[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).
Thanks for the article Chears. At least 1 country is demonstrating it’s right to protect it’s citizens. Canada, are you listening?
Chears,
It is good to have you back.
Stephen
Roy Berg should be deported just like the Eritrean tax collectors. He is probably some kind US government contractor.
@EmBee
My toothpaste only squeezes out coal. Maybe I should apply more pressure.
Greetings and fast recovery Blaze !
if you go to Belgrad, you can still see bombed out buildings from U.S. war crimes of a few years ago. Maybe that has something to the Serbians standing up for what’s right.
I just read this phrase:
“……..Here’s a hot tip for accountants and tax attorneys: now is a good time to develop specialized expertise in advising clients who may be seeking to expatriate from the United States. That demographic looks more and more like a real growth opportunity……..”. That is from the American Chamber of Commerce site; “Exit Strategy: FATCA Tax Law Keeps Pushing Americans To Give Up Citizenship” https://www.uschamber.com/blog/exit-strategy-fatca-tax-law-keeps-pushing-americans-give-citizenship
The US Crossborder compliance industrial complex quotes being seeded in the media ( Financial Post articles Julius Melnitzer | August 18, 2014, March 26, 2014, etc. ) are coming from a member of the American Chamber of Commerce. FATCA enabled in Canada is “a real growth opportunity”!
Picture Canadians and all the rest of those millions affected around the globe seeking out advice and services from the FATCA Compliance Industrial complex in Canada and elsewhere. The wasted dollars transferred from family savings, that won’t go into children’s education savings, or the family home, or to support disabled dependents, etc. Our own taxpayer dollars spent for the CRA to perform as an arm of the IRS and US Treasury, as well as squandered by the Harper Conservative government on implementing FATCA, abrogating our Charter and Constitutional rights, and fighting ordinary law abiding Canadian citizens, taxpayers, and voters living in Canada.
Another good reason to fund this legal challenge NOW!
In the chance that the lawsuit fails, let’s hope by then that the court of public opinion is fully engaged in the issue. There are plenty of reasons besides those stated in the suit to raise the hackles of many Canadians, ie: our largest trading partner behaving like extortionists, the ongoing costs of compliance for both bank customers and taxpayers, false-positive indicia that sends non-USP’s info to the IRS, etc, etc…
Can’t keep up with all the very good comments here and on the Financial post article – including, as Charl’s note, the amazing treatise/s posted by nobledreamer and exchange with Berg. Hope you’re saving those for posterity.
Thanks all!
Well done, Serbia! You have put the Canadian government to shame.
EmBee: I’m glad to know I’m not the only one who has had very slow access to Brock, and links from Brock, so far today. I haven’t been able to get into the comments section of the Melnitzer article yet and it’s driving me mad that I can’t read the comments you are all talking about. I hope the problem clears up soon.
Note the current Privacy Commissioner of Canada’s background, which is relevant to the legal challenge, and to the lack of protection for Canadians effected by FATCA and lack of public statements of concern coming from the Office of the Canadian Privacy Commissioner:
“……Before he became Canada’s privacy commissioner, Therrien practiced law at the Department of Justice—a department in which he’s worked since he took the bar exam in 1981. While there, he worked in various capacities, including as senior general counsel and director of Citizenship and Immigration Legal Services and later, as assistant deputy minister in the Office of the Assistant Deputy Attorney General. In that capacity, Therrien co-led the team responsible for negotiating the privacy principles on data-sharing between the U.S. and Canada under the “Beyond the Border” accord……..”
https://privacyassociation.org/news/a/canadas-new-privacy-commissioner-human-rights-run-in-my-blood/
Wonder if there is a significant and enduring conflict of interest if previously the Privacy Commissioner worked for the Justice Department during the time that the FATCA IGA was contemplated, drafted, and pushed through via the Omnibus Bill C-31.
I was intrigued by a comment at the Financial post article that mentioned that ” XKR Happily Retired • an hour ago “We, as a nation, can not afford to lose our sovereignty in subservience to the laws of a foreign nation. To hell with what the banks can or can’t afford. In the end they exist to serve us according to the Bank Act, not the other way around.”
