or the Company) announced today it has filed a Notice of Intent to initiate a legacy North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) claim

Here is the NAFTA rule:

Article 1120: Submission of a Claim to Arbitration

1. Except as provided in Annex 1120.1, and provided that six months have elapsed since the events giving rise to a claim, a disputing investor may submit the claim to arbitration under:

 

(a) the ICSID Convention, provided that both the disputing Party and the Party of the investor are parties to the Convention;

(b) the Additional Facility Rules of ICSID, provided that either the disputing Party or the Party of the investor, but not both, is a party to the ICSID Convention; or

(c) the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules.

http://www.sice.oas.org/trade/nafta/chap-111.asp#Sec.B

UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules

The PCA frequently provides full case administration support in arbitrations under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. The Secretary-General of the PCA also serves certain special functions in regard to the role of the appointing authority under the Rules.

https://pca-cpa.org/en/services/arbitration-services/uncitral-arbitration-rules/

This will be adjudicated under a NAFTA panel, as have so many other cases. No need for the international courts to be involved.

Keystone has said that the "national treatment" challenge will be used. That means a NAFTA panel.

 

[nsdp + 449]

2 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

This will be adjudicated under a NAFTA panel, as have so many other cases. No need for the international courts to be involved.

Keystone has said that the "national treatment" challenge will be used. That means a NAFTA panel.

 

Here is where Keystone loses:  Enbridge Line 3 on Track for Minnesota Completion by Year’s End. Enbridge is Canadian owned pipeline and has not been canceled. Difference Enbridge finished their environmental Impact study, mitigated adverse impacts and got a Presidential Certificate.  Keystone still has four open items  that they must address under US Law. 1. Spill control over the Ogala aquifer in Nebraska  2. reroute environmental  study along existing Keystone line 3.  Environmental and grid  impact studies of 230kv and 115kv transmission replacement to supply Enbridge paid Otter Tail to complete environmental  studies to build electric power to pump stations  4. Purchase or payment by letter of credit to Nebraska Public Power for for construction of grid replacement . Keystone has yet to submit a letter of credit.

Enbtridge obtained their letter of credit  payable to Ottertail power in 2019. Keystone has done nothing.  Enbridge completed their mitigation  route comparison studies in 2018.https://www.naturalgasintel.com/enbridge-line-3-on-track-for-minnesota-completion-by-years-end/ Keystone failed to complete EIS study of the Ogala Aquifer. Keystone has failed to prepare and submit reroute comparison study.  Note Enbridge has rerouted its line for safer operation in 2018.  

Enbridge followed all the FERC rules, was granted a full and complete pemit and will be finished this year. Keystone has given a FYB; we make our own rules.  The competing pipeline followed all of the rules . How does Keystone prove with actual evidence (not lawyer bullshit like what Guliani and Powell presented in Federal Court in Michigan)  that it received different national treatment than Enbridge.

Edited July 16, 2021 by nsdp
spelling and grammar

[nsdp + 449]

2 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

This will be adjudicated under a NAFTA panel, as have so many other cases. No need for the international courts to be involved.

Keystone has said that the "national treatment" challenge will be used. That means a NAFTA panel.

 

duplicate

Edited July 16, 2021 by nsdp

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

3 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

This will be adjudicated under a NAFTA panel, as have so many other cases. No need for the international courts to be involved.

Keystone has said that the "national treatment" challenge will be used. That means a NAFTA panel.

 

No, they are filing under NAFTA Chapter 11 as I described above. Chapter 11 does not have NAFTA Panels. It just has arbitration under ICSID or UNCITRAl.

“This would create a precedent. There has never been a NAFTA Chapter 11 arbitration where a government has been a party to the case, so this will break new ground,” Herman said. “All of the cases between Canada and the United States have involved only investors challenging actions by government but here you’ve got another government, a subunit of Canada, involved in a dispute proceeding.”

https://financialpost.com/commodities/a-long-and-expensive-challenge-alberta-to-join-tc-energys-15b-nfta-claim-over-keystone-xl-rejection

 

TC Energy Corporation stated that it filed a notice of intent with the U.S. Department of State that it will make a claim against the U.S. under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The claim will be based on President Biden’s January 2021 revocation of TC Energy’s Keystone XL Pipeline permit.

NAFTA allowed for investors to seek arbitration against political states for certain mistreatment. See NAFTA at Chapter 11. That mistreatment could include a nation treating an investor of another nation less favorably than it treats its own investors (national mistreatment), treating an investor of another nation less favorably than an investor of a different nation (most-favored-nation mistreatment), not according an investor equal treatment under international law, or improperly expropriating an investment. See NAFTA at articles 1102, 1103, 1105, & 1110, respectively. 

https://www.theenergylawblog.com/2021/07/articles/business/tc-energys-15b-claim-against-u-s-for-bidens-revocation-of-keystone-xl-pipeline-permit/

