[We now have a NEW POST taking us up to February 1, 2015. This post will be retired from service.]
THE AUTUMN 2014 UPDATE
Dear Donors,
Together, we reached our goal of $100,000 to pay the November 1 legal bill 11 days ahead of schedule!
Thank you Canadian donors from coast to coast and our friends from around the world for your generosity, support and determination — and especially for not being afraid.
The name of our non-profit corporation is the “Alliance for the Defence of Canadian Sovereignty.”
We were very deliberate in including in our name the word “sovereignty”, which forms a cornerstone of our Claims against the Government of Canada.
Canada and dozens of other countries throughout the world gave into a bully because their “leaders” were afraid of harm caused by a trading “partner” — and they gave their sovereignties away.
Help us convince by example the Leaders and Governments of all countries worldwide that they should return their sovereignties back to their Peoples.
Please continue to support our lawsuit.
“Alone we can do so little. Together we can do so much.” (Helen Keller)
— Plaintiffs Ginny and Gwen, and the ADCS-ADSC team
Chers donateurs,
Ensemble, nous avons atteint notre but d’amasser 100 000 $ pour payer notre facture légale du 1er novembre 11 jours d’avance !
Un gros merci à vous, donateurs canadiens, et à nos amis de tous les coins du monde pour votre grande générosité, soutien et détermination. Et surtout pour votre courage.
Le nom de notre organisme sans but lucratif est « l’Alliance pour la défense de la souveraineté canadienne ».
Nous avons choisi délibérément le mot « souveraineté » puisqu’il constitue la base fondamentale de nos revendications envers le gouvernement du Canada.
Le Canada et des dizaines d’autres pays se sont pliés devant l’intimidation des États-Unis parce que leurs « leaders » ont eu peur des menaces de notre « partenaire » commercial. Ils ont donc vendu leur souveraineté à rabais.
Aidez-nous à convaincre les dirigeants et les gouvernements de tous ces pays qu’ils se doivent de remettre leur souveraineté à leurs peuples.
S’il vous plaît, continuez à soutenir notre cause.
« Seuls, nous pouvons faire si peu. Ensemble, nous pouvons faire beaucoup. » (Helen Keller)
— Ginny, Gwen et toute l’équipe de l’ADCS-ADSC
DONATE to www.adcs-adsc.ca (ADSC en français).
@omgheestillanamerican – That is a very personal and compelling story. Thank you for that. I agree that there must be enough anger to overcome fear in so many situations. It should not be suppressed or denied but used to fight injustice. This is the focussed anger we are talking about here, not scatter-shot unfocussed anger.
Dash,
My son has had anger issues — he has learned that anger itself is OK. He learns (time and again) how to deal with that anger. I believe the Challenge and all the “angry” people who stand up to the plate to be plaintiffs are dealing with their anger in the most responsible way. We have been ignored by the US and Canadian (and other) governments. This is the positive way to deal with our anger (if grossly unfair result that we have to pay for fighting the rights that have been taken from us by hiring legal representation and however it long it will take in courts of law).
Unequivocally, YES, very angry plaintiffs are needed for this Challenge.
http://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/help-information/mental-health-a-z/A/anger/
@omgheestillanamerican
It’s one thing to say that anger can be a powerful motivator in giving people the courage to speak up.
It’s quite another thing to say that people should remain silent unless they are angry. By restricting the set of plaintiffs to those who are angry, it comes across as trying to silence those who are not angry–and I don’t agree with that perspective.
@calgary411
“Anger in itself is neither good nor bad”
So why restrict yourselves only to angry plaintiffs then?
@calgary411
“People with a long term anger problem tend to be poor at making decisions, take more risks than other people and are more likely to have a substance misuse problem.”
In other words, from the perspective of this lawsuit, anger presents both some advantages and some disadvantages. The risk taking is definitely necessary but the poor decision making could be a problem. So–again–who not include a mix of people–some very angry and some not so much–so they can reinforce each other’s strengths?
@calgary411
BTW I had a close friend of mine who was in therapy. His psychiatrist was always encouraging him to express his anger more. I guess in the end he did–got so angry about his life that he ended up jumping off the Bloor Viaduct. I suppose in a way people are right that it sometimes takes anger to effectuate real change–his suicide was one of the ones leading to the decision to build a suicide barrier on that bridge. But I’d prefer it if he were still around.
