[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).
Blocked from the article from two computers: “the connection was reset.” In on a third.
Roy Berg is not an expert in Canadian constitutional law.
melnitzer’s name still resounds loudly in london ontario. i remember the case well after two decades. until he was charged, he was arrogant and condescending. seems he still is. he served part of his sentence but never made restitution. he was disbarred.
i have been stunned 2 see his name on several fatca articles. he and berg seem 2 have become fatca comrades. i have no idea y financial post would publish a convicted criminal like melnitzer as a legal writer.
badger, not only is berg not an expert on canadian constitutional law, he is not even a canadian citizen!
Gwevil so you got ambushed by a disbarred former felon lawyer who did not make full financial restitution.
To be blunt I am thankful he is not yes not on our side
Seriously think of the damage this guy could have caused by embracing arcs.
As they say if you lay with dogs you rise with fleas
This has actually been providential so Gwen do not dispair
But next time google
Berg is in the process of getting his Canadian law license from the Alberta Law Society.
@GwEvil
Me thinks the Brockers swat team pretty much blew Melnitzer & Bergboy out of the water. Reckon after Calgary411’s post he is really sorry about having written this. (Actually I am very surprised it is still up). Many did a real nice job on Berg also. So much for being nice polite Canadians….it is game on!
Everyone better be very careful when they start going after our “gals”! We are the momma/pappa bears and will take care of our cubs….
Someone, somewhere here today gave us a sweet alternative to the Julius Melnitzer article. I just finished reading it. Bravo Michael DeBlis!
http://taxconnections.com/taxblog/mad-as-hell-and-not-going-to-take-it-anymore-two-brave-women-sue-canadian-government-over-controversial-fatca-deal/#.U_JxCWK9KSM
And Mr. EmBee just mailed a cheque to ADCS today so maybe that will raise some spirits too. 🙂
NobleDreamer just completed a PhD essay taking down Berg’s comment on the FP article. Good Job! It is a MUST read.
The legal challenge and the fatal flaws in the FATCA IGA and enabling legislation as per the conflicts with Canadian law are why the comments in the article specifically now mention and seek to cast aspersions on the reasons WHY we would FUND and support this legal challenge. It is very interesting that the only ‘expert’ quoted is a US citizen recently come to Canada, who only repeatedly cites US LAW, and NOT CANADIAN LAW. Last I looked, as Canadian residents on Canadian soil, we were ALL living under the terms of the CANADIAN legal system, the CANADIAN Charter and the CANADIAN Constitution. That is true of the US ‘expert’ quoted as well. The article makes numerous references about whether or not the challenge will affect US law. Which is a deliberate red herring as the challenge is directed towards the conduct of the CANADIAN government seeking to illegally and illegitimately bind CANADIANS INSIDE CANADA’s sovereign autonomous borders.
The US does NOT and should NOT be making Canadian laws and seeking to extraterritorially govern Canadians and impugn our Canadian Charter and Constitutional rights. I think it quite undermines the article that the criticisms are coming from an American “US tax law” perspective of extraterritorial origin.
The FATCAforces and their fellow travellers in the Canadian FIs and the US crossborder compliance industrial complex are now concerned enough to go beyond merely calling us misguided hyperboles.
Perhaps their analysis of the situation is such that our chances of success are increasingly concerning – enough so that they feel the need to actively work the media (and appear before Parliamentary committees) in order to undermine the Canadian citizen, voter and accountholder opposition to the US extortionate threats, harm and costs of FATCA as applied to Canada, and now, they seek to target the funding of the challenge.
I believe that what this tells us is that they know that this challenge has substantive grounds, and thus can win in the end. So instead of just ignoring it, they now have decided that it is getting enough credible notice and traction that they must go to the court of public opinion to blame the victims and to discredit our attempts to get a just and ethical resolution IN CANADA.
That just makes funding and seeing this challenge to success even more compelling.