TC Energy announced July 2 the company filed notice it would seek US$15 billion “in damages that it has suffered as a result of the U.S. government’s breach of its NAFTA obligations.”The case is being filed as a legacy North American Free Trade Agreement Chapter 11 dispute 

https://www.thewhig.com/news/provincial/a-long-and-expensive-challenge-alberta-to-join-tc-energys-15b-nafta-claim-over-keystone-xl-rejection/wcm/ef7d0674-c4a6-423b-8aa1-c9fe314824c7/amp/

Edited July 16, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[Eric Gagen + 713]

11 hours ago, nsdp said:

Here is where Keystone loses:  Enbridge Line 3 on Track for Minnesota Completion by Year’s End. Enbridge is Canadian owned pipeline and has not been canceled. Difference Enbridge finished their environmental Impact study, mitigated adverse impacts and got a Presidential Certificate.  Keystone still has four open items  that they must address under US Law. 1. Spill control over the Ogala aquifer in Nebraska  2. reroute environmental  study along existing Keystone line 3.  Environmental and grid  impact studies of 230kv and 115kv transmission replacement to supply Enbridge paid Otter Tail to complete environmental  studies to build electric power to pump stations  4. Purchase or payment by letter of credit to Nebraska Public Power for for construction of grid replacement . Keystone has yet to submit a letter of credit.

Enbtridge obtained their letter of credit  payable to Ottertail power in 2019. Keystone has done nothing.  Enbridge completed their mitigation  route comparison studies in 2018.https://www.naturalgasintel.com/enbridge-line-3-on-track-for-minnesota-completion-by-years-end/ Keystone failed to complete EIS study of the Ogala Aquifer. Keystone has failed to prepare and submit reroute comparison study.  Note Enbridge has rerouted its line for safer operation in 2018.  

Enbridge followed all the FERC rules, was granted a full and complete pemit and will be finished this year. Keystone has given a FYB; we make our own rules.  The competing pipeline followed all of the rules . How does Keystone prove with actual evidence (not lawyer bullshit like what Guliani and Powell presented in Federal Court in Michigan)  that it received different national treatment than Enbridge.

There is another simple way that keystone/TC looses, and that is for the US government to show that American pipeline companies in a similar situation had their projects cancelled.  There really isn’t a good path forward for TC to win, but they have to do this so that they can tell their shareholders that the ‘did everything they could do’

Edited July 16, 2021 by Eric Gagen

[Ecocharger + 1,477]

20 hours ago, nsdp said:

Here is where Keystone loses:  Enbridge Line 3 on Track for Minnesota Completion by Year’s End. Enbridge is Canadian owned pipeline and has not been canceled. Difference Enbridge finished their environmental Impact study, mitigated adverse impacts and got a Presidential Certificate.  Keystone still has four open items  that they must address under US Law. 1. Spill control over the Ogala aquifer in Nebraska  2. reroute environmental  study along existing Keystone line 3.  Environmental and grid  impact studies of 230kv and 115kv transmission replacement to supply Enbridge paid Otter Tail to complete environmental  studies to build electric power to pump stations  4. Purchase or payment by letter of credit to Nebraska Public Power for for construction of grid replacement . Keystone has yet to submit a letter of credit.

Enbtridge obtained their letter of credit  payable to Ottertail power in 2019. Keystone has done nothing.  Enbridge completed their mitigation  route comparison studies in 2018.https://www.naturalgasintel.com/enbridge-line-3-on-track-for-minnesota-completion-by-years-end/ Keystone failed to complete EIS study of the Ogala Aquifer. Keystone has failed to prepare and submit reroute comparison study.  Note Enbridge has rerouted its line for safer operation in 2018.  

Enbridge followed all the FERC rules, was granted a full and complete pemit and will be finished this year. Keystone has given a FYB; we make our own rules.  The competing pipeline followed all of the rules . How does Keystone prove with actual evidence (not lawyer bullshit like what Guliani and Powell presented in Federal Court in Michigan)  that it received different national treatment than Enbridge.

The bottom line is whether or not other pipelines required a Presidential Permit. Comparing the contents of the Keystone Presidential permit to the type of certificate given other pipelines would show whether Keystone was treated differently than American owned pipelines.

Do American pipeline companies require Presidential Permits? Yes or No? It is as simple as that.

Edited July 17, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,477]

8 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

There is another simple way that keystone/TC looses, and that is for the US government to show that American pipeline companies in a similar situation had their projects cancelled.  There really isn’t a good path forward for TC to win, but they have to do this so that they can tell their shareholders that the ‘did everything they could do’

Yes, that is the issue. Do American pipeline companies require a Presidential Permit to construct their right-of-way. Have any Presidential Permits granted to American pipeline companies been rescinded? On what grounds was the rescission made in this case?

It looks like this Chapter 11 case is unique because a Canadian provincial government is involved, so there is a government sitting on both sides of the table.

Strange statement here from the article Jay cited,

"Regardless of how the case is argued, TC Energy and the Alberta face a daunting challenge because the United States has never lost a Chapter 11 free trade case, even in cases where it seemed like there was clear discrimination against the investor, Coleman said.

Unlike the courts system, he said there are no precedents at trade tribunals that influence the next case. “Every case is taken as new,” he said, which means each previous decision in the U.S. government’s favour does not make it more likely Washington will win again."

