Monday, April 25, 2016

Seeding Prosperity - Why it matters


Why seeding prosperity is important, it is what facilitates life. Prosperous people are absent the need of government support, they enjoy better health and they contribute to more prosperity – prosperity contributing to more prosperity is a virtuous cycle. This is in no way a right or left with issue, this is about igniting the economy and ensuring an ever expanding source of fuel. The more people who can access capital and apply their respective talents and garner wealth as a result, the more people will be drawn upward; in sociology they call this “transcendence”. Why is transcendence important, because in the long term without it society stagnates, becomes decadent, and ends – in the short term it drives growth. The cycle is held up in perfect resolution with just a cursory review of history.


There are a number of contributing factors that inhibit transcendence. The most prominent of which is the inclination for established players in any given economic environment (market) to resist encroachment on their sources of revenue, this in combination with entrenched franchises is challenging. The concern is that by generally seeding prosperity that incumbents “wealth opportunity” will wane and with it influence. The opposite is true however, what will happen is that the rising tide will raise all boats, big and small, and as for influence, there will be a society wide buy in on the merits of the system.
There is a propensity for institutions to become tools of incumbent players, so the bigger institutions get the more concentrated influence over institutions becomes – government institutions are no exception, in fact they may be the worst. This comment is in no way a rebuke of government employees, it is a statement on the realities of institutional inertia – institutional inertia is a governmental, private sector and civil society reality. This is a phenomenon that is a product of the natural inclinations of people, which is exacerbated by the linear concentration of influencers associated with hierarchy – this is as mechanical as a lever and fulcrum and as inevitable as the sun rise. It will happen unless we take steps to ensure that we introduce disruptive processes into the phenomenon that is institutional inertia and the resulting reality of “social” or “economic” concentration. The joy in facilitating disruption and effecting transcendence is that you make everyone wealthier – in a prosperous society there is no requirement to tax wealth and no need for initiative killing redistributionist policy. 

In British Columbia, we use to have hundreds schools systems, now we have one, we use to have hundreds of medical systems, now we have one, we use to have hundreds of auto insurance providers, now we have one.  Due to this reality there has been massive concentration in political influence and the majority of people are outside the political process. Big Business and Big Labour hold sway in the political process in Canada, the majority made up of small business, artisans, farmers and other independents are in effect unrepresented; what’s worse however, is that there are no real political imperatives for policy for the maintenance and enhancement of the most valuable and dynamic sector of society.
We have to find ways to seed the economy, to facilitate the grassroots to drive growth. The first thing we must do is provision the environment that promotes action and wherever possible and mitigates the risk associated with the natural heuristics that occur in a market economy and or the rigours associated with *“creative destruction” – a positive phenomenon that can result in short term human discomfort. In a safe place people try things, some work and some fail, the more that happens the better for us all. So John Turner’s slogan, "free enterprise with a heart" sums perfectly what needs to be in place. The cost of failure low, the rewards for success high, in this sweet spot the mountain of technology that is now latent will come to action; the key is to make it happen here in British Columbia.


*Creative Destruction being the process of disruption ending one solution for another and or the    process where the market fails to accept an offering simultaneously accessing the market with a          competing offering

CLICK BELOW - More Thoughts on the Subject

Friday, April 22, 2016

Inverine Marine - Investment Opportunity FB


EARLY FUNDING INCENTIVE 20%, VENTURE CAPITAL TAX CREDIT 30%
CAN QUALIFY FOR SELF DIRECTED R.R.S.P.
(CHECK WITH YOUR ACCOUNTANT & OTHER ADVISORS)  
“A corporation engaged in the development and operation of a destination tourist resort, a tourist attraction or tourist service, and/or a corporation involved in manufacturing and processing qualifies for the British Columbia Venture Capital Tax Credit Program.  The issuer has yet to apply to the program. The issuer will apply for registration in the program after the appropriate corporation is formed, prior to receiving capital and as soon as it is appropriate. It is mentioned here to bring awareness of this program as an anticipated element in this investment opportunity”
There is a complete prospectus for interested parties, please contact us - 250-819-6950 

This offering is atypical due the application of innovative processes, with established elements; so the risk associated with innovations is minimized. The boat designs are innovative and tailored to the environment and people they are intended for. The Business model is innovative in it approach and scale. The confluence of these two ventures was a product of design rather that happenstance. The market is there and ineffectively served, Inverine Marine is designed to aggressively take market share with a cohesive offering in a market characterized by dispersed and varied actors. Most importantly to investors, is that the build-out is designed to ensure that the greatest part of the invested capital is supported by marketable assets in the form of watercraft. I am excited about this business and confident in a positive outcome in it's development. Please call and allow me to brief you completely on a lucrative business ideally suited to contemporary times.

