[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).
I just made a donation. Wish it could be more, but every bit helps, right? I consider all of us “Accidental Americans” to be plaintiffs.
@CanadianGirl, Thank you!! Accidentals and those with clinging nationality are all in the same boat!!
Remember you were not a “Dual” rather you were a Canadian Citizen with clinging US nationality.
PS. In that other thread you have contact information to replace your commission scroll.
CanadianGirl,
Thanks for your donation. We all wish what we give could be more. If we all give what we can as often as we can, as Dr. Stephen Kish, Chair of the ADCS-ADSC says, inch by inch we will get there.
And, yes, every “Accidental American” especially those like you, born in the USA, with that fact forever shown on your Canadian (or any other country) passport needs to know what their rights are. Should the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and any other Canadian law exclude ANY Canadian? You had no CHOICE who you were born to or where you were born. If such law, enabled in Canada by the IGA that was signed with the US for FATCA law to override Canadian law, entraps you into this absurd and costly process, it is immoral law. Unless the US will change to Residence-Based Taxation as the rest of the world so you would be excluded from this as you do not reside in the US, implementation of FATCA law in Canada by the IGA signed is an abuse. Or, that’s the way I see it.
See updated post in which I describe for the first time some of the risks Ginny and Gwen understand and have accepted.
Only a small number responded to my request for plaintiffs “willing to disclose” — understandably, because of the risks to themselves and to their families.
Most declined to volunteer once I explained the risk that the court could require Plaintiffs to pay personally part of Government’s costs should we lose.
Joe Arvay’s team interviewed potential plaintiffs and made the selection from the list I provided. I placed myself on the list but was not selected. I thank all those who had the courage to volunteer and place themselves at this high risk of harm.
When you donate to ADCS you are also donating to keep Ginny and Gwen from harm.
Thanks for the update, Stephen — and again to Gwen and Ginny as plaintiffs representing all of us.
I was interviewed regarding being a plaintiff on behalf of my son who is entrapped into US citizenship because he cannot renounce due to ‘mental incapacity’. I am his parent and trustee, but he is his own legal guardian (I do not make EVERY decision for him) and, thus, he could be called upon to testify. I couldn’t go over my line in the sand. This is not about my son but all other families and individuals like my son. It is not my son’s fault, any of this. To risk his well-being by anxiety that he likely would have to think he had done something wrong to be in court was too much for me.
I will continue to help in the only other way I can — my monthly donations to http://www.adcs-adsc.ca/. Thank you everyone that does the same.
A wise decision only a loving parent could make.
I didn’t have the courage to offer to be a plaintiff but I would have certainly failed the interview anyway because my situation would be a bad case to present in court. I just tried for the umpteenth time to to explain my situation to myself, in writing and as concisely as possible. I failed again. These attempts always begin with my early 80’s inability to recognize the full significance of being issued a greencard by marriage; disintegrate into decades of muddled misunderstandings of the US tax code; and end with my non-compliance coupled with my commitment to ADCS.
My situation would not provide a sympathetic case against FATCA. It would bring accusations from both sides of the border that I should have known what I didn’t know I was supposed to know (i.e. that greencarders need an I-407 to successfully and safely exit the USA). I failed in my attempt to obtain an I-407 many years after my incorrect exit so now I am trapped in perpetual US personhood (no greencard but no official proof I have no greencard). Americans in America would likely conclude that I deserve to lose my life savings to the IRS. Canadians in Canada would likely not believe that I could possibly lose my life savings to the IRS. A Canadian judge would likely frown upon first my ignorance and finally my willfulness. I’m not even sympathetic with myself. In very low moments I think I am a criminal but in better moments I think I am a conscientious objector to a US act of hegemony (one among many others). In between the highs and lows there is an abundance of confusion and anger, interspersed with many “if onlys”.
So with this sobering update from Stephen, which underscores the risks that Ginny and Gwen are taking on our behalf, I am even more convinced that my pension cheques are going to the right place, the ADCS fund. Twig#4 will be delivered same time, next month. We’ve got to whittle down that $80K shortfall because November 1st is looming.
The one thing that really really bothers me about this so called IGA(agreement) is that is is NOT an agreement. To be an agreement, both sides must be equal so that they can agree on a final decision based on “equal” rights, laws etc. This IGA is not an “agreement”, it is an answer to the USA pointing a financial gun to Canada’s head saying “you WILL accept our terms or else” be SANCTIONED. There was never any agreement here. It irks me to have to hear it called an agreement. If someone can come up with a better post threat word for this answer to a USA ultimatum, please post it. This will help all Canadians understand what exactly happened here and why the Canadian government is being sued.
@ NativeCanadian
Yes, it was NOT an “agreement”. It was an Inter-Governmental Acquiescence to an Ultimatum — an IGAU.
@Em
I think a great number of people on both sides of the border would find it unfathomable that a citizen of the US would be subjected extraterritorial taxation, and even more so of a permanent resident who’s left the US! There are probably many people in support of taxing their citizens abroad who’d find it unimaginable for former permanent residents to be taxed as it is clearly taxation without representation, a corner stone of American democracy.
@Native Canadian
You’re right. A friend would achieve this sort of thing by trying to build a consensus, not through extortion.