I have read somewhere that the U.S. has lost numerous NAFTA disputes, so I am not sure about this statement.

[Ecocharger + 1,477]

9 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

There is another simple way that keystone/TC looses, and that is for the US government to show that American pipeline companies in a similar situation had their projects cancelled.  There really isn’t a good path forward for TC to win, but they have to do this so that they can tell their shareholders that the ‘did everything they could do’

Here are the relevant passages of the NAFTA agreement.

Article 1102: National Treatment 1. Each Party shall accord to investors of another Party treatment no less favorable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to its own investors with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments. 2. Each Party shall accord to investments of investors of another Party treatment no less favorable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to investments of its own investors with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments. 3. The treatment accorded by a Party under paragraphs 1 and 2 means, with respect to a state or province, treatment no less favorable than the most favorable treatment accorded, in like circumstances, by that state or province to investors, and to investments of investors, of the Party of which it forms a part. 4. For greater certainty, no Party may:   (a) impose on an investor of another Party a requirement that a minimum level of equity in an enterprise in the territory of the Party be held by its nationals, other than nominal qualifying shares for directors or incorporators of corporations; or (b) require an investor of another Party, by reason of its nationality, to sell or otherwise dispose of an investment in the territory of the Party. Article 1103: Most-Favored-Nation Treatment 1. Each Party shall accord to investors of another Party treatment no less favorable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to investors of any other Party or of a non-Party with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments. 2. Each Party shall accord to investments of investors of another Party treatment no less favorable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to investments of investors of any other Party or of a non-Party with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments." So the question with regard to the Presidential Permit is, do other American pipeline companies require a Presidential Permit, one which has now been rescinded? I would not like to have to defend Biden & Co. on that basis.

Edited July 17, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

Yes, that is the issue. Do American pipeline companies require a Presidential Permit to construct their right-of-way. Have any Presidential Permits granted to American pipeline companies been rescinded? On what grounds was the rescission made in this case?

It looks like this Chapter 11 case is unique because a Canadian provincial government is involved, so there is a government sitting on both sides of the table.

Strange statement here from the article Jay cited,

"Regardless of how the case is argued, TC Energy and the Alberta face a daunting challenge because the United States has never lost a Chapter 11 free trade case, even in cases where it seemed like there was clear discrimination against the investor, Coleman said.

Unlike the courts system, he said there are no precedents at trade tribunals that influence the next case. “Every case is taken as new,” he said, which means each previous decision in the U.S. government’s favour does not make it more likely Washington will win again."

I have read somewhere that the U.S. has lost numerous NAFTA disputes, so I am not sure about this statement.

The Presidential Permit is only for crossing the border, not constructing the right of way:

By virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States of America, I hereby grant permission, subject to the conditions herein set forth, to TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (hereinafter referred to as the “permittee”), to construct, connect, operate, and maintain pipeline facilities at the international border of the United States and Canada at Phillips County, Montana, for the import of oil from Canada to the United States.

The term “Border facilities,” as used in this permit, means those parts of the Facilities consisting of a 36-inch diameter pipeline extending from the international border between the United States and Canada at a point in Phillips County, Montana, to and including the first mainline shut-off valve in the United States located approximately 1.2 miles from the international border, and any land, structures, installations, or equipment appurtenant thereto.

Edited July 17, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,192]

On 7/15/2021 at 6:54 PM, Ecocharger said:

you sure you studied trade law?

He has admitted in other threads that he is a REGULATOR of electrical power somewhere... He probably had one class somewhere... 🙄

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

Here are the relevant passages of the NAFTA agreement.

Article 1102: National Treatment 1. Each Party shall accord to investors of another Party treatment no less favorable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to its own investors with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments. 2. Each Party shall accord to investments of investors of another Party treatment no less favorable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to investments of its own investors with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments. 3. The treatment accorded by a Party under paragraphs 1 and 2 means, with respect to a state or province, treatment no less favorable than the most favorable treatment accorded, in like circumstances, by that state or province to investors, and to investments of investors, of the Party of which it forms a part. 4. For greater certainty, no Party may:   (a) impose on an investor of another Party a requirement that a minimum level of equity in an enterprise in the territory of the Party be held by its nationals, other than nominal qualifying shares for directors or incorporators of corporations; or (b) require an investor of another Party, by reason of its nationality, to sell or otherwise dispose of an investment in the territory of the Party. Article 1103: Most-Favored-Nation Treatment 1. Each Party shall accord to investors of another Party treatment no less favorable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to investors of any other Party or of a non-Party with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments. 2. Each Party shall accord to investments of investors of another Party treatment no less favorable than that it accords, in like circumstances, to investments of investors of any other Party or of a non-Party with respect to the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct, operation, and sale or other disposition of investments." So the question with regard to the Presidential Permit is, do other American pipeline companies require a Presidential Permit, one which has now been rescinded? I would not like to have to defend Biden & Co. on that basis.

Biden's best move now would be to cancel the Dakota Access Pipeline that also crosses the Sioux lands and is currently held up for the same environmental reasons and say "See I treated them equally". The more pipeline projects he cancels the better.

Edited July 17, 2021 by Jay McKinsey