Capital Introduction

I sent out a project profile and there seems to be interest. My impression is that people want me to provide a structure. This opportunity gives abundant avenues to capital reward. With input from financial industry professionals, government officials and potential participants as of April 5, 2016 I have reconfigured the offering slightly to better suite the various interests at play.
  
The overall capital requirement to purchase assets to satisfy the stated mission beyond seed capital is $19 Million over a five year period. Operational excess cash is projected contribute to the capital requirements over a five year period; the "min" 2nd round offering has been determined to be $10 Million, the optimum and "max" 2nd round offering is $19 Million.  

The critical capital requirement now, is funding the design and build of the Tow Sawyer boat and the subsequent construction of 10 complete boats (the test pod), the 1st Round of $1 Million covers this process; which results in assets with a value at par with capital invested. Given that the proponent is doing the manufacturing as an independent company, an estimated total of $240,000 (8 manufactured boats at $30,000 per unit) of the borrowed funds will be provided by the proponent "in kind" as a shareholder loan to be converted at a later date to shares; this amount can be considered the proponent's contribution to secure seed capital as it is in effect an unsecured loan the converts to shares, holding the conversion contingent on the completion of the 2nd round. 


To some degree this request is for “bridging capital”, in that financing is going to the creation of a functional asset with market value, at the point the assets are completed and the test pod deployed the bridging function ends and some patients is required as the transition to scale takes place. This offers security in the fact that the seed capital is secured by a completed asset inventory. The cost of acquisition of intellectual capacity has been provided by the proponent in the form of services rendered.

The proponent suggests that a standard limited company is formed and shares are issued at $1000 value.  The reason this structure is offered is, it presents an easy vehicle by which to access the BC Venture Capital program, so the first $5 Million in the acquisition of assets for operations would enjoy a substantive tax credit. 

Whereas, it is the intention of the proponent to oversee the creation and operations of the Tourism Company on behalf of the “group” and garner agreeable remunerations for efforts expended. The proponent intends also to hold the manufacturing component of the proposal as his proprietorship; assuming this finds agreement with the “group”; this offers a means to generate revenue for the proponent that is aligned with the overall interest of the venture – appropriate declaration and oversight of price of boats would be welcomed and encouraged of course. It is estimated that at the close of capital acquisition the proponent, through providing boat inventory at a percentage below market and will have contributed $5.4 Million to the asset build out and will hold that as equity along with other shareholder contribution. 

1st Round Capital Reward
In designing a reward for seed capital one needs to recognize that the company in a nascent state, on the one hand and one should avoid the later entry capital from being unduly taxed. The 1st Round Capital will be rewarded at a rate of 20% on the first year of use, contingent on 2nd Round "min" being achieved PLUS, the venture capital program garnering a tax credit of 30%. The 2nd Round capital will only be taxed between (min $10 mil.) 2% or (max $19 mil.) Approximately 1%. 

It is the proponent’s preference to fully capitalize the company as early as possible, so the capital improvements can be scheduled, pursued at scale and managed efficiently as possible. There are massive savings in buying 50 engines relative to purchasing them on a 1 off basis, for example. It is the sense of the proponent also, that a rapid build out supported by aggressive marketing is the best way to achieve critical mass in the market and by extension profitability. 



Use of Funds and Capital Requirements 

Financial Summary











Tuesday, April 19, 2016

Death with Dignity - Process Matters

DEATH WITH DIGNITY is a right, that should never have had to have been granted, but a right that is inherent in our humanness as determined by our ability to reason.  The Charter of Rights and Freedoms holds as equity millions of lives and more than 300 years of toil, it is a beautiful document, it should be respected.


The following is discourse on the functionality of Bill 14 legislation that would ensure people can exercise choice AND would ensure that DEATH WITH DIGNITY stays entirely in the hands of people. Our country is institutionalized and people tend to forget that Canada is in no way collective citizenry, but rather, a collection of individuals. Thankfully now, with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, individuals have choice and the government is compelled to provide it absent any influence other than to administer “interface” between people.
   
The critical element in this legislation is that functionality builds a firewall between the state administering “treatment” and the choice to access DEATH WITH DIGNITY measures. The present DEATH WITH DIGNITY process as posited by Bill C 14 is dangerous in the extreme.


