NAFTA BRIBERY BILL

Google “hsbc, europe’s largest bank, cuts off financing to the oilsands tencer”, Alberta doomed, Saskatchewan at risk. Google “conflict of interest flippancy wears badly on sask party government mandryk” & “sask. party tax on used cars is height of political hypocrisy” &
“ saskatchewan’s 2018-19 budget: by the numbers leader-post” & “used cars, energy-efficient appliances more expensive under sask. party budget c.p.” Moe’s spending cuts all relate to cutting service to Saskatchewan taxpayers while making certain spending on the google “regina $1.88b regina bypass fraud” & “gth fraud ruralzoning” remains intact.

Nothing ever changes in my (Lee)s decades long corruption battle with Saskatchewan’s official elite. Review START CLEANING UP BRIBERY AT THE BOTTOM RURAL ZONING IN SASKATCHEWAN, review that post regarding the fact the US Chamber of Commerce has exactly the same problem with NAFTA today as they had thirty years ago, google “canada most bribery prone country in the g-7”, there was much media on the US Bribery Bill back in the day, my favorite is a Regina Leader Post article by Dale Eisler, it was pre-internet so is retyped following:

Article-1988

(The above is an excerpt and in its original form had pictures of Sask ruling Elites, Mitchell and Andrew)

The reader will have noted that after I (Lee) provided Dale with a copy of Bill S. 651, ie: the Bribery Bill, he (Dale) made the point the U.S. congress tried to sneak that “bribery bill” by the U.S. citizens by including it in the so called omnibus (series of bills) on the free trade deal with Canada (NAFTA), in short they tried to bury it and sneak the Bill through the US Congress but the U.S. media caught them and went public with S. 651 and I obtained a copy. Google “the anti-bribery provisions of the foreign corrupt practices act by h.l. brown” and ask a University Economics Professor to discuss the bill’s amendments to the bribery controls as set out in the US “Foreign Corrupt Practices Act”, all done to accommodate Brian Mulroney and NAFTA, retype of Bill S.651 following:


100th congress S.651
1st Session

To amend the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act with regard to business practices
and records.

_________________________________

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

March 3, 1987

Mr. Garn introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban affairs

___________________________________

A BILL

To amend the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act with regard to
business practices and records.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 Section 1. This Act may be cited as the “Business
4 Practices and Records Act of 1987”.
5 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
6 Sec. 2, (a) The Congress finds that—
7 (1) the enactment of the Foreign Corrupt Prac-
8 tices Act of 1977 was a significant step toward the im-
9 portant objective of prohibiting bribery of foreign gov- 

S 651 IS

2

1 ernment officials by United States companies in order
2 to obtain, retain, or direct business:
3 (2) this Act has caused unnecessary concern
4 among existing and potential exporters as to the scope 
5 of legitimate overseas business activities; and
6 (3) the accounting standards requirements of this
7 Act, which apply to all issuers of securities irrespective
8 of whether they have foreign operations, are unclear
9 and excessive and have costly and unnecessary
10 paperwork burdens .
11 (b) The Congress concludes that –
12 (1) the principal objectives of this Act are desira-
13 ble, beneficial, and important to our nation as well as
14 to our relationships with our trading partners, and
15 those objectives should remain the central intent of the
16 Act; and
17 (2) exporters should not be subject to unclear,
18 conflicting, and potentially damaging demands by di-
19 verse United States agencies responsible for enforce-
20 ment of the Act.
21 AMENDEMNT OF SHORT TITLE
22 Sec. 3. Section 101 of the Foreign Corrupt Practices
23 Act is amended to read as follows:
24 “SHORT TITLE
25 “Sec. 101. This title may be cited as the ‘Business
26 Practices and Records Act’”.

