[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).
Yup – I will contact some of the board members and/or engage the reps again with some links to these sites. I really doubt they fully understand the issues. The do claim (I think) 1 million members so statistically there has to be ~10K members affected FATCA.
I have donated 3 times to ADCS and have been posting links etc….to get folks aware of the need to contribute to this important cause.
Thanks @Fran, I need to be better at understanding/explaining a full range of effects specific to small and medium Canadian businesses, and there are sure to be angles that haven’t been explored yet which might persuade business owners who can to consider a donation to stop FATCA. Some Canadians may not have any family or personal connection to a FATCA liability, but are in business with someone who does.
Awesome article in Forbes. http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/07/17/fatca-remains-vulnerable-despite-implementation/
Interesting alliance between US banking and the NSA: SIFMA has hired ex head of the NSA
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-08/banks-dreading-computer-hacks-call-for-cyber-war-council.html
..”The proposal by the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, known as Sifma, calls for a committee of executives and deputy-level representatives from at least eight U.S. agencies including the Treasury Department, the National Security Agency and the Department of Homeland Security, all led by a senior White House official.
The trade association also reveals in the document that Sifma has retained former NSA director Keith Alexander to “facilitate” the joint effort with the government. Alexander, in turn, has brought in Michael Chertoff, the former U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security, and his firm, Chertoff Group. …”…
How cozy.
They don’t give a damn about the needless exposure of the financial and personal data and security of US citizens abroad who are forced to report online to FINCEN now – and upload account numbers, locations, ownership, tax id numbers, balances, etc. via the FINCEN site under FBAR/Form 114, and to be sent by all the FFIs and tax agencies in the world en masse to the US under FATCA forever and ever.
US coercion and extortion forces us to surrender our personal and financial data and security, but they call in the NSA to protect US domestic banking data (and do what else with it at the same time?).
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-20/ex-nsa-chief-pitches-advice-on-cyber-threats-to-the-banks.html
Re-read this astute and detailed explanation from James Jatras of what US extortion is subjecting millions of perfectly lawabiding ordinary people outside the US and non-US banks and government tax agencies to:
………’FATCA-Compliant Banks Would Have No Privacy Expectation from U.S. Security Agencies’
“If FATCA’s sole purpose were to “recover” tax revenues from assets squirreled away offshore by American “fat cats,” it seems odd that it targets only individuals and specifically exempts reporting on accounts held by U.S. corporations. On the other hand, targeting individuals makes a lot of sense if FATCA’s purpose is directed towards something else: adding to U.S. government agencies’ global electronic “map” of personal information. Americans and the rest of the world are increasingly aware of the vanishing concept of personal privacy, whether supposedly “justified” by the needs of law enforcement, anti-terrorism, or (as here) recovering tax revenues.
It should be further understood that any data transmitted by foreign financial institutions will not be confined to the IRS but will be handed over (“upon request,” of course) to other “three-letter” agencies of the U.S. government. The following is from a 2012 letter from Sen. Carl Levin (D-Michigan), a prominent FATCA supporter, to then-IRS Commissioner Douglas H. Shulman……..”…………..”Having established that (a) information received under FATCA may be passed on to these other agencies, (b) there is no legal expectation of privacy or confidentiality, or any limitation on use of any information gathered, and (c) institutions would be required to log onto a portal created and operated by the U.S. government, it is fair to ask, given growing concerns about covert information-gathering by the NSA, whether the motives behind FATCA are limited to tax enforcement and what further use will be made of information supplied to the IRS. …..”……..
from September 16
‘Financial Data Provided to ‘Intel’ Agencies Considered ‘Not Inherently Confidential’ under U.S. Law
FATCA: a Tool of the Electronic Surveillance State’
http://www.repealfatca.com/index.asp?idmenu=4&idsubmenu=135&title=News
Protect our data from US extortion and theft via FATCA – donate to the ADCS legal challenge to FATCA in Canada:
http://www.adcs-adsc.ca/?gclid=CKuRld-mzr8CFc1aMgodMH4ApA
Interesting, Badger. Can the Harper government ignore the US’s statements that it intends to disseminate the data we provide through our IGA? I thought that the legality of our IGA is contingent on the information remaining within the IRS. I recall one of our representatives saying that they hoped that the US would not abuse the information provided by the CRA.