I think it is fair to point out that the ‘US tax expert’ the article chose to solicit quotes from is not a Canadian, and has established only a few years of residency in Canada – starting in 2011, just as the US FBAR and FATCA crusade against Canada and the rest of the globe was really starting to ratchet up. An insufficient length of residency to demonstrate stronger ties to Canada than to lifelong US Homeland interests. It is fair to ask why anyone would heed the assertions of someone who essentially asserts the primacy of US laws and might over the provisions of the Canadian Charter and Constitution, when both the ‘expert’ and the plaintiffs are standing, nay, RESIDING on sovereign autonomous Canadian soil, and both enjoy the many ACTUAL benefits which Canada provides us (unlike the imaginary ones US CBT apologists and US tax law experts cite to rationalize the ‘unique’ US extraterritorial system). I would note that those benefits conferred by the Charter, the Constitution, and Canadian society do not discriminate against newcomers who come to work in Canada – for ex. in the US Crossborder industrial complex – on the basis of US national origin, US parentage or birthplace.
Unlike the FATCA IGA and enabling legislation does as applied in Canada.
Hey Brockers and Sandboxers,
Just a thousand a day, keeps the lawsuit in play. Everyone please check your toothpaste tubes for diamonds … ya never know … 🙂
May FATCA be considered an international agreement? The IGA’s are. Yet as FATCA without IGA require compliance from FFI is the “law” valid without international agreement? Just a thought.
Serbia To Protect Taxpayers’ Rights Under FATCA
by Lorys Charalambous, Tax-News.com, Cyprus
19 August 2014
Serbia’s Information Commissioner has warned that banks must have the full consent of customers before information is passed to US tax authorities under the terms of FATCA, and that it would be illegal for customers to be declined services if they refuse to give consent. …
http://www.tax-news.com/news/Serbia_To_Protect_Taxpayers_Rights_Under_FATCA____65575.html
@Badger
Roy Berg’s view of the world is:
1. U.S. law is the only law that matters.
2. FATCA is U.S. law
Therefore, FATCA – a U.S. law – is all that matters even in Canada.
As Tim points out, Mr. Berg either is or poised to become a member of the Alberta Bar. Under the rules of ethics governing lawyers in Canada, Mr. Berg has an obligation to represent his clients in accordance with Canadian law. If a Canadian retains Mr. Berg in Alberta, and becomes a client, then Mr. Berg has an ethical obligation to act in the interests of that client in the jurisdiction that he is giving legal advice.
Now, we know that Canadians are subject to Canadian law and NOT to U.S. law in Canada (hence the reason for the FATCA IGAs).
Now, let’s consider this scenario:
A dual Canada U.S. citizen who didn’t know that he had to file U.S. tax returns retains Mr. Berg. Mr. Berg’s obligation once he is admitted to the Alberta Bar is to act and give advice in the best interests of the client.
Given an obligation to act in the best interests of the client and Canadian law, the question is this:
Can Mr. Berg ethically advise, a Canadian citizen, living in Canada, who had no knowledge of U.S. tax obligations, who will be bankrupted by any attempt to come into U.S. tax compliance, who is in complete compliance with Canadian tax laws, and has built his life around Canadian law:
that me must or should obey U.S. laws that are being applied in an extraterritorial manner?
The problem Mr. Berg faces is that if and when he becomes a member of the Alberta Bar, he can no longer take the position that:
1. U.S. law is the only law that matters.
2. FATCA is U.S. law
Therefore, FATCA – a U.S. law – is all that matters even in Canada.
Could a member of the Alberta Bar who was also a lawyer in Eritrea, tell Eritreans resident in Canada that they must obey the law of Eritrea?
@Neill
Re your comment here:
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2014/06/01/its-time/comment-page-51/#comment-2645554
I just wanted to thank you for your string of comments. What you have demonstrated and what is extremely important for people to realize is that there are two kinds of Americans abroad (or Green Card Holders):
1. Those who are not in U.S. tax compliance. Okay, but what you have demonstrated is that coming into compliance will NOT make your problems go away. It will just create new problems.
2. Those who are in U.S. tax compliance. It’s not possible as an American abroad to live that way.
As an American abroad, whether you are in tax compliance or not you will have serious problems.
The moral of the story: Don’t be an American. It’s nothing but a problem.
The Melniitzer article arguing that our plaintiffs will destroy the banks and economy made it to the print edition of the Financial Post in a big way: Two large pictures on the front page with a caption “FATCA suit success may burn dual citizens” and the long article itself on the second page.
http://business.financialpost.com/2014/08/18/canada-u-s-dual-citizens-could-be-worse-off-if-fatca-lawsuit-succeeds/
The article places emphasis on the comments of a well-known Mr. Roy Berg, Director of Moody’s U.S. tax law in Calgary — who as Peter points out, has a conflict of interest not appreciated in the article.