S 651 IS

3

1 ACCOUNTING STANDARDS
2 Sec. 4. (a) Section 13((b)(2) of the Securities Exchange
3 Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C, 78m (b)(2) is amended to read as
4 follow:
5 “(2 Every issuer which has a class of securities regis-
6 tered pursuant to section 12 of this title and every issuer
7 which is required to file reports pursuant to section 15(d) of
8 this title shall devise and maintain a system of internal ac-
9 counting controls sufficient to provide reasonable assurances
10 that-
11 “(A) transactions are executed in accordance with
12 management’s general or specific authorization;
13 “(B) transactions are recorded as necessary (I) to
14 permit preparation of financial statements in conformity
15 with generally accepted accounting principals or any
16 other criteria applicable to such statements, and (ii) to
17 maintain accountability for assets;
18 “(C) access to assets is permitted only in ac-
19 cordance with management’s general or specific
20 authorization;
21 “(D) the recorded accountability for assets is com-
22 pared with the existing assets at reasonable intervals
23 and appropriate action is taken with respect to any dif-
24 ferences; and

S 651 IS

4

1 “(E) for the purposes of subparagraphs (A)
2 through (D) of this paragraph, the issuer makes and
3 keeps books, accounting records, and accounts which,
4 in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the
5 transactions and dispositions of the assets of the
6 issuer”.
7 (b) Section 13(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of
8 1934 is further amended by adding at the end thereof the
9 following:
10 “(4) No criminal liability shall be imposed for failing to
11 comply with the requirements of paragraph (2) of this
12 subsection.
13 “(5) No civil injunctive relief shall be imposed with re-
14 spect to-
15 “(A) any issuer for failing to comply with the re-
16 quirments of paragraph (2) of this subsection if such
17 issuer shall show that it acted in good faith in attempt-
18 ing to comply with such requirements; or
19 “(B) any person other than an issuer, in connec-
20 tion with an issuer’s failure to comply with paragraph
21 (2), unless such person knowingly caused the issuer to
22 fail to devise or maintain a system of internal account-
23 ing controls that complies with paragraph (2).

S 651 IS

5

1 “(6) No person shall knowingly circumvent a system of
2 internal accounting controls established pursuant to para-
3 graph (2) for a purpose inconsistent with paragraph (2).
4 “(7) Where an issuer which has a class of securities
5 registered pursuant to section 12 of this title or an issuer
6 which is required to file reports pursuant to section 15(d) of
7 this title holds 50 per centum or less of the voting power
8 with respect to a domestic or foreign firm, the provisions of
9 paragraph (2) require only that the issuer proceed in good
10 faith to use its influence, to the extent reasonable under the
11 issuer’s circumstance, including the relative degree of its
12 ownership over the domestic or foreign firm and under the
13 laws and practices governing the business operations of the
14 country in which such firm is located, to cause such domestic
15 or foreign firm to devise and maintain a system of internal
16 accounting controls consistent with paragraph (2). Such an
17 issuer shall be conclusively presumed to have complied with
18 the provisions of paragraph (2) by demonstrating good-faith
19 efforts to use such influence.
20 “(8) For the purpose of paragraph (2) of this subsection,
21 the terms ‘reasonable assurances’ and ‘reasonable detail’
22 mean such level of detail and degree of assurance as would
23 satisfy prudent officials in the conduct of their own affairs,
24 having in mind a comparison between benefits to be obtained
25 and costs to be incurred in obtaining such benefits.”

S 651 IS

6

1 REPEALER; NEW BRIBERY PROVISION
2 Sec. 5. (a)(1) Section 30A of the Securities Exchange
3 Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78dd-1) is repealed.
4 (2) Section 32cod such Act (15 U.S.C. 78ff) is
5 amended-
6 (A) by striking out “(other than section 30A)” in
7 subsection (a); and
8 (B) by striking out subsection (c).
9 (b) Section 104 of the Business Practices and Records
10 Act (15 U.S.C. 78dd-2) is amended to read as follows:
11 “FOREIGN PAYMENTS
12 “ Sec. 104. (a) It shall be unlawful for any domestic
13 concern, or any officer, director, employee, or agent of such
14 domestic concern, or stockholder thereof acting on behalf of
15 such domestic concern, to make use of the mails or any
16 means or instrumentality of interstate commerce corruptly in
17 furtherance of a payment, gift, offer, or promise, directly, or
18 indirectly, of anything of value to any foreign official for the
19 purpose-
20 “(1) influencing any act or decision of such foreign
21 official in his official capacity, or inducing such foreign
22 official to do or omit to do any act in violation of his
23 legal duty as a foreign official; or
24 “(2) inducing such foreign official to use his influ-
25 ence with a foreign government or instrumentality