This situation has become so crazy that I renounced in June 2014. All the best.
All the best to you, Sad ex.
From the wise words of USCitizenAbroad:
Yah! Small victory – I just noticed this on the CFIB site. At least this is on their radar now. I think I will email them to ask them to perhaps put the links up for the maplesandbox and ADCS.
http://www.cfib-fcei.ca/english/article/5325-us-law-could-erase-privacy-protections-are-you-affected.html
@bubblebustin, the ‘hopes’ of Canadian officials re data safety are baseless and if they are truly relying on ‘hope’, they know it is empty and unrealistic. Do nations routinely enter into treaties based on ‘hope’? Can one take another nation to court based on the dashing of ‘hope’s? What court or authority would hear that anyway? FATCA is a US law passed by the US Congress. And FATCA’s provisions were never meant to be bilateral or mutually agreed upon – FATCA is extortion. If Canada bent over in fear of the 30% withholding sanction, then what powers could it possibly think it has regarding limiting the use and dissemination of the data obtained under threat? The Harper government knows that. It apparently doesn’t give a damn what happens to any Canadian accountholder and Canadian citizen or legal permanent resident at the hands of the US in this regard.
The US doesn’t have to notify Canada if it uses the data in other ways and distributes it where-ever it pleases. Even if the US made any assurances to that effect, they wouldn’t honour them. There is no mechanism to monitor what the US does, and no recourse, and no way to sanction them. Canada knows that. Even within the US there is barely any way for homelanders and political representative to know what the NSA and other agencies are doing, much less to hold them to account.
@Badger
I thought that there’s something in our deal with the devil that would make the IGA illegal (if only in Canada) should the data be used outside the IRS.
@bubblebustin,
Not sure. Perhaps someone else knows of such a provision.
Maybe there is someone else who knows that and we can appeal to other IBS readers – does anyone know of anything in the FATCA IGA that purports to make it illegal (at least in Canada) for the FATCA obtained data from the CRA to be shared outside the IRS?
Because I don’t believe the US would honour it and I don’t believe Canada would have either the resources, avenues or desire to diligently do so, that’s not an aspect I paid any attention to. The Harper government and its minions kept repeating the line about the protections afforded by sharing the information CRA to IRS, but nothing about what happened to the data after that. I got the impression that the ‘protection’ was merely protection limiting the bank exposure to lawsuits on privacy and other grounds. Even the weak assurances about the ‘security’ of the data is a threat to our wellbeing, as we know that the IRS is not capable of protecting the taxpayer data it already has – even when it is not supposed to be able to share it. FATCA was designed to be used for much wider purposes than taxpayer returns and associated data – and I think we should operate on the assumption that it will.
If there was a provision limiting the use and dissemination of the FATCA extorted data, the problem would be proving that it had been abrogated, by who, and then what? Where is the accountability framework, or the recourse mechanism? I don’t think there is one. And, this is on top of the Patriot Act and the Homeland Security provisions that stake claim to data that enters the US – neither of which appear to have any public accountability or recourse provisions either. I could be very wrong, but that is the impression I have anyway.
Perhaps it is a good point to pursue – if only in order to thoroughly skewer any Conservative claims that the FATCA IGA offers such ‘protection’ in fact.
I don’t know if it’s in the IGA per se. The CRA is collecting it on the premise that it would only be shared with the IRS. It was discussed in one of the videos with Professors Cockfield/Christians, after which one of the Tories remarked that he hoped that the US would keep the data within the IRS keeping the whole deal legal in Canada. I could have a totally wrong take on what they meant, but I remember remarking after that if they could not guarantee in the IGA that the info wouldn’t be misused, that it was irresponsible of them to enter into the IGA without safeguarding the legality of it in Canada. Sorry, I don’t have time to watch the videos right now. Maybe others have a better/different recollection of what was said.
Summer play list:
http://greatamericanrevolt.org/
There may be something you want here, bubblebustin, and I’ve included at the end the link to the May 13, 2014 transcript of the Standing Committee on Finance:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=6601885&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=2
Standing Committee on Finance
NUMBER 035 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT
EVIDENCE Wednesday, May 14, 2014
Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP):
Thank you.