So I looked up the Bank Act:
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/bank-act/
“The Bank Act is the law passed by Parliament to regulate Canada’s CHARTERED BANKS. The Act has 3 main goals: protecting depositors’ funds; insuring the maintenance of cash reserves (see MONETARY POLICY); and promoting the efficiency of the financial system through competition.”
Nowhere does it say that the Bank Act and Canadian Banks were elevated above the intent and provisions of the Canadian Charter and Constitution.
Yes, Badger “not the other way around”.
Harper also needs to be reminded of who he works for way too often.
@Badger
RE Mr. Therrien
I shared the doubts of many when Mr. Therrien was appointed Privacy Commissioner for Canada, however so far he seems to have acquitted himself well. Soon after his appointment, he took the government to task over the cyber-bullying bill. From the Ottawa Citizen:
“The Conservatives’ hand-picked nominee to be Canada’s next privacy commissioner took a hard line Tuesday on the government’s cyber-bullying bill, saying it raises problems lingering from the Tories’ last attempt at lawful access legislation.
“Daniel Therrien told MPs he believed Bill C-13 needed to be split and an independent review struck on the sections of the legislation that have drawn scorn from privacy experts.
“Privacy advocates and two provincial privacy commissioners have asked for the government to split Bill C-13, saying the emotional provisions targeting cyber-bullying overwhelm the possibility for debate on the sections that allow police to easily access, in some circumstances, the metadata of Canadians’ personal communications.”
Full article available: http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/daniel-therrien-testifies-before-commons-and-senate
@northernshrike;
What does he know and when did he know it re FATCA?
@Badger
That, I do not know.
Could someone clarify how much ground the lawsuit will cover if our plaintiffs succeed? Would it negate the FATCA IGA that went into effect July 1 and make it against the law for banks and CRA to deal with? Or would it simply render Canadian citizens (permanent residents) of U.S. origin, their spouses, and children as exempt from the FATCA IGA, so that it is only binding upon non-Canadian citizens (temporary residents)? In either case, how would that threaten our banks? Seriously? A lot of U.S. politicians wouldn’t like it, but I can’t imagine the U.S. issuing sanctions against Canada of all countries for their Supreme Court ruling upholding their own constitution!
Jan,
ADCS is proceeding on the assumption that your last sentence is correct and that if we win it will be the death of FATCA and also be a significant first step in ending U.S.-imposed life control over its citizens living abroad.
A win will also be helpful in teaching the Government of Canada the meaning of the word “sovereignty”, which it has sadly forgotten.
Your good sentence is:
“… I can’t imagine the U.S. issuing sanctions against Canada of all countries for their Supreme Court ruling upholding their own constitution!”
As has been pointed out, a win would not exempt any Canadian from FATCA — the result, as I see it, would be that *US Persons* shall not be discriminated against and have different treatment under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and other Canadian law as any other Canadian. The banks would still have the US gun to their heads of 30% discount on US transactions if not turning over their *US Person* clients. The Canadian financial institutions, if they did then turn over our information to the US IRS, would come under the same law just validated by this Challenge that All Canadians have the same rights under the Charter and other Canadian law. Lawsuits could then be brought against the banks. Nothing will be a slam dunk at all — just an incredible waste of time, Canadian resources and people’s lives. It’s really regrettable that the Conservative government did not take the time to do this right in the first place, taking the advice of legal experts and Opposition Parties to really negotiate with the US on the IGA they signed and implemented to waive rights of *US Persons* in Canada.
If, as a result of a Supreme Court challenge victory, Canadian financial institutions were to become FATCA non-compliant, the USG would not have to issue any new or special sanctions against them. FATCA already details the consequences for a FFI of not having a compliance certification. The two major issues are, I think, the 30% withholding on US-sourced transactions and, more importantly imo, the reporting requirements required of compliant banks when dealing with a non-compliant FFI. This latter issue would severely curtail your business or, more likely, put you out of business as other FFIs refuse to do business with you due to onerous record-keeping that must be submitted to the USG.