“PRIOR DIRECTIVES” are essential in administering DEATH WITH DIGNITY measures, while provisions are required for persons absent PRIOR DIRECTIVES; PRIOR DIRECTIVES need to be a part of the mix.  There are basically three management categories for people wanting DEATH WITH DIGNITY measures; PRIOR DIRECTIVE in place (no competency or competency in place), No PRIOR DIRECTIVE in place with competency and No PRIOR DIRECTIVE absent competency. 

Click here: MY PROFESSIONAL WEBSITE

PRIOR DIRECTIVES need to be managed in a manner that informs medical personnel of DEATH WITH DIGNITY triggers and measures, in and for actuation, in a standardized way and the fact that there is Prior Directive in place (as opposed to the "document" itself) and must be registered centrally.  In this way, if an event that removes mental competency occurs there are means in place to have people’s wishes attended to and all relevant family and or designates informed.

The Registry would contain the fact there is a PRIOR DIRECTIVE in place and contacts provided by the patient at the time they registered.  This facilitates strict privacy requirements AND allows for circumstance where people arrive to care absent mental competency to be cared for as they've directed.  The registry would be managed by the respective jurisdiction or it could be nationwide and managed co-cooperatively if various jurisdictions if agreed.

People with PRIOR DIRECTIVES would have no requirement for court proceeding as the process precludes; an immediate assessment of choice, the application of institutional maleficence or other duress.

Click here: MY PROFESSIONAL WEBSITE

In the event a person wants to access DEATH WITH DIGNITY measures absent a Prior Directive and they have mental competency, then all the processes laid out in the present iteration of the legislation must be actuated PLUS, an expedited court process. The aforementioned registry could also serve as a gazette to notify people of pending court processes and requirements to notify next of kin must be in place. A special process measured in hours would require that a court process be initiated, announced via the gazette, reasonable effort to notify next of kin is made, opportunity for intervenors is provisioned and finally the order is provided. This order process would be similar to the “bench order process”: very quickly executed, no hearing required, unless next of kin offered objection or someone applied for intervenor status.

In the event that an individual enters care absent mental competency and absent a PRIOR DIRECTIVE, then all medically necessary measures to sustain life must be undertaken.

It must be emphasized that under no circumstance can state representatives of any kind in any number authorize the ending of life. The provision for two doctors’ opinions absent judicial oversight is sheer folly and obscenely irresponsible from the perspective of vulnerable populations and the possibility of measures being misdirected in some way.

Click here: MY PROFESSIONAL WEBSITE

People have the right to choose their own course in life and in managing life’s end, the state's only role here is to ensure that people’s wishes are attended to and facilitated, that interface between conflicted parties is managed and that the vulnerable are protected. Bill C 14 is failing on all counts. 

Friday, April 15, 2016

Death with Dignity - BILL C 14 Change Please

It is fundamental that an individual holds domain over mind and body, this is the paramount concern in drafting legislation of this sort and this legislation is failing in this concern. The recent attempt at DEATH WITH DIGNITY legislation is weak to say the least, it institutionalizes a personal choice, it makes arbitrary the decision to actuate “treatment”, it fails to attend to legal review, it reduces the safety to the individual that exists now, it seems to preclude the right to offer written authority prior to events of ill health taking place and perhaps worse, it fails to subordinate itself to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


Please Note: I am waiting some verification - this a 1st DRAFT

Link to Bill C 14
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=8183660

All legislation exists under the umbrella of Section 7 of the charter and all legal concern contemplates its application from the perspective of “reasonable” state intrusion on section 7 rights. The fundamental under pinning here is CHOICE. To be at liberty, is to be able to choose and when one chooses something absent harm to others, the state has no authority to intervene and where possible the state should facilitate a chosen action. There are moral concerns of a specific nature being forwarded in the resistance to this legislation and the manner in which choice to DEATH WITH DIGNITY has been “watered down” here. This represents gross intrusion on many fundamental rights that support an individual’s autonomy.

CLICK HERE: Letter to Peter MacKay, past Justice Minister

DEATH WITH DIGNITY is in no way a medical decision, the decision to die is a profoundly personal one, once the choice to seek medical aid to die is made, the medical decisions are in the actuation of the act – how, where when. The only impediment to the choice to end one’s life should be the presence or absent of mental competency as determined by standardized legal tests for mental competency and under the presumption of competency.  Rational people choose to live, unless affected by a complex of factors to choose to die; the perception of legitimacy of those factors as a rationale for choosing to die is a profoundly personal one and one that the state has no place to influence.  So the state putting parameters on the reasons for seeking DEATH WITH DIGNITY breaches sections 7 rights. Medical personnel should be acting on the request of a rational person as opposed to their perception of reality. The determination of grievous and irremediable (medical) condition should lie with the person whose choice it is to make and if this was the case, the term of the condition would have no relevance.  