My Letter the Editor reminding Mr. Melnitzer that we have a Constitution in Canada and that of Jim Jatras were not printed, but might come out later.
The ONLY letters the editors that will be printed are those from people willing to disclose their names. If you are not afraid of doing this, send a letter to the FP and select “print” in the subject line:
http://www.nationalpost.com/contact/letters/index.html?name=Financial+Post+Letters&subject=FP+Letter+to+the+editor
I admire your courage and conviction. That said, given your husband has decided to become compliant, suggest u seek advice from a lawyer/ CPA as IRS will know your history at leas whereabouts. I wish I can be as courageous as you are – I have been having sleepless nights since July 1st.
I find that all my posts last night to http://business.financialpost.com/2014/08/18/canada-u-s-dual-citizens-could-be-worse-off-if-fatca-lawsuit-succeeds/ have now disappeared. Hmmmm …. I left two more this morning ….. I will be interested to see if they survive.
It seems that my non e plume is a banned one these days.
I will definitely create a new nom de plume or is that nom de guerre ?
@Chears Big ears, Good morning!!!! Nice to see some early rising CanaBrockers.
Thats a stupendous find!!!! Deserves a headline on its own.
Nice one Chears Big Ears …. I left a short comment. Good for Serbia ! Strange bed fellows be dammed.
The gross page views keep clicking upwards …. Old site 600K, this site nearly 11 Million …. then there are maplesandbox.ca and repealfatca.com and viewers of the recent flush of media articles …. the word is starting to spread …..thank God.
“[We Canadians value our banking industry. A U.S. tax law “expert”, Mr. Roy Berg of Calgary Alberta, is terrified that if Ginny and Gwen’s lawsuit succeeds our banks will be “frozen out of … the petroleum market.” Canada needs to stand up and call the bluff of the United States to protect our banks from harm. Mr. Berg also needs to be reminded that Canadians are proud of their Constitutional rights, freedoms, and sovereignty.] ”
So price the oil in gold or Euros or CANADIAN DOLLARS … ehhh Mr Roy Berg ? Insist that ONLY Canadian Banks may be used to conduct transactions with Canadian Business. The demand for the Canadian Dollar will rise and cause OUR dollar to strengthen vs the USD.
@Cheers
Thank you for this link. I note the following paragraph from the article:
“Sabic also observed that the USA is not party to the Council of Europe’s Convention 108, meaning that the transfer of personal data across borders would still require the Commissioner’s consent. He explained that all requests for transfer in such circumstances would have to accord with Article 53 of Serbia’s Law on Personal Data Protection. – See more at: http://www.tax-news.com/news/Serbia_To_Protect_Taxpayers_Rights_Under_FATCA____65575.html#sthash.xArPKx9g.dpuf”
I wonder about the implications of this observation, if accurate. It would seem to mean that regardless the IGAs negotiated with individual EU countries, if transfer of data to the US violates Council of Europe Convention 108, it would be illegal. In fact, I had been wondering about the place of the EU in all this, as the EU has particularly strong privacy legislation.
nervousinvestor if we had one dollar 4 each of those hits, we could fund legal challenges 2 fatca around the globe!
@USCitizenAbroad,
I am a green card holder in the US. I don’t think you can have the burden of anything foreign while being under the IRS’s control. As such I have divested almost all we can in the UK. Closed all but one bank account that my wife uses to buy presents. We have a number of pensions we can draw down at 55 (only five years). I will draw them down at that point. Luckily for me all out UK accounts where from when we were young and didn’t earn very much. So our penalties where bad but would have been the end of the world if say I had ended my career by working in a foreign country after say being born in the US.
We are in the process of becoming citizens of the US because it’s pretty much required so my wife can keep our money if I die. You know that money I earned and paid taxes and invested on to look after my family. I need to be able to renounce my UK citizenship if they turn against me.
The IRS is now an agency of traps. Anything foreign comes with traps. Extra forms to file for no reason other than to take your stuff.
As I get older the traps are going to be harder to avoid. How does the IRS justify it’s recent crackdown of RMD that carry a penalty of 50%. So focus on the old who will make a mistake and take 50% of what they didn’t take out of their retirement accounts? By this time I will hopefully be a regular American with the stuff they have only more money. I won’t be the ugly duckling so it’s harder to spit on me.