S 651 IS

7

1 thereof to affect or influence any act or decision of
2 such government or instrumentality;
3 in order to assist such domestic concern in obtaining or re-
4 taining business for or with, or directing business to, any
5 person.
6 “(b) It shall be unlawful for any domestic concern, or
7 any officer, director, employee or agent of such domestic con-
8 cern, or stockholder thereof acting on behalf of such domestic
9 concern,to make use of the mails or any means or instrumen-
10 tality or interstate commerce corruptly to direct or authorize,
11 expressly or by course of conduct, a third party to make a
12 payment, gift, offer, or promise of anything of value to a
13 foreign official for any of the purposes set forth in subsec-
14 tion (a).
15 “(c) Subsections (a) and (b) shall not apply to-
16 “(1) any facilitating or expediting payment to a
17 foreign official the purpose of which is to expedite or to
18 secure the performance of a routine governmental
19 action by a foreign official;
20 “(2) any payment, gift, offer, or promise of any-
21 thing of value to a foreign official which constitutes a
22 courtesy, a token of regard or esteem, or in return for
23 hospitality;
24 “(3) any reasonable and bona fide expenditures,
25 including travel and lodging expenses, incurred by or

S 651 IS

8

1 on behalf of a foreign official, which are associated
2 with the selling or purchasing of goods or services or 
3 with the demonstration or explanation of products; or
4 “(4) any reasonable and bona fide expenditure,
5 including travel and lodging expenses, incurred by or
6 on behalf of a foreign official, which are associated
7 with the performance of a contract with a foreign gov-
8 ernment or agency thereof.
9 “(d) It shall be an affirmative defense to any violation of
10 this Act that a payment, gift, offer or promise of anything of
11 value to a foreign official is lawful under the law and regla-
12 tions of the foreign officials country.
13 “(e)(1)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), any
14 domestic concern which violates subsection (a) or (b) shall,
15 upon conviction, be fined not more than $1,000,000.
16 “(B) Any individual who is a domestic concern and who
17 willfully violates subsection (a) or (b) shall, upon conviction,
18 be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than
19 five years, or both.
20 “(2) Any officer or director of a domestic concern, or
21 stockholder acting on behalf of such domestic concern, who
22 willfully violates subsection (a) or (b) shall, upon conviction
23 be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than
24 five years, or both.

S 651 IS

9

1 “(3) Whenever a domestic concern is found to have vio-
2 lated subsection (a) or (b) of this section, any employee or
3 agent of such domestic concern who is a United States citi-
4 zen, national ,or resident or is otherwise subject to the juris-
5 diction of the United States (other than an officer, director, or
6 stockholder acting on behalf of such domestic concern), and
7 who willfully carried out the act or practice constituting such
8 violation shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than
9 $10,000, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
10 For the purposes of this paragraph, “found to have violated”
11 includes a conviction based on related inchoate offenses or a
12 conviction based on a plea of nolo contendere.
13 “(4) Whenever a fine is imposed under paragraph (2) or
14 (3) of this subsection upon any officer, director, employee,
15 agent or stockholder of a domestic concern, such fine shall
16 not be paid, directly or indirectly, by such domestic concern.
17 “(f)(1) When it appears to the Attorney General that
18 any domestic concern, or officer, director, employee, agent,
19 or stockholder thereof, is engaged, or about to engage, in any
20 act or practice constituting a violation of subsection (a) or (b)
21 of this section, the Attorney General may, in his discretion,
22 bring a civil action in an appropriate district court of the
23 United States to enjoin such act or practice, and upon a
24 proper showing, a permanent injunction or a temporary re-
25 straining order shall be granted without bond.

