[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).
Wonder whether/how the cutbacks at the Justice Department potentially affected the drafting of the FATCA IGA and enabling legislation? http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justice-department-lawyers-stretched-thin-internal-report-finds-1.2733522
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/staffing-cuts-strain-justice-department/article20129882/
The Harper Conservative government said of the FATCA enabling legislation: on Aug. 13; “The Government is confident that the legislation in question is constitutionally valid,” finance department spokesperson Jack Aubry said in an e-mail late Tuesday. ……… ” http://globalnews.ca/news/1504452/dual-citizens-sue-feds-over-fatca-deal-letting-banks-pass-info-to-irs/
Oh really? Can they take that to a Canadian bank?
They’ve been on a losing streak http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/harper-government-s-legal-setbacks-suggest-strategy-of-confrontation-1.2729421 despite their wanton waste of our taxpayer money in passing and defending legislation that doesn’t meet the test; “……….even if a piece of legislation has a 99 per cent chance of being defeated by the courts, government policy is to forge ahead. That throws some cold water on MacKay’s now-infamous refrain that even the government’s most controversial pieces of legislation are vetted to be charter-compliant…….. ” http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/harper-government-s-legal-setbacks-suggest-strategy-of-confrontation-1.2729421
Donate to ADCS http://www.adcs-adsc.ca/
Question for folks: has anyone succeeded recently in registering for an account at the following website:
http://canadianmoneyforum.com/
I tried registering about a month ago, sent them a message asking to activate my membership, but it still has not been activated. At first I though maybe the person who activates the memberships was just on a summer vacation. However other memberships are clearly being activated and I pinged them again and was met only with silence.
I did register under this same userid (‘dash1729’) and mentioned in my message to them that I’m interested in talking about FATCA. Perhaps candid, honest, discussion of such a topic is somehow unwelcome at that website, although there is an active thread there where all sides of the FATCA issue are being discussed. I wasn’t expecting to be given the cold shoulder just due to an interest in FATCA so I’m curious what might be happening.
@Stephen Kish, “At present we are seeking witnesses who are dual Canadian-U.S. citizens, born in Canada, no history ever of meaningful U.S. ties (no U.S. passport, employment in U.S. etc.) and never IRS compliant.”
There is a very important mindset in this debate that I believe must be adhered to and I think we Brockers sometimes slip and adopt the terminology of our opponents.
Let me restate your request but making subtle changes;
“At present we are seeking witnesses who are Canadian Citizens, born in Canada but considered to be US Citizens by the US Government, no history ever of meaningful U.S. ties (no U.S. passport, employment in U.S. etc.) and never IRS compliant.”
Can you see the difference? The difference is very subtle but extremely important.
Another Brocker (maybe dash) made a comment many moons ago that as part of this battle, if you are something else then you can never ever admit/agree that you are a US Citizen according to their terms.
Here is an example of how this would be reflected in cross examination;
Govt Lawyer; Mrs. Jones, are you a US Citizen?
Mrs. Jones; I am a Canadian Citizen.
Govt Lawyer, Under US Law, you are a US Citizen because of your two parents.
Mrs. Jones; I am a Canadian Citizen regardless what the US Government or any government other than Canada thinks. It does not matter if the Government of Poland thinks I am Polish, I am not.
@Stephen Kish, one other important point in the litigation.
I think the litigation must stop referring to dual citizenship and begin referring to the other term, clinging nationality.
Dual citizenship implies the plaintiffs value it and want to keep it.
I also think your counsel needs to be able to state that Canadian Law does NOT recognize any other citizenship imposed by a foreign government on its Canadian Citizens within Canadian territory.
It is IMPOSSIBLE under Canadian Law for the two plaintiffs to be anything other than Canadian whilst in Canada!! If the plaintiffs requested the protection of the US Govt whilst in Canada, the Government of canada would bar any involvement by the USA.
@Stephen Kish, also in regards to terms we have the proverbial court of public opinion.
Dual Citizenship with the USA is something other people want!!
Clinging nationality with Zimbabwe is like gum on a shoe.
I am also sure the litigation team will show to the court in a comparison fashion how you renounce Canadian Citizenship compared to US Citizenship.
Interesting…..https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uXeU_JwTnM
$72,476 more in just 71 days.
What is the consequence of not raising it? If the lawsuit on hold until that amount is reached, dropped?
George,
For the time being I will change the phrase to “who are Canadian citizens and were born in Canada to one or both U.S. citizen parents.” This phrase does not imply that the U.S. deems the Canadian to be a U.S. citizen or that the Canadian accepts this possibility.
Regarding renouncing U.S. citizenship and attached IRS obligations, later I will be asking for witnesses willing to describe their reasons for renouncing and the financial cost of doing so, and not doing so.
Today was not a good day for donations. Don’t give in to the Roy Bergs, Melnitzers, and Townsends out there. They want us to fail.
@Stephen Kish
I think you know that I have made a standing offer to be a witness. That said, I do not fit into the current category that Arvay seems be looking for (born in Canada to 1 or 2 US expat parents).
Additional categories of people who would make good witnesses:
1 solely Canadian spouse + 1 so-called US person spouse–I think you mentioned this awhile ago but I haven’t seen it mentioned in awhile
1 ‘US person’ with power of attorney over a Canadian’s bank accounts
1 ‘US person’ with Canadian-only business partners
Former and current green card holders, TN, and H-1B visa holders with assets in Canada–especially those who didn’t “check out” of their green card status properly
Snowbirds who have been deemed US persons
Persons who left the US as adults and believed they were relinquishing when they became Canadians but now the IRS is after them
In ALL of the above categories need both people who are IRS compliant and not compliant. The not compliant folks will present a more compelling story but the compliant folks can show this isn’t just about taxes.
Stephen,
Don’t know if this includes someone like me on behalf of my son, but not interested at all in subjecting my son to harm. As you know, I am willing on those terms.
Dash, I am already assuming that your offer to be a plaintiff most likely means that you would also agree to be a witness. No, we are not at all restricting the witnesses to those born in Canada to one or two US expats, but are starting first with one of the groups that will be very difficult to find.
Thanks for the suggestions, which I will add to the list of possibilities (I think that we may already have the Canadian-only spouse).
Yes, we want IRS compliant folks too. I am IRS compliant but resent the loss of my constitutional rights and will offer myself again in the lawsuit.
Dash, good suggestions. Green card holders and Snowbirds —yes — will any come forward given the risks? All we need is a single good witness of each category, just one.
Carol, thank you, but neither of us could accept the risk of your son being harmed.
@Stephen Kish
Not just green card holders but people on temporary visas are affected. There is someone who is posting in the FATCA discussion at http://canadianmoneyforum.com/ who I want to contact if I can ever get in there. Less than a year ago he moved down to the US on a temporary visa (probably a TN) and was all gung-ho about how one just couldn’t lose by moving to the US. Now that the reality of what he has signed up for when it comes to being a US person is setting in, he seems a bit freaked out.
Most people on temporary visas are IRS compliant, because they have been in the US for only a short while and haven’t had as much time to become non-compliant. So they have less risks when it comes to being witnesses. Yet I expect many are increasingly alarmed by what FATCA and C-31 will demand of them. I would think someone in that category could elect to be a witness.
@ADCS Team, today I shall toddle off to the post office and put the ninth envelope addressed to Toronto.
I did not think I could do it, but I have to do it.
We need a “ADCS” Vehicle that can be used to drive all over Ontario and possibly Canada. The politicians get huge RV’S and buses and paste their information and mug on the sides. The secret must get out to Canadians. The whole issue still seems to be hidden toi most Canadians. I was at a family gathering 2 weeks ago. I found out that my sister in law’s cousin has a 9 year old daughter who was born in the US. The family had no idea what that girl was about to face. I educated them and saw their mouths fall open. My sister in law’s cousin will be donating to the ADCS. The way to get the word out is to engage any and all Canadians in an education conversation.
@Stephen Kish @All
“Are we only a minority?”
Actually in some ways I hope that they are right in this in that we are only a minority.
The whole point, IMHO, of having a Charter of Rights and Freedoms–or any other constitutional protections–is to protect the rights of individuals and groups who may in fact only be a minority. The idea of civil rights is that there are actually limits on the power of democracy: namely, the majority do NOT have the right to simply outvote the constitutional rights of the minority.
So I personally would very much welcome a Supreme Court ruling that, in effect, says that the Plaintiffs and their supporters are, yes, a minority–but a significant minority and one that enjoys substantial protections under the Charter.
@Stephen Kish
Another important group of witnesses would be those who have been harmed in other ways beyond simply having their privacy violated in a discriminatory manner. Don’t get me wrong–I think that having one’s privacy violated in a discriminatory manner is a significant human rights violations–but there are other possible areas of harm:
For example, someone who is unable to open a bank account in Canada. One possible scenario is that they admit to “US person” status but do NOT have a US social security card–making filling out the W-9 form impossible and in turn making opening a Canadian bank account impossible if they admit to being “US persons”. Actually, some of the “US citizens born in Canada to US citizen parents” may fall into this category.
I gather that it can actually be quite difficult to get a social security card in such situations. There have been cases where someone actually does acknowledge US status to the extent of getting a US passport, but the social security people won’t accept a US passport as proof of US citizenship. Yes it is completely nuts. It is quite possible to be in a Catch-22 where one can’t prove US citizenship enough to satisfy the social security people, but also can’t prove NON-US citizenship enough to satisfy the IRS.
But all this can create a huge problem if someone admits to US status (something I personally as a layman suggest they don’t do, but I can’t give formal legal advice not being a lawyer)–they could find themselves completely unable to open a Canadian bank account. They admit to US status, but can’t get a social security card so can’t fill out a W-9.
Some of the plaintiffs and/or witnesses may actually be in this situation–but IMHO it would be good to have witnesses who are ACTUALLY in a situation where they can’t open a bank account–as opposed to just potentially going to have problems in the future.
Another good group of witnesses would be those who have actually been harrassed by the IRS–or by US customs/DHS at the border acting as IRS agents–based on information provided under FATCA. It is probably early days to expect there would be many such people yet. But in the coming months stories are likely to surface about Canadians having unpleasant contacts with various arms of the USG which could only have arisen out of information disclosed under FATCA.
“Another important group of plaintiffs”
Actually I meant “Another important group of witnesses“. I realize that we already have our plaintiffs and are now looking for witnesses. However I think part of what I was thinking and that led me to this typo is that some of what I was saying may apply to one or both of our existing plaintiffs–although I do not know for sure not knowing their full situation.
@George
“Govt Lawyer; Mrs. Jones, are you a US Citizen?
Mrs. Jones; I am a Canadian Citizen.
Govt Lawyer, Under US Law, you are a US Citizen because of your two parents.
Mrs. Jones; I am a Canadian Citizen regardless what the US Government or any government other than Canada thinks. It does not matter if the Government of Poland thinks I am Polish, I am not.”
Question:
If the Canadian government improperly invokes US law in a Canadian courtroom in this manner, can the witness follow suit and also invoke US law, refusing to answer the question by pleading the Fifth?
If not, I actually think another possible response would be:
Govt Lawyer, Under US Law, are you are a US Citizen because of your two parents? [Under cross-examination, I presume the lawyer can only ask questions, not try to introduce evidence of their own.]
Mrs. Jones; I have never registered as a US citizen in any way. [assuming this is true.] [this would also be a reasonable response for someone born in the US who has never invoked that citizenship in any way, such as our two Plaintiffs.]
Actually asking the witness in a Canadian courtroom to offer an opinion as to what US law says seems beyond the pale to me. No one–not even the judge–in a Canadian courtroom is qualified to do that.
@ Dash Excellent scenario and incredibly true…
Thanks for this new visual so we’ll be able to see where we’re at and how much further we have to go — the next date, November 1st.
Donate to make that temperature rise — http://www.adcs-adsc.ca/ !
Kind GwEvil of course made the visual.
Do read in the UK’s Daily Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/tax/11050777/British-families-billed-500-to-prevent-Americans-dodging-tax.html
The first two paragraphs follow:
Draconian legislation enacted in America – and aimed solely at helping American authorities collect tax from their overseas citizens – is translating into bills of hundreds of pounds for ordinary British families.
The total cost to British businesses and individuals of abiding by the new US laws, which became effective here only last month, is put at £1bn. Most people will pay unknowingly through higher fees for their investments, banking and other services. But for some families the costs are more explicit. And the invoices are starting to land on their doormats.
I have just posted the following at the Daily Telegraph:
FATCA is an outrage in its extra territorial reach and in its riding rough shod over the Constitutions and Charters of Rights of countries around the world. There is an alternative … do visit http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/ and maplesandbox.ca and http://www.adcs-adsc.ca/ and repealfatca.com
Canadians are fighting back …. help them …. Britain too should fight back ….. as should every other self respecting country on earth ….
The US hope to gain some $870 Million dollars per YEAR of previously unreported taxation due to the effect of FATCA. Yet the costs of FATCA (even those 1.5 Billion pounds reported in this article) dwarf this paltry sum … the five major banks in Toronto have reportedly already sent some $750 Million getting ready for FATCA and the costs will be ongoing into infinity. The US Republican party is also fighting FATCA and there may well soon be a Constitutional challenge there too. The WORLD however need to reject this Orwellian madness.
@ nervousinvestor
Thanks for your link to the Telegraph article, your comments and especially your mention of the Canadian court case. That simple U.K. trusts are potentially affected by FATCA and must pay a substantial sum to prove they are not, is another outrage.