If non-angry people are willing and interested in being plaintiffs, please contact Stephen.
We are an equal opportunity Challenge. We do not discriminate against non-angry plaintiffs.
Just got back from the post office where I tried to purchase a money order for my donation. Unfortunately, as another Brocker discovered, the wording “Alliance for the Defence of Canadian Sovereignty” is too long for the Post Office’s money order machine. The post office employee suggested I try a bank instead. Does anyone know if a bank, where I do not have an account, will request to see my I.D. . . . or perhaps I should just send cash as Polly did?
@OMG
Unlike many of us who are experiencing victimization for the first time in our lives, you’ve had to deal with it at a very young age when you were less equipped to deal with it. I admire your strength and how you sought vindication and found it on your own terms.
I’m afraid that both the US and Canadian governments will do whatever they can to brand our plaintiffs as criminals, or even terrorists – that is unless the optics are such as to make the US look as bad as they did bombing the hell out of innocent Vietnamese villagers.
Sasha. You can put “ADCS-ADSC” It has worked for others. Too bad about the extra trip.
Sasha, The very same thing happened to me this morning at the Post Office, so I went to the bank and just got a money order.
Thanks KalC. In “ADCS-ADSC”, what does “ADSC” stand for . . . is it French for “ADCS”?
EcstaticCanadian, did you go to a bank where you already have an account . . . and did they ask for ID?
@Dash,
Your perspective and question have been acknowledged. Perhaps it would be helpful if you can describe what best motivates you deeply enough to support this lengthy and very burdensome quest.
I believe that among the others who have tried to illustrate different angles on this in response to your question, this one by Gwen is very like this one – she cites not only a historic precedent, but a successful and just fight in Canada. As she noted;
“…..The Famous Five fought for the rights of all women in Canada. I am sure the majority of women wanted their fundamental human rights recognized but were either too afraid to come forward or they were complacent about it. The five angry women represented ALL women in Canada…..”.
I doubt that the fight for equal rights in the US, or the fight for the vote by suffragettes, or against discrimination of any kind, or any other social movement has been one in which there has been no fire or passion inside in order to sustain people over the long haul. The anger at the level of injustice was channeled into productive and rational planning and action, but I would be very surprised if it was common for those involved to feel dispassion and detachment.
@Sasha – yes ADSC stands for L’Alliance Pour la Défense de la Souveraineté Canadienne (no “L” for simplicity’s sake. However, you may just put ADCS if you like rather than the hyphenated acronym.
From “google” and it has always been common sense to me —
I watched a video the other day of a postal worker taking packages out of the back of his truck and pitching them over into a ravine. Didn’t want to deliver them?????
Sasha, Yes I did go to my bank, I had cash so they did not take it out of my account or ask for my bank card.
“So–again–who not include a mix of people–some very angry and some not so much–so they can reinforce each other’s strengths?”
Metal can only be bent when it is hot.
@Dash
Being angry does not make you a screaming lunatic.
Being angry makes you want to invest in the cause, it makes you read up on the latest news, it makes you meet with your MP and inform those around you. It makes you want to make things right, whatever that means to you.
I find passive aggressive people are very good at taking on Goliath. They’re basically people who are angry but have been trained to hide their anger and express it in ways that society finds acceptable.
Any passive aggressive people out there? : )
Bringing people who are not angry to this fight is like bringing a knife to a gun fight. The Canadian government has already proved to us that this fight is going to get extremely vicious. You don’t put in a light weight to fight a heavy weight and not expect him to get creamed in the first round.
There is such a thing as righteous anger which when channeled in a positive and constructive manner is useful and healthy to motivate. The best revenge is living well. Living well, means being able to calmly stand up for yourself. Assertiveness is not aggression turned inward or outward. It’s simple.
However, if you do not have any anger over this then that is perfectly fine. You’ve come to terms with it, yet it is unjust and being unjust should still be addressed constructively. At the very least Canadians should be alarmed and I don’t know that you need to have been yet caught directly in this web. The argument is that the government has violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Any Canadian who finds that a wrong should join in this law suit.
Dash,
I see litigation as a positive response to deal with our anger — the anger at the absurdity of this even happening in the first place, our governments not “hearing” what we are saying, perhaps even the laughing at my family’s situation by Canadian Conservative MPs, saying ‘just renounce’, showing their ignorance and not taking the time to understand that particular point that was being made or the evidence presented by the many expert witnesses. It’s not that the plaintiffs are going to be ‘out of control’ (the wrong way to express anger) in their anger as plaintiffs. It is that they are doing something about their anger for themselves and for others who will hang back and let themselves be steamrolled by all of this.
A mix of people, angry or not, could be very appropriate. I don’t quite understand what would be their motive to go to court if they are not victims of this with some degree of anger?
We see over and over again how people are affected by what is happening to them. They have lost control of their lives — all they have planned for is now orchestrated by government. They lose hope; they turn their grief and their anger inward and destroy their health and sometimes themselves. I’ve talked to a couple of Brockers offline that have been to that point.
We lose too many in this world to suicide — my brother was one of them. It was not that he was told to express his anger. It was likely that he was not taught coping methods, how to express that anger in an appropriate way. It was not my brother or your friend failed in expressing their anger — the failure was someone who couldn’t / didn’t take the time, for whatever reason — lack of dollars by the patient for what was needed, lack of time, lack of caring, lack of professionals who have the required skills to deal effectively with a person in suicidal state? I don’t know. And, not everyone, unfortunately is saved from themselves or their demons. I would love to still have my brother around. I look for him in every homeless person I see; in every person who fell through the cracks of our societies.
What I would like to see is resolved anger for one heck of a lot of *US Persons* living abroad who feel they are no longer in control. It is my belief that litigation is our only avenue to that. We’ve tried communicating with our government representatives; we’ve tried to have the media really take hold of this issue — all to no avail. It is hard to get others interested in our plight when the media, for whatever reason, does not communicate what is happening — rights being taken away in the search of US residents who are sending their untaxed monies offshore (and are likely long gone safe). The net is wide; the net is immoral. *US Persons Abroad* who are clued into what is happening are angry. We can (or at least try with our last breaths) to make a positive difference through the courts — for us and for our children and for the very countries who don’t realize how they are being exploited as well. That does include the US and the blow-back that will take place there.
Just my opinion — and, I know, it’s a strong and angry one.
We as a couple are discussing being plaintiffs as well. I relinquished but, this has affected our family in many, many harmful ways. We have a son the U.S. may decide is American though he himself says he is not and is only Canadian. This is causing people to question their own identity as Canadian citizens for the first time in their lives. No other immigrants are being made to do this nor are their born in Canada children.
We are concerned as well as we have a lot of family over the border and I do not wish to after all we have already been through be put at anymore risk of not being able to see them again. Some are too old to travel and some are not going to have many more years with us. Having said that I would like to know if any other plaintiffs in previous law suits have had any other negative impacts other than having their names public. So far, it doesn’t seem I can find information on such and so I am leaning towards going ahead to be a plaintiff. One idea we had is that only my spouse will be a plaintiff therefore I would not be subjected to any banning in the U.S. as my name will not appear. Just an option and not decided on yet.
I DO think many Canadians not directly in the line of fire should be plaintiffs because this violates the Charter. Any Charter violations by this government affect EVERY Canadian and on that basis they should oppose this in court not just those of us the U.S. tries to claim it owns.
Off topic, but related, does anyone know when the video of the Toronto CBT debate is going to be made public?
Or is ACA planning on keeping it censored from the public forever?
OMG,
Thanks for your story. As horrible as the facts are, you eventually took the bull by the horns and reclaimed what you could of your life and your dignity. You are a strong woman!!
What you’ve told us is an example of the abusive cycles so many never get out of. This *US Person Abroad* citizenship-based taxation theft of what we have for ourselves and our families is nothing but another form of abuse. Abuse should never be tolerated, but it’s hard to take those steps. When it is ignored rather than faced head on, it destroys us. That applies to abuse in a family, in a school, over the internet, in the workplace or abuse from the US and our own governments. It is abuse of the same formula and the same results either in denial and ignoring it all or facing it head on and standing up for ourselves.
We are given very precious lives to either squander or to live to the fullest we can. Sometimes it will take our anger to get out of a deep rut of an abusive situation, back into the cleansing sunlight where we can be contributing persons — contributing to ourselves, to our families, to our communities and to our countries. There are many resources for victims of abuse. Isaac Brock Society is one of them and so is Maple Sandbox. So is our taking the bull by the horns in our efforts to get this before the courts.
Confronting the bully and the abuser: support http://www.adcs-adsc.ca/.