Mr. Hannah, if one of your members doesn’t report somebody who turns out to be a U.S. citizen, what’s the impact on you?
[Expand]
Mr. Darren Hannah:
I’m sorry?
[Expand]
Mr. Nathan Cullen:
If they fail to report somebody who the IRS or the American government deems a U.S. citizen…?
[Expand]
Mr. Darren Hannah:
The obligations on the financial institution are clear, and they’re laid out in the agreement. If somebody is a U.S. citizen, but there’s no indicia in the indicators in their account suggesting they are—
[Expand]
Mr. Nathan Cullen:
No, just take the question on its surface.
[Expand]
Mr. Darren Hannah:
No, that’s—
[Expand]
Mr. Nathan Cullen:
Somebody slips through the screen, the electronic screen Mr. Allen was talking about, the assessment you do. Americans come back and say, “CIBC, Royal, we found 1,000 or 10,000 people, clients of yours, who we deem to be Americans, or American persons.” Is the bank penalized? Is the bank put on a watch? Is there any consequence?
[Expand]
Mr. Darren Hannah:
The bank will then do its due diligence to show it, to say, look, they’ve done their process, they’ve gone through and checked their indicia, and they’ve assessed whether or not somebody is a U.S. person, and if they are not a U.S. person, they’re done.
[Expand]
Mr. Nathan Cullen:
I don’t know why this question is difficult.
What I’m asking is, you do your screen, you forward the names of people who you believe are U.S. persons to the CRA, then to IRS—
[Expand]
Mr. Darren Hannah:
Okay.
[Expand]
Mr. Nathan Cullen:
—but you’re missing people. Is the bank financially on the hook? Are you placed on a list? Is there any consequence under the IGA, as you understand it, that comes back to your members?
[Expand]
Mr. Darren Hannah:
The members’ obligation, the institutional obligation, the legal obligation, is to the CRA, not to the IRS.
[Expand]
Mr. Nathan Cullen:
I understand.
[Expand]
Mr. Darren Hannah:
So in that instance, then, as with any tax compliance issue, we have to discuss it with CRA.
[Expand]
Mr. Nathan Cullen:
Can you understand our concerns around the definition of citizenship? As Mr. Richardson says, this is not always citizenship as you and I would understand it, as the common person would understand it. We’ve been made aware of instances—many of them—of people who, under any common definition, wouldn’t be deemed American persons. But as we’ve all agreed at this panel and others, that decision is not made by the Canadian government. It’s made by the American government, correct? You can understand the concerns?
[Expand]
Mr. Darren Hannah:
I appreciate the challenge, but that’s a separate issue, from my perspective, from the intergovernmental agreement. That’s a tax issue associated with the United States as opposed to the information sharing agreement.
[Expand]
Mr. Nathan Cullen:
Sure. Will your members notify their clients that their information is being passed on to the CRA?
[Expand]
Mr. Darren Hannah:
Bear in mind that in the process if indicators come up, I go back to you to give you an opportunity to clarify whether or not you are a U.S. person, so as a consequence, everything is passing along as part of the process.
[Expand]
Mr. Nathan Cullen:
So is it required in the process that anybody whose information will be passed on to the CRA will be made aware?
[Expand]
Mr. Darren Hannah:
What’s required in the process is that I have to go back to you. I literally have to go back to you and say, “I’ve got information on an account that you are a U.S. person, and is this correct, yes or no?” There’s an engagement requirement right in there.
[Expand]
Mr. Nathan Cullen:
So the answer is yes, that everybody whose information will be passed on to the CRA by your member institutions, your banks, will be made aware that their information is being passed on.
[Expand]
Mr. Darren Hannah:
The only time it might not happen would be if literally in the file you’ve already said, “Yes, I’m a U.S. person, and I’ve acknowledged that.”
[Expand]
Mr. Nathan Cullen:
Okay. I’m the politician here, so I get to dodge questions. What I want to know is, will people be made aware if their information is being passed on to the CRA and they’ve been deemed by your member institutions to be American persons?
[Expand]
Mr. Darren Hannah:
Well, with due respect, I believe I’ve just answered that question.
[Expand]
Mr. Nathan Cullen:
A yes or no would help.
[Expand]
Mr. Darren Hannah:
I’ve explained it in total.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=6597204&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=2
Standing Committee on Finance
NUMBER 034 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT
EVIDENCE Tuesday, May 13, 2014
I read… don’t recall where… CRA database is off-sited in the US & is not considered on canadian soil so all the US has to do to get the info is to get a court order… maybe get every single canadians’ info without any fuss. Even if the canadian gov’t objects… its too late to stop it… My question is this… don’t we have database services in Canada… why would any gov’t… even to save a few dollars… send the private info into another country? We all know good & well.. mistakes will be made… then what… nothing will or can be done… u will be accidently tainted with the dreaded disease
The IGA authorizes banks, CRA and any so called FFI in Canada to use third party entities to gather and submit information on anyone for any reason. Right now the threshold is $50,000 supposedly but will soon be , in their own words, $20,000. Just when is not clear.
Evidently, using third party ‘snitches’ who will be paid up to $10,000 for their information , all anonymously ,alleviates the banks and CRA from any silliness like accountability in abusing the privacy of citizens and residents in Canada and that is BEFORE any information is submitted to IRS by CRA. IRS accepts no obligation to keep it private from there, if their purposes are not realized perhaps NSA, FBI, any entity who wants to use it for whatever nefarious reason can have it.
All in compliance with “OECD guidelines” doncha know.
BUT illegal and warrantless nonetheless!
@ Stephen K. How much more money do we need to begin litigation? I notice your update on July 21/14. It always helps to have a goal and let us know so we can reach it. Our hospital does a thermometer to show funds collected and the goal at the top. The hospital always reaches it. I know the likes of Stephen Harper et al are being kept in the dark however I think it would help us to reach the top if we knew. Just sayin”
Ann,
We hope to have a more significant updated post very soon that will answer your question.
Somewhere in this very long post there was a request from Jane Doe that I let her know when her money order arrived.
This morning I received a very generous donation from Jane (like many Brockers who apparently have no fixed address!) and I thank her for her kindness.
Stephen
Dear Friends: Another donation is on its way to you half an hour ago!
I’m coming to realize how very precious the cause for HOPE is that you are giving to us. Not easy for me to find funds (as I’m sure is true for many of us) but I’m coming to understand that the HOPE and DIGNITY gained is worth every penny. Wish it could be more!
Thank you so much to you who are doing this work, and especially best wishes to Blaze to soon feel much better.
Thank you so much!
As an aside, I just came across this quote from Thomas Jefferson. Seems to apply….
“All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.”
@ Stephen Kish
Thank so much Stephen for letting me know that my donation arrived safely. I was beginning to worry as I thought it should have arrived by now.
Many blessings & thanks to you for all your efforts in our cause.
@ Stephen Kish
I mentioned hope when I sent Twig#2. A few years ago my husband and I thought we had sussed out our retirement plan as best as possible. All was well and then our plan was destroyed by some deluded fools in the US Congress and some traitorous fools in our own Parliament. We really don’t know now if a new plan can be put together with so much uncertainty forced into our lives. However, if anything can inspire us to try again, it will be seeing the success of the ADCS legal challenge. So I hope you can wait a couple of weeks for Twig#3 because first it has to arrive here before I can repackage it and send it your way.
EmBee,
Your Twigs #1 and #2 are making it possible for us to move to step one of litigation. We still need many many more Twigs from others who have yet to donate so that we can pay the legal costs. Thank you also for the nice card for Lynne which I received today and will forward to her.
You mention retirement planning: The Government of Canada argues that it is irrelevant that Canadians forced by FATCA into IRS compliance will never be able to plan normally for their retirement. Our job will be to ensure that the courts fully appreciate the extent of harm caused by this foreign law.
Speaking of twigs,
This morning I received a nice donation from one of our international friends who wants to be known as “Eurotwig”. [I hope that the Canadian Twig family does not feel that this is trademark infringement]
I also received a generous donation from a family in the United States.
Thank you all.