Do you have any suggestions for Mr. Arvay?
You know that with the donations Lynne Swanson and Stephen Kish have retained Joe Arvay to provide a legal opinion on the constitutionality of the proposed FATCA IGA legislation.
@George recently made the good suggestion we are now following up on:
Could you start a thread where Brockers could make comments or observations which you could then hand to the Attorney?
The purpose of this thread is to receive those comments you feel might be helpful to Joe Arvay. In my own experience with lawyers, suggestions from people who have been harmed have made the difference.
If you make your suggestions by March 11, Lynne will coordinate and synthesize them and forward them to Mr. Arvay.
Also, if you are uncomfortable in providing comments publicly, you can email me at canadiancharterchallengefund@gmail.com If you do, please don’t use your real name.
Thanks
I’m sure this question has already been asked but I can’t find the answer. If Mr Arvay believes we have a case and we go forward will FATCA have to be put on hold until a decision is reached?
@Char,
I don’t know the answer but suspect that FATCA-IGA implementation could still go forward unless a court is somehow convinced on the basis of the arguments to issue an injunction. Mr. Arvay will advise on this option.
My dream is that our threat to proceed to a formal Charter challenge will convince enough Tories to just say no and to defend Canada.
@Char
Counsel could advise seeking an injunction to hold the implementing legislation until the case is heard. The argument could include the widespread and irreparable harm and damage caused by the legislation.
Banks and other Financial Institutions could still CHOOSE to follow the foreign law FATCA, but they would do so at risk of violating Canadian law.
So part of the strategy is to give doubt to the politicians, do they want to be on record voting for something that may in the end be declared unconstitutional.
So they shredded the Charter to bail out the banks.
They did not stand up for Canada, image of flag…….beautiful bubbling brooks…..
The comments of the Revenue Minister in her letter noted on this thread (http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2014/03/10/canadas-conservative-government-party-line-not-all-canadians-shall-have-the-same-rights-we-serve-only-the-banks/#comments) serve as an admission that the agreement was signed under a threat or duress. Does that invalidate the contract? Coerced agreements are not agreements at all.
@Only,
It smells like coercion to me too. Mr. Arvay will have the answer for us.
I once tried a somewhat similar argument on a group of politically savvy U.S residents. I asked them whether Congresspeople are allowed to propose bills that they know contradict the U.S Constitution.
I was laughed at and told simply: “But they do this all the time!”
My comments are the result of frustration from two things. First, the reluctance of governments to stand up to this FATCA disgrace. Not a voice, a raised hand, no discussion – just total capitulation to US Treasury demand. Pathetics like Flaherty claim nothing can be done and we must fold but this is not the case. Similar actions/sanctions can be taken against the US for every dollar penalty. Canada has a golden chance to stop this immoral POS law and strike it down. But we have too many spineless basterds in government who cry uncle at the slightest arm twisting.
Second, I am frustrated by the inability of any organized group representing American expats like ACA to be able to deliver on one little hiccup,
to be that fly in ointment , a pimple on the ass, ANYTHING to keep this
F____ king juggernaut going on its present course. All I hear is talk, pats on back, encouragement.
As I said before I beg, pray to see something of substance that asses like Flaherty will be forced to backtrack on their sheepish submissive actions that have betrayed millions.
I am one voice, one opinion with little to no power to change in itself.
But am willing to do anything for just the chance to see political basterds like Flaherty squirm like the amoebic single-celled parasites they are.
Beth Thomas,
We each are only one voice, one opinion with little to no power, but together we gain strength. What have you done as an individual AND what will you commit to do with the rest of us to make the fight more powerful?
We don’t accomplish anything by standing in our own little corner and cursing the beast. Actions will make you feel like you are doing something against this — and each thing you do will make you and us stronger.
The IGA treats Canadians with clinging US nationality differently. This is because of the place of birth attribute.
If a person has a parent with a US place of birth, that person though a US citizen would be treated differently than a person who had a parent with a US place of birth.
There are multiple permutations that can be generated further.
It seems the ONLY legitimite question to ask in an IGA would be Citizenship.
While I was writing a comment on another thread I thought of a legal phrase which describes my opinion of the signing of the FATCA IGA. It is “breach of trust”. When I became a Canadian citizen 40 years ago I did so with the natural understanding that I was going to be able to expect the same treatment by the government as any other Canadian whether native-born or with origins elsewhere. Part of that natural understanding was that I would be able to expect the protection of my government should it ever be required. For 40 years I have trusted this country and had no reason to fear that that trust was misplaced … until February 5, 2014.
In as much as FATCA exposes my financial affairs to the rapacious tax practices of a foreign country, it is my opinion that by signing the FATCA IGA the Canadian government has committed a breach of trust.