S 651 IS

10

1 “(2) For the purpose of all civil investigations which, in
2 the opinion of the Attorney General, are necessary and
3 proper for the enforcement of this Act, the Attorney General
4 or any attorney or attorneys of the Department of Justice
5 designated by him are empowered to administer oaths and
6 affirmations, subponea witnesses, take evidence, and require
7 the production of any books, papers, or other documents
8 which the Attorney General deems relevant or material to
9 the inquiry. Such attendance of witnesses and the production
10 of such documentary evidence may be required from any
11 place in the United States, or any territory, possession, or
12 commonwealth of the United States, at any designated place
13 of hearing.
14 “(3) In case of contumacy by, or refusal tp obey a sub-
15 ponea issued to, any person, the Attorney General may
16 invoke the aid of any court of the United States within the
17 jurisdiction of which such investigation or proceeding is car-
18 ried on, or where such person resides or carries on business,
19 in requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses and
20 the production of books, papers, or other documents. Any
21 such court may issue an order requiring such person to
22 appear before the Attorney General or attorney designated
23 by the Attorney General, there to produce records, if so or-
24 dered, or to give testimony touching the matter under investi-
25 gation or in question; and any failure to obey such order of

S 651 IS

11

1 the court may be punished by such court as a contempt there-
2 of. All process in any case may be served in the judicial
3 district whereof such person is an inhabitant or wherever he
4 may be found. The Attorney General shall have the power to
5 make such rules relating to civil investigations as may be
6 necessary or appropriate to implement the provisions of this
7 subsection.
8 “(g) As used in this section-
9 “(1) The term ‘domestic concern’ means (A) any
10 individual who is a citizen, national, or resident of the
11 United States; or (B) any corporation, partnership, as-
12 sociation. Joint-stock company, business trust, unincor-
13 porated organization, or sole proprietorship which has
14 its principal place of business in the United States,
15 which is organized under the laws of a State of the
16 United States, which has a class of Securities regis-
17 tered pursuant to section 12 of the Securities Ex-
18 change Act of 1934, or which is required to file reports
19 under section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
20 1934.
21 “(2) The term ‘foreign official” means (A) any offi-
22 cer or employee of a foreign government or any de-
23 partment, agency, or instrumentality thereof, or any
24 person acting in an official capacity for or on behalf of
25 any such government or department, agency or instru-

S 651 IS

12

1 mentality; or (B) any foreign political party or official
2 thereof or any candidate for foreign political office.”.
3 EXCLUSIVITY PROVISION FOR OVERSEAS BRIBERY
4 Sec. 6. Except in plea bargain situations, no criminal
5 action pursuant to section 1341 or 1343 of title 18, United
6 States Code, may be brought against a domestic concern, its
7 officers, directors, employees, agents or any stockholders
8 thereof acting on behalf of such domestic concern for a pay-
9 ment, gift, offer, or promise to a foreign official based upon
10 the theory that the foreign official or the domestic concern
11 violated a duty to or defrauded the foreign government or the
12 citizens of a foreign country. Notwithstanding any other pro-
13 vision of law, fines applicable to violations of section 104 (a)
14 and (b) of the Business Practices and Records Act shall be as
15 provided in section 104(e) of that Act .”

O

Bill S. 651, as do all such Bills, ends abruptly. As suggested in the paragraph preceding S. 651, ask any University Economics Professor to review S. 651 and advise on the endless ramifications of S. 651 amending the US “Foreign Corrupt Practices Act” to protect the United States business community from being criminally charged under the US “Foreign Corrupt Practices Act” when they bribe Canadian officials to do business in Canada under NAFTA. For the zillionth time google “reiter claims lee stupidest man in canada” and note that I (Lee) have the “stupid” excuse, but every observer, all media, even the great Dale Eisler, missed a crucial point in US Bill S. 651, aka, the Bribery Bill, scroll back to page 7 of Bill S 651, line 16, where reference is made to the US business community being allowed to make “facilitation” payments to foreign officials.

Review Web post FACILITATION PAYMENTS BAD RURALZONING
readers are asked to note that I (Lee) did a good job on that post but failed to refer to the fact US Bill S. 651 allowed the US Business Community to make “facilitation payments” to Canadian officials to “facilitate” doing business in Canada, if I had spotted that word I sure as hell would have used it because its crucial. I, along with many others, should have spotted the use of the strange wording, ie: “facilitation payments” to the Canadian Criminal code to allow such “facilitation payments” to Canadian officials by US Business Community the hard fact is that all of us failed, none of us read Bill S. 651 line by line by line until now I read it while typing the entire Bill S. 651 into this post.