Just speculation on my part but how, for instance, would a multinational bank like Scotiabank deal with the loss of FATCA certification? Its businesses outside Canada would become basically worthless because they could not do business with other banks in their respective countries nor with other international banks. A solution would be for Scotiabank to re-incorporate outside of Canada (hopefully not in the US!) and spinoff its non-compliant Canadian operations. What Scotiabank would then do with its Canadian business clients who need to be able to transact in US $s in order to stay in business, who knows? Simply put, FATCA is an enormous threat to Canada´s economy as well as to its sovereignty.
@bdwight By your logic, the US should 30% all the banks right now as they have not complied. The U.S. itself has given a few years to banks to comply yets wants them to be acting along these lines. I believe the rules are annual reporting, so this annual reporting date is of issue. The challenge may succeed then there may be some six months or more before the deadline deadline. The Canadian government could then ask for an extension to comply and then may be compelled to get involved and negotiate on the side of Canadians.
Maybe we could get to the point where the U.S. shoots across the bow of sovereign nations.
@bdwight, what is your interest in this? Compliance industry?
For many in support of this challenge out of personally being victims of state sponsored financial terrorism, there is no other option but to push on. Does the U.S. Treasury think it is being reasonable? What is being asked (FATCA,FBAR,CBT,Extra taxes, denied retirement funds & normal living) is way over the top of any reasonableness, especially for those accidental Americans. Uncle Sam is seriously backing them down into a financial corner devoid of any sense of fairness, reasonableness, and with disregards of their US Constitutional rights and the Sovereignty of other nations.
@jc My interest is in trying to understand the situation we find ourselves in. A few weeks back someone was kind enough to post the US-New Zealand IGA here and it made for interesting reading, essential reading imo if one wants to be informed about FATCA and the obligations it creates on ´foreign financial institutions´ (FFIs) and their clients. I hope it isn´t only the compliance industry that is trying to be informed about what is actually happening.
I fully support the ADCS court case but I think that a victory in court would create challenges for Canada and not for the USG. The USG has only one objective, namely, the enforcement of FATCA. Any problems Canada may have in complying with FATCA are, I think, not the USG´s concern.
Canadian FFIs are as much victims of FATCA as we are. The difference is they generally have shareholders and cannot just dissolve themselves if the going gets rough. They will have to find a way to stay in business and right now that means staying in Uncle Sam´s good graces. Transacting in US $s is so important to banks today that, for instance, BN Paribas, a French bank, is paying a US$9 billion fine to the USG solely in order to not lose access to US $ transactions, Other European banks are being plundered by the US Treasury department for the same reason – they will pay any fines levied because there really is no option for them if they want to stay in business. I wish it wasn´t so but we live in an ugly world.
@Stephen, thanks for your reply. I too hope that a favourable Supreme Court ruling would lead to the death of FATCA.
@Calgary411 You gave good reasons the IGA the Cons developed was inexcusable. If our Supreme Court declares it unconstitutional, though, how could any bank based in Canada be expected to enforce it? Would the U.S. dare exact such huge penalties on Canadian banks for treating all resident Canadian clients equally and abiding by what their SUPREME COURT determines as constitutional? (The U.S. Supreme Court hasn’t ruled on FATCA yet! Their challenge would be coming up.) If our Supreme Court threw out “our” IGA, then before the IRS could force Canadian banks to pay anything, the U.S. Congress would most likely be divided on what to do next, creating long delays. It seems to me this should buy Canada enough time to come up with an exemption or loophole to protect our banks from being victimized by the IRS (or internal lawsuits).
@bdwight A court case win would at least bring the Canadian government into this, at least more on the side of Canada. You say the U.S. does not care, yet it could be some bad press for the Democrats how they badly treat their neighbor to the North in regards to rights and freedoms in a way that will highlight the hypocrisy of it all for the U.S.
@Jan If a win, Canada could ask for an extension to comply. Canada could also say that the IGA went to our Supreme Court, there is some controversy around FATCA, we now require U.S. Senate approval – as per U.S. laws on international treaties, and review of controversial aspects by the U.S. Supreme Court including the reciprocity of private U.S. bank account information as promised by the U.S. Treasury Department, and pledge of U.S. compensation for implementation by Canada’s financial institutions, all reference of Canada’s financial institutions as foreign as in FFI be removed from the language, and all as determining steps in Canada’s compliance. Coming from public address by the Canadian Prime Minister would be of most effect.