Click here: MY PROFESSIONAL WEBSITE

With this legislation the state  imposes itself once again on the rights of parents to manage their children’s lives in accord with their specific culture and values. There has been an increasing propensity for the state to encroach on parental choice, an offensive trend. Who better to manage the fate of a child than the ones that love them most?

Suicide, as it is widely perceived, as an aggrieved person taking their own life at a moment of lost perspective, is by any measure an unreasonable act and should in no way be associated with a person seeking DEATH WITH DIGNITY measures.

Click here: MY PROFESSIONAL WEBSITE

The only reason that vulnerable people are put a risk with DEATH WITH DIGNITY legislation is if you institutionalize the process. My making a choice to seek solution to use DEATH WITH DIGNITY measures, in no way imposes on another human being; save the emotional effect on love ones. When you place decision making in the hands of the state, then you expose vulnerable people to risk. The only barrier now to medically induced death in practice, is the opinion of two doctors, there is an absence of judicial review – this is a very dangerous circumstance. There should be an expedited court functionality to facilitate rapid judicial review and opportunity of intervenors to offer weight to court deliberations in circumstances where mental competence is in question. In this way, if the event is being exercised against the interests of the person of subject, third parties can seek intervenor status – that is to say “trusties” may be authorizing medically induced death in circumstance where information is incomplete. If you choose to regulate this choice with law, you require LEGAL process to manage it, if you’re going to insist this is an institutional decision then you require LEGAL process to manage it – two people saying it’s okay is insufficient and it is arbitrary. It is better to insist that the “system” is required to respond to clearly stated wishes related to DEATH WITH DIGNITY and leave all legal and moral onus on the individual.  

It is essential that people be given right for prior directives or better, that prior directives are made mandatory and can be confirmed by family or designates. In doing so the state is barred from in anyway influencing the use of medically assisted death. The provisions provided make no mention of designates or family, it is conceivable, or functionally possible, that medically induced death could be implemented entirely by state actors or strangers, by the co-operative action of four or five people with no judicial review. There can never be a circumstance where a state actor or collection of state actors can facilitate the death of a citizen FOR ANY REASON, humane or otherwise, and most certainly never absent judicial review.

Authorization to for DEATH WITH DIGNITY measures should come from the person affected and no government institution should be provisioned the capability to make that decision on someone’s behalf – functionally it could happen under this law. This being an essential part of crafting this legislation, it follows that it be mandatory that people provision documented directives in advance with their verification at the time of actuation OR verification by a designate; certainly absent advanced directives, judicial review becomes critically important.

The passion that I feel in regard to this issue is driven in large measure by my experience with my own mother, she expressed clearly to me on numerous occasions what her wishes were, she had a stroke and was incapable providing consent – this legislation would force me through the same scenario as I went through, having to let her dehydrate; a most inhuman circumstance.

I believe in Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, this government has forgotten that it has historical equity in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and has failed to subordinate itself to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and all our ability to hold domain over mind and body is diminished because of this.

Click here: DEATH WITH DIGNITY - PROCESS

Click here: MY PROFESSIONAL WEBSITE

GENERAL COMMENT ON LAW AND A DISTURBING TREND

"It is the case that in the practice of law, that the minutia tends to take us away from justice, the big picture. In Canada we have a circumstance in play that has the erosion of fundamental law occurring at an alarming rate. If you have a deep belief in common law and its fundamental tenets that are the foundation of our system, then you will share my concern with respect to this disturbing trend, a trend that has expediency trump due process. There are a number of examples of this trend throughout the system, no more glaring however, than the BC Mental Health Act. An act that has drifted away from fundamental law, and that was drafted and is now administered is a manner that flouts common law traditions and the charter. We need to be very wary of the “tribunalisation” of legal process, as it has been applied here a number of ills have emerged; not the least of which is the stagnation of statute absent exposure to court process and alterations due to its administration in the face of precedent effect. We need to ensure that people have the benefit of the “full due process” that courts provide. We need to protect evidentiary process. We need to ensure that the standard of review is commensurate with state sanction. We need clarity in law. We need the absence of arbitrariness. " Bill C14 as written puts far to much power in the hands of medical professions and negates due process - in much the same way the BC Mental Health Act. does. 

Friday, April 8, 2016

Inverine Marine - Offering Summary

EARLY FUNDING INCENTIVE 20%, VENTURE CAPITAL TAX CREDIT 30%
CAN QUALIFY FOR SELF DIRECTED R.R.S.P.
(CHECK WITH YOUR ACCOUNTANT & OTHER ADVISORS)  

“A corporation engaged in the development and operation of a destination tourist resort, a tourist attraction or tourist service, and/or a corporation involved in manufacturing and processing qualifies for the British Columbia Venture Capital Tax Credit Program.  The issuer has yet to apply to the program. The issuer will apply for registration in the program after the appropriate corporation is formed, prior to receiving capital and as soon as it is appropriate. It is mentioned here to bring awareness of this program as an anticipated element in this investment opportunity”
There is a complete prospectus for interested parties, please contact us - 250-819-6950 

This offering is atypical due the application of innovative processes, with established elements; so the risk associated with innovations is minimized. The boat designs are innovative and tailored to the environment and people they are intended for. The Business model is innovative in it approach and scale. The confluence of these two ventures was a product of design rather that happenstance. The market is there and ineffectively served, Inverine Marine is designed to aggressively take market share with a cohesive offering in a market characterized by dispersed and varied actors. Most importantly to investors, is that the build-out is designed to ensure that the greatest part of the invested capital is supported by marketable assets in the form of watercraft. I am excited about this business and confident in a positive outcome in it's development. Please call and allow me to brief you completely on a lucrative business ideally suited to contemporary times.

Capital Introduction

I sent out a project profile and there seems to be interest. My impression is that people want me to provide a structure. This opportunity gives abundant avenues to capital reward. With input from financial industry professionals, government officials and potential participants as of April 5, 2016 I have reconfigured the offering slightly to better suite the various interests at play.
  
The overall capital requirement to purchase assets to satisfy the stated mission beyond seed capital is $19 Million over a five year period. Operational excess cash is projected contribute to the capital requirements over a five year period; the "min" 2nd round offering has been determined to be $10 Million, the optimum and "max" 2nd round offering is $19 Million.  

The critical capital requirement now, is funding the design and build of the Tow Sawyer boat and the subsequent construction of 10 complete boats (the test pod), the 1st Round of $1 Million covers this process; which results in assets with a value at par with capital invested. Given that the proponent is doing the manufacturing as an independent company, an estimated total of $240,000 (8 manufactured boats at $30,000 per unit) of the borrowed funds will be provided by the proponent "in kind" as a shareholder loan to be converted at a later date to shares; this amount can be considered the proponent's contribution to secure seed capital as it is in effect an unsecured loan the converts to shares, holding the conversion contingent on the completion of the 2nd round. 


To some degree this request is for “bridging capital”, in that financing is going to the creation of a functional asset with market value, at the point the assets are completed and the test pod deployed the bridging function ends and some patients is required as the transition to scale takes place. This offers security in the fact that the seed capital is secured by a completed asset inventory. The cost of acquisition of intellectual capacity has been provided by the proponent in the form of services rendered.

The proponent suggests that a standard limited company is formed and shares are issued at $1000 value.  The reason this structure is offered is, it presents an easy vehicle by which to access the BC Venture Capital program, so the first $5 Million in the acquisition of assets for operations would enjoy a substantive tax credit. 

Whereas, it is the intention of the proponent to oversee the creation and operations of the Tourism Company on behalf of the “group” and garner agreeable remunerations for efforts expended. The proponent intends also to hold the manufacturing component of the proposal as his proprietorship; assuming this finds agreement with the “group”; this offers a means to generate revenue for the proponent that is aligned with the overall interest of the venture – appropriate declaration and oversight of price of boats would be welcomed and encouraged of course. It is estimated that at the close of capital acquisition the proponent, through providing boat inventory at a percentage below market and will have contributed $5.4 Million to the asset build out and will hold that as equity along with other shareholder contribution. 

1st Round Capital Reward
In designing a reward for seed capital one needs to recognize that the company in a nascent state, on the one hand and one should avoid the later entry capital from being unduly taxed. The 1st Round Capital will be rewarded at a rate of 20% on the first year of use, contingent on 2nd Round "min" being achieved PLUS, the venture capital program garnering a tax credit of 30%. The 2nd Round capital will only be taxed between (min $10 mil.) 2% or (max $19 mil.) Approximately 1%. 

It is the proponent’s preference to fully capitalize the company as early as possible, so the capital improvements can be scheduled, pursued at scale and managed efficiently as possible. There are massive savings in buying 50 engines relative to purchasing them on a 1 off basis, for example. It is the sense of the proponent also, that a rapid build out supported by aggressive marketing is the best way to achieve critical mass in the market and by extension profitability. 



Use of Funds and Capital Requirements 

Financial Summary