@Native Canadian. Of course you are correct. When coercion is involved it cannot possibly be an agreement.
EmBee, thanks for your thoughts and commitment to a Twig#4 (which I suspect will be matched by EuroTwig).
Yes, November 1 is looming and we cannot let this fail.
We have been getting some good press recently, but I really do not want this donation effort to be one of those “never has so much been owed by so many to so few”.
Thank you ladies for your courage to refuse to sit in the back of the bus.
A donation is on the way next week!
What is involved in being a witness in this case and is that still possible? I think not being a plantif is one thing but, many could be witnesses. I am one and there are thousands like me. Can we come forward to be interviewed as a witness?
Atticus, thanks for considering the possibility of being a “witness.” As I understand, a witness will testify and disclose, but is not subjected like the Plaintiffs to the (horrible) possibility of personally having to pay part of the Government’s costs (i.e., bankruptcy) should we lose the case. I suspect that witnesses will be cross-examined.
Arvay’s strategy was to select only a few Plaintiffs. However, witnesses would be selected later who span the spectrum of different harms/rights violated/perspectives. We are only beginning now to have a discussion on witnesses.
Witnesses I personally think would be reasonable include for example, the pure Canadian spouse having a joint account with the US person, and a person who renounced U.S. citizenship so that his/her family would not suffer financially (and back this up with strong numbers), and refuses to answer any question from the banks on place of birth (a resistor). It would probably be safe to assume that financial and personal details will be revealed and, in the case of the renouncer, the witness would have to be comfortable in stating publicly (and to the DOS) that “I renounced for ‘tax reasons'” and understands the consequences (Reed amendment, etc.).
If readers have suggestions for types of witnesses, let me know soon and I will add these to the list.
At the same time, I hope that readers are contacting every U.S. citizen (seek out at least 10-20) they know and gently and repeatedly “badgering” their friends for donations. I do this. Also seek out those who are not US persons. Last night I received such a donation in cash from a pure Canadian (like so many, the person was afraid of consequences from the U.S.)
I worry every waking minute about not being able to pay that looming November 1 bill, and then the next bill three months later. We cannot do this on our own and need support of others. Please help us find these so far silent donors.
Donate today to: http://www.adcs-adsc.ca
@Stephen Kish “Last night I received such a donation in cash from a pure Canadian (like so many, the person was afraid of consequences from the U.S.)”
I think the better term is “Non-Tainted Canadian” because ALL Canadians resident in Canada are 100% Pure Canadian.
Number 8 went in the post last week. As you know each donation is numbered so you can keep track that the prior one actually arrived!! Please do that tracking for my own personal sanity.
Will do my best to get Number 9 soon. Prayer first and hard work second is making the donations on my end possible.
Please remember that the EU legal fight will be next after Canada. We will be calling on your help and all Canadians then, please do not forget us then.
@George… You got it! I’ll be there with a donation for the EU challenge when it happens……
As will I, George! Your continued support for the Canadian Challenge, which can be the model and incentive for other countries, is appreciated and, in turn, incentive for others to do the same. *US Persons* around the world standing up for what is just and fair.
EmBee,
I think that you are being far too hard on yourself. You are obviously a good and caring person and, like all of us, have done absolutely nothing wrong. I am so disgusted with the USG for making ordinary people like us feel like criminals, with the accompanying anxiety and anger.
I feel bad that I do not have the courage to take on the personal risks of being a plaintiff – my situation is essentially the same as the two plaintiffs’. But I don’t feel that I can accept the risk of my financial institutions finding out about my place of birth with public disclosure, and I must also consider the risk to my (all Canadian) wife and children, as well as their feelings. I would love to be a witness if it didn’t involve public disclosure.
@Mr. A. Though I am not a passport carrying Canadian even though I think I do qualify under the 2009 Act…….I was drawn to tears………
So after prayer I send money, the sending money sounds like a cop out…….
With so many spouses affected then I think there may be many interested. They are “purely” Canadian. I will speak with mine about this.
I don’t think you’d have to admit you renounce for tax reasons. I did not, as I would never owe any taxes! I relinquished in order to protect the rights of my spouse to bank, save, and live here normally the same as any other Canadian can do and to protect the rights of my son. Most it seems would not owe tax. How can they say you relinquished or renounce for tax purposes if you would never owe any? There is a difference in someone “running off” to avoid paying tax to the U.S. and a person who came to another country for marriage. I literally had nothing back then and tax was the furtherest thing from my mind at the time or afterwards. It’s the very idea that my spouse a Canadian only person would have his banking data gone through and handed over without his consent just like a criminal would have to do when other Canadians do not have to go through being treated that way, all because he married me. It is an outrageous notion and a slippery slope. I still think ALL Canadians should donate and stop this. What is the next excuse they will come up with in order to say they deserve for your bank to hand over all your information to CRA or any other agency Canadian or not they so choose? It can happen to you if it can happen to any of us.
Stephen,
I am sure I speak for many when I say thank you for your daily updates. At the same time, I know you may not be able to keep these coming, not daily anyway.
@ Native Canadian et al …this was no “Agreement” … this was an “Offer that You Cant Refuse” … Godfather-Stylee.
@Native Canadian …. you know … like Take the silver or Absorb the lead. Nasty when an allegedly Democratic country behaves in this way.