The clear hard fact is that nearly 80% of Canada’s GDP is trade with the US and Mulroney created NAFTA to make himself richer than Midas by demanding bribes from the US business community to do business in Canada, BUT the US Business Community was prevented from bribing Canadian Officials by the US “Foreign Corrupt Practices Act” so the US Chamber of Commerce wrote Bill S. 651 to amend the “Foreign Corrupt Practices Act”. Go to page 2 line 24 of the Bill for the effort to rename the Bill as something other than what it came to be called, “ The Bribery Bill” scroll back back to Dale Eisler Leader -Post column.

The hard, cold, cruel fact is that Mulroney’s NAFTA scam and the US Senate Bill S. 651 allowed the US Business Community to make “facilitation payments” to Canadian officials making Mulroney rich beyond belief. Google “mulroney schriber and airbus fraud” & “on the take stevie cameron”, note that Stevies best selling book imprinted the hard fact of Mulroney absolute corruption on Canadian voters minds to the point the Mulroney daughter, despite the fact she had a bankroll of over $800K to spend on the Ontario leadership compared to the three other candidates, Doug Ford, Christine Elliot and Tanya Granic Allen, who each had only +/- $100K, a 10th of Mulroneys leader ship fund, the Mulroney daughter lost.

Despite the money to spend, the Mulroney daughter came in last behind third candidate Tanya, who, while a lovely woman, is as crazy as two waltzing mice, her only platform plank was a promise to tear down every windmill in Ontario. Google “trump and mulroney” & “mulroney’s mad scramble” & “trump reflects america at the moment which has hardly anything to do with traditional values: neil macdonald” & “mulvaney, watchdogs bureau’s chief advises bankers on ways to curtail agency glenn thrush” review Neil and Glenn’s articles, note a Trump appointment advising Bankers on how to bypass US regulators and steal US taxpayer money, then google “trump links us border wall to nafta renegotiation, warns ‘mexico must stop drug, people flows’ david”.

Next, review Murray on Moe, google “moe should step lighter on tran mountain politics mandryk” & “notion that boyd was treated like anyone else hard to swallow mandryk”, then scroll back to the first google reference in the first paragraph, the Canadian business community is shrugging off the fact the big European banks are cutting finance of companies operating in Alberta’s Oil Sands, well good readers shrugging off that hard fact does not change my (Lee)s prediction, based on economic experts educated estimates, the Canadian dollar is headed to 59 cents US, review SUCKER PUNCHED-TWICE RURALZONING, and review
https://ruralzoning.wordpress.com.webstatsdomain.org. I am delighted, that drop in Canadian dollar value, increases assessed value of my Web site to $678,000,000.00 cdn or $.67B cdn, two-thirds of a Billion dollars.

Google “saskatchewan government seeks court of appeal ruling on federal carbon tax mckenna”. Review BLACKMAILED, BULLIED OR BRIBED?, note that Moe will win in Saskatchewan Court but lose at the Supreme Court and there can be no doubt whatsoever but that Stevie Cameron’s best selling book “On the Take” has finished Mulroney and books such as Luke Hardings “Collusion” and Jim Comey’s “A Higher Loyalty” will help Bob Mueller finish Trump; review post ETHICS NUTS? RURALZONING, note about half way in the post where I (Lee) refer to editing and publishing my thirty year old book HATE AND HORROR,

Response to t-jacks request in SARM SLAUGHTER: e-mail, or any private communication regarding Moe or Boyd official corruption is very dangerous. My hubris, combined with not knowing the SDOH Engineers maintained Contractor bribe demands by bribing or blackmailing the Federal Judges, BLACKMAILED, BULLIED OR BRIBED?, lead to my wife Lorna dying young from stress and our son Jason, missing his mother, committing suicide; review ODIOUS ENGR. EVIL for hard evidence of the SDOH Engineers threatening my life, the RCMP covered it up. Remember the SARM farmer slaughtered the First Nations kid as he dozed in his car. 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: