[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).
Maybe we should be more than angry. Maybe we should be enraged at the US and Canadian government’s bloody-mindedness.
With regard to anger, Atticusincanada reminded of righteous anger which dips into theology.
The theology of righteous anger will likely clarify what is meant here that being angry plaintiffs.
So to help clarify I did a google search of theology righteous anger and the first link that made sense is presented below.
You do not need to be a person of faith to “get the idea.” But as always if you are not of faith, maybe these things will cause you to at least inquire. 🙂
Unbridled Anger is sinful, it is wrong, it is uncontrolled and will accomplish nothing.
Controlled/Directed Anger can be powerful and accomplish great things especially if it is directed along matters of righteousness. Righteous anger is not sinful.
Peace.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/biblestudies/bible-answers/theology/righteousanger.html
@Bubblebustin,
Some elderly person with an undocumented relinquishment is going to have a heart attack when they find out their bank is going to send all their financial information to CRA who will send it to the IRS. If you want to see enraged just reach out to that person’s children.
So far we’ve seen alot of anger but not too much rage. It’s coming.
@omgheestillanamerican, yes there will be elderly who are going to die because of this.
Absolutely and the politicians never gave it a thought.
Righteous anger!!!!
George,
I like that!!!
You’re correct for anyone to die because of this — or even their health be so adversely affected — warrants “righteous anger”. Thanks George and Atticus and OMG.
Someone; some governments and its representatives that voted to implement these IGAs need to be held accountable.
Righteous: morally right or justifiable, vitruous.
Sounds pretty apt.
I like that idea of righteous anger @George and the definition of righteous @bubblebustin.
@George, of course you nailed the source of my comment. I learned about righteous anger as a child, in church. That concept taught me many great things. Without righteous anger many an injustice would still stand. I believe the actions of Dr. King were driven by righteous anger and a deep conviction to seek justice.
I will pass along the comments of a person who mentioned this to me last year who has since passed away. My uncle Don was a Korean War vet and a two time veteran of Vietnam. I told him of our situation to which he replied “If I were in your shoes I know I’d have to consider doing what you are going to have to do but, fight it. Go get em, this is wrong.”
Thanks to KalC, EcstaticCanadian & everyone else who replied to my questions re. suggestions on how to send my donation without revealing my name / identity.
In the end, I purchased a money order from the post office. They insisted I put my name on the money order so I gave them the name “Jane Doe”. I hope that won’t cause a problem for Steve Kish. They also said if it didn’t arrive – ie, got lost in the mail – there would be no way of getting my $$ back . . . which means it’s no safer than sending cash in the mail. Perhaps I should have purchased a bank draft instead.
Sasha don’t worry it will get there..
@Sasha
There will be no problem with your choice of name on the money order.
BTW, the suggestion about cash was not about sending it in the mail. It was intended for anyone who actually lives in Toronto and would have the option dropping it off with Stephen.
The post office comment about not being able to get your money back if it gets lost; didn’t they give you a copy of the draft?
@Tricia Moon, @ EcstaticCanadian
I asked for a copy of the money order, but they said there isn’t one . . . all I got was the actual money order itself. I put it in a stamped envelope but haven’t yet mailed it as I feel really uncomfortable dropping it into the mailbox without any proof of the $$ I just spent. Perhaps I shall send it registered mail. I won’t ever use the post office for a money order again.
@Stephen Kish, Calgary411 et all
There is another way to send “cash” and that is through Western Union.
http://www.westernunion.ca
May I suggest you look at the procedure and sort how you would “get the funding” from the Western Union Office.
Procedurally it looks not too bad, though a couple emails will need to change hands with numbers so Stephen can collect.
It also looks like this can be applied worldwide.
In essence if less than $1,000 CDN, Joe Maple Leaf goes to supermarket in WaWa Ontario. Hands over $500 CDN in cash to the customer service desk that has Western Union.
@Sasha, in regards to sending cash. A single large bill like $100 in one envelope. Then mail multiple envelopes over several days. Use a security envelope that people can look through with a “candle.”
Sasha,
You could make a photocopy of the money order. Or, you could write down all of the information on the money order (numbers, date, amount, place, etc.).
There will be no problem in depositing a Jane Doe cheque or a money order with no name.
I am guessing that you are not including any information about yourself with the money order. So, when your money order has arrived I will post a comment saying that the money order from “Jane Doe” has arrived . I won’t forget.
@ Sasha,
I’m wondering if they’re no longer giving the sender a duplicate copy of the money order as they used to, maybe its serial number is now printed on the cash register receipt? It looks like you’re still supposed to be able to make a claim if it’s not cashed in 45 days.
@Stephen Kish, @Blaze, @Calgary411. I am guessing that legal counsel will want to also be able to cite what is happening internationally. This must be based on CANADIAN law not US Law, not French Law but citing what is happening elsewhere may be useful.
There has already been a posting on what has happened to tainted US Citizens in the UK concerning National Savings and Investments (NSI).
From a non-paywall item;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/savings/10962647/NSandI-to-bar-Scottish-savers-if-they-vote-for-independence.html
“NS&I has recent experience of turning away customers. Following the introduction of tough new US tax laws, requiring other countries’ finance firms to gather information on behalf of the US taxman, it will close 2,700 US customers’ accounts. Some were closed on July 1. It said it took the step because the administrative costs were considered “disproportionate”. ”
Think through this in perspective now.
NSI is effectively an arm of the UK Government.
NSI is the most widely held single FFI in the UK.
NSI products are purchased because they have the ultimate guarantee in these troubled times, the 100% backing of HM Government.
But they dropped American customers because the administrative burden was “disproportionate.”
Thanks for the link, Pacifica! Great article!
@George – the international experience will certainly be relevant. Not decisive, but I would expect a judge to be happy to review it.
George,
Thanks for this to add to the growing “discrimination of *US Persons*” evidence that closing of our accounts is not a MYTH.
@ Stephen Kish
Money order has been mailed. Thanks so much for offering to keep me apprised of its arrival.
@ pacifica777
Thanks so much for the link about claims for lost money orders . . . the post office employee insisted if it’s lost you are out of luck. And you are right, the receipt includes the serial number of the money order.
Thanks everyone for your helpful suggestions. Hopefully I can donate more at a later date.
Thanks, Sasha, for your contribution and all it took for you to make it and remain anonymous.
@badger
I’m motivated because I feel FATCA is wrong and it affects me personally. I am affected because, although I am a dual citizen, FATCA limits my ability to live anywhere in the world except the USA. It is also an issue that I feel qualified to support because it is an issue I feel I understand very well. I’ve dealt with USA-Canada cross border issues for the better part of my adult life–I feel that I lost a good part of my youth to dealing with such issues–so it is certainly an issue I understand very well.
I certainly understand WHY people are angry even if I don’t personally feel that anger is the best way forward.
Everyone is praising the person who came forward with their anger regarding sexual abuse as a child. I mean no disrespect to that particular individual and what I am about to say is not a specific comment on their situation, which I do not know. Speaking from my own personal experience, however, sexual abuse is another area where there is a real downside to anger. The anger is justified–no question. But what often happens is that the abuser has long since left the scene–so they take out their anger on whomever happens to be available, which are often innocent people who had no role in the original abuse or even in protecting the abuser.
Or the allegations of sexual abuse–whether true or false–divide a family into two camps: those who believe the allegations and those who don’t. Since sexual abuse is real, but false memory syndrome is also real, it is usually impossible to know for those who weren’t there personally whether the allegations are true or false. But such allegations can cause rifts between family members–who were definitely innocent of the original abuse–where they don’t speak to each other for years, decades, or perhaps ever again.
It often seems to me that people who are angry–justifiably–seem to use that anger as a license to bully anyone who crosses their path regardless of whether that person abused them or not. I’ve seen this happen way too much–to me and to others–to feel good about anger in an unqualified sense.
It’s like when people who are the victims of economic abuse riot and end up trashing, not the neighborhoods of their oppressors, but their own neighborhoods.
Additionally, for me personally–others may differ–anger just isn’t a good motivator for long term action. I prefer to recognize that I am angry–and then put that anger aside and take constructive action. Rarely if ever do I ever do anything constructive when I’m angry. It may be a good short term motivator but for the long term I need to channel any anger I might be feeling into a more constructive direction.
Now of course with a lawsuit the advantage of having a competent attorney running the legal side of things is that usually that attorney does do a very good job at channeling people’s anger in a way that can be constructive for the lawsuit. In that sense a lawsuit may be different from other forms of more unfocused anger. So I certainly think you need people who are angry. But to get back to my original point, I just don’t see a reason to limit it to angry people. I personally wouldn’t agree to disclosing my personal details in a lawsuit if I were angry. I would only consider doing such a thing after having a chance to think it through while in a more clear headed state of mind. I get angry like everyone else but I prefer to make major decisions from a clear headed, not an angry, direction.
Dash, what we’re expressing here now might just be semantics in how many of us view dealing constructively with the very real anger from whatever cause compared to your definition of “I prefer to recognize that I am angry–and then put that anger aside and take constructive action”. It is in how we describe ‘dealing appropriately with anger’. The way some of us have chosen ‘to deal with our anger’ is to get this whole subject out into the fresh air and sunshine. In Canada it has been negotiated with the U.S. behind closed doors and legislation passed for implementation in an omnibus bill, no good media airing of what has gone on with the Harper government of management and dismissal of our communications, submissions an expert testimony before their Parliamentary Committees. Even the government news release of the passing of Bill C-31 had not a mention of the implementation of U.S. law coming into Canada to override the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That makes me angry; it should make every Canadian angry and ask what is going on. That *US Persons in Canada* have now been deemed second-class to any other no matter what their national origin or the origin of their parents is still under the radar and goes unnoticed.
I think from this interesting discussion we’ve now come to the conclusion that plaintiffs do not have to be limited to “angry people”. Would you consider being a plaintiff in this legal challenge? You would be an excellent non-angry person with motivation to step forward as a plaintiff.
Would any other non-angry people reading here like to step up to be plaintiffs? I’ve seen several who would make good plaintiffs (not necessarily at Brock or MapleSandbox but could be here also). They are in denial and don’t recognize any way that they would be affected by all of this. That denial also protects them from being angry. They have no horse in this race until something or someone identifies them and then all of this does affect them — and, by golly, they may become angry at the absurdity, at the injustice, at the extra-territorial US citizenship-based taxation coming into their country to affect them and their families — at the cost of US tax compliance year after year for usually no actual taxes owed to the US. They knew nothing about this because they knew nothing about citizenship-based taxation and their common sense makes them assume that all countries would tax on residence. The concept of “dual citizenship” had no real meaning for them until they learned of US citizenship-based taxation and how their own country describes them as “US citizens who happen to reside in Canada” — some of us call it our “OMG moment”.
When we say we want angry plaintiffs it sounds like we want people who have steam coming out of their ears. Well I certainly don’t want anybody like that but I do want to make sure whoever steps up to the plate isn’t going to chicken out when things get really rough because they absolutely will.
Maybe what we should say is that we want plaintiffs who have backbones made of steel. Many of the people who post on this board fit that description but they are also justifiably angry and express their anger in a socially acceptable way.