[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).
@Bubblebustin
Thanks for letting me know.
@calgary411
I’m trying to remain cautiously optomistic.
@bubblebustin, I was heartened to hear that your Liberal candidate asked you for a policy statement. Way to go! I got a form letter this morning from my MP which had a survey to return (with comment area). I filled it out, agreeing with most of his points. The last one was the question: Is the country on the right track or wrong track? I said “both, depends on the issue” and then used the space below make it clear what needs to be done to address FATCA and that my DH and I can’t support the Conservatives until they fix it. I don’t know if the staffer who opens this will pass it on to my MP, but you never know.
@Neill
“Is it still a choice?”
It was certainly a choice but it is a bit of a no-brainer. I don’t see a lot of downside in taking the step of going from green card status to US citizenship once you already have your green card. Most of the more negative aspects to “US personhood” have already kicked in once you have a green card–especially long term–and getting citizenship mostly involves positive changes.
The earlier decision to get my green card in the first place, however, was far more difficult. I expected I would eventually be moving back to Canada and so I held off on getting my green card as long as possible–mainly because I didn’t see why I should jump through all the arbitrary hoops set by the USG in getting the green card. FATCA wasn’t yet in the picture. Had I known I would struggle to find solid Canadian employment–an outcome that did and still does surprise me–I would have gone for my green card earlier in my life.
I think that a big part of getting our Liberal candidate’s ear was the fact that she’s up against a long standing Conservative MP in our riding and wants to make as much political hay as she can on a wide array of issues. I’m grateful that throughout the efforts of a few of us she seems to ‘get it’. Let’s see if that translates into Justin Trudeau actually uttering something sensible out of his mouth on this. We’ll see! BTW, my riding is West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast- Sea-to-Sky Corridor, one of the most economically diverse ridings in the country.
The US sadly has developed a habit of riding rough shod over its erstwhile FRIENDS. Checkout this clip from an article in the Jamaica Gleaner today – the clip occurs at the bottom of an article found at http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20140910/business/business7.html
“In 2005, the WTO ruled that Washington had violated international trade agreements by prohibiting operation of offshore Internet gambling sites and set the award for compensation at US$21 million.
Antigua has been unsuccessful in its efforts to have the US accede to the ruling.”
I notice that it says in the claim “IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, you or a solicitor acting
for you are required to prepare a statement of defence … WITHIN 30 DAYS after this statement of claim is served on you, if you are served within Canada.”
Seeing as the claim was served 11 August, is the statement of defence is due today? Has it been received?
“I’m grateful that throughout the efforts of a few of us she seems to ‘get it’. Let’s see if that translates into Justin Trudeau actually uttering something sensible out of his mouth on this. We’ll see!” LOL! I know what you mean!
Ricard,
Yes, the response from the Attorney General of Canada is technically due today. My understanding is that the Government of Canada asked for more time to respond (this is very common in such proceedings) and that the Arvay team has given “our opposition” extra time — but to a limit– to prepare a response. This is done as a courtesy (also common).
I expect that we will have the response by the end of this month — and I will post.
If anyone is interested in attacking the heart of the issue (CBT itself), with a new lawsuit or perhaps including it in the one for accidental Americans, I leave again my analysis of the constitutionality of CBT. I argue that it’s unconstitutional for various reasons, and that Cook v. Tait is not a precedent.
Shadow Raider, thanks for the CBT analysis which will provide context and which I am passing on to Mr. Butera.
I will argue with you a bit when you say that CBT is the (single?) heart of the issue. Everyone will have a different strong opinion on this, but for me there are three each highly critical (and related) issues which have to be taken head on: 1) The FATCA IGA that gave away my country’s sovereignty; 2) CBT imposed by my other country on the world; and 3) the unwillingness of the United States to let its people expatriate without high penalty.
@ Stephen Kish
I agree. It’s Cerberus – the three-headed monster. Where’s Hercules when we need him? 🙂
@Stephen Kish, Thank you for sending it to Mr. Butera. I agree that CBT is not the only issue, but in practice, ending CBT would make FATCA and expatriation mostly irrelevant.
@Kathy, I like that image – of the CBT/FATCA/IGA three headed monster.
This is the image I hope someday to hear about USextraterritorial taxation:
………
“One, two! One, two! and through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.”
…….
excerpt from the poem ‘Jabberwocky’,
in ‘Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There’ (1871).
Lewis Carroll
@ShadowRaider The work you have done on CBT has been phenomenal.
However, the ADCS lawsuits need to remain focused on the IGA and how Canadians are affected by FATCA. Raising money for this effort with support from around the world is a challenge for just this limited effort.
A challenge of the constitutionality of CBT would be great–but very costly. Perhaps another organization like ACA should take that on.
Speaking of ACA, did the video of the CBT debate ever surface? It is now more than four months. Did I miss it while I have been in hospitals?
@Blaze @ShadowRaider If the stars line up and CBT is changed to RBT, then this must be enshrined with change to the Canadian-US tax treaty to guard against future changing laws. No doubt that will involve its own fight. There needs to be focus now. I don’t yet see that thermometer moving in $10,000 or $50,000 blocks. It involves ongoing effort at elevating awareness of the issue. Whenever that text for the human rights complaint comes out that, I believe, will be a big help at raising awareness.
The text of the Human Rights Complaint will be published when we know the UN has received and considered it. There has been no confirmation that our submission was considered for the meeting in August (as well, our submission was sent just before the August meeting so, just by number of other submissions received before ours, our Human Rights Complaint may not have yet been considered). It looks like the next meeting to consider Human Rights Complaints is scheduled for April of 2015 — that Committee meets twice a year.
In the meantime, our fundraising must be pinned to its stand-alone legal claim and importance which absolutely addresses our human rights issues.
Donate Now: http://adcs-adsc.ca/
@Stephen Kish
I’m sure you’re aware of the point I’m about to make already but just to bring it out into the open:
“This is done as a courtesy (also common).”
$21,978.02.
That’s the approximate cost of this “courtesy” to your faithful donors. That’s 20 days (expected delay from 9/10-9/30) * $100,000 (amount due every three months) / 91 days (in this 3 month period approx).
Don’t misunderstand me: I understand that everyone is, including yourself, Tricia Moon, calgary411, Arvay and team, and many others, are working really hard to make and keep this happening. I’m sure Arvay and team would not have agreed to the delay unless they felt it was the right strategy.
But I felt it important to make the cost really, really plain so it can be discussed.
The Robert Woods article states:
“Accidental Americans include those born in the U.S. but who left at a young age to live permanently abroad.”
Further to the above:
“The Alliance for the Defence of Canadian Sovereignty has therefore retained Mr. Jim Butera, Partner, Washington D.C office of Jones Walker LLP, to explore legal options aimed at:
—reversing the policies and practices of the IRS and the U.S. Department of State that result in the unjust administration of the laws to “Accidental Americans”, who wish to free themselves from U.S. citizenship (as defined by U.S. law) and associated “citizenship obligations”.”
——————————–
I was born in the USA and left 19 years ago when I was 27 years old. I have made two contributions to ADSC-ADCS so far. However, if ADSC-ADCS is going to try to make a special deal only for those who left the US as children, why should I make any further donations when people like me who left the US as young adults are being put on the sidelines? Or to put it another way, being thrown under the bus?
Everyone tainted with US person indicia is being screwed. Making special deals for some while leaving others out hanging in the wind may be beneficial for a few in the short run, but will only solidify the evils of CBT, FATCA and FBAR of everyone else in the long run.
@ John Smith
Please re-read the press release and Stephen’s explanation. The ADCS fund is NOT going towards the “exploratory” actions taken by Mr. Butera south of the border (anonymous donor and @LauraSecord are enabling that). The focus of the ADCS remains as always to challenge the FATCA IGA on legal grounds (solid grounds IMHO). I’m not an “Accidental American” either but I welcome any attempts to go after CBT, FBAR or FATCA or any special aspects of those, no matter where that occurs. I can’t afford to donate to anything other than ADCS but if others can give to more than ADCS then thank you — it all helps. Both Ginny and Gwen are “Accidental Americans” and they have put so much on the line for all of us by acting as plaintiffs so if Mr. Butera can do anything for them or others like them then I’m all for it. If we can rip one class of victims out of US clutches then we can proceed on to other classes of victims like you and me.
@John Smith,
to add to Embee’s explanation, quite a few of us have renounced/relinquished already, but still hate what the US is doing to our fellow citizens and non-US home country, and are supportive of several efforts – not just for ourselves, but for the principle of the thing. The line in the sand has to be drawn to keep the US from using more of its extortionate tactics and assert even further claims on those living outside it. I don’t want to pay for the implementation of FATCA where I live, as a non-US taxpayer and as a non-US accountholder and as a non-US citizen, and I abhor its abuse of our native laws and values and the collusion by my home federal government who seeks to strip us of our rights merely because it is expedient and because the banks want it that way. Extraterritorial CBT is just plain wrong, and will and has damaged ordinary people and families outside the US, living perfectly ordinary lives. I want the US to stop molesting those outside its borders and imaginary global jurisdiction.
@John Smith
The money you and I give to ADCS all goes to the legal fight in Canada against the IGA implementation legislation. That’s what we all are giving to, and stand to benefit from in our various ways.
As I understand it, a few individuals wanted to “privately” fund a second initiative, effectively opening up a second front in the war using their own money…. all they want is ADCS to administer that money for them.
That doesn’t divert any money that you, or I, or anyone else gives to ADCS for the fight in Canada.
” If we can rip one class of victims out of US clutches then we can proceed on to other classes of victims like you and me.”
The problem with this is the US will try to claim: “you see, we are not unreasonable, we addressed the issue for accidentals. We still consider everyone else as being tax evaders and they will have to keep filing, paying and being penalized.”
The danger of supporting or encouraging half-measures is that it allows the US breathing space without them having to address the real problems, thus the pain and suffering will continue (perhaps forever) for everyone else who is not considered as being an “accidental.”
@Dash
I am very uncertain of the meaning of your comment
“$21,978.02.
That’s the approximate cost of this “courtesy” to your faithful donors. That’s 20 days (expected delay from 9/10-9/30) * $100,000 (amount due every three months) / 91 days (in this 3 month period approx).”
I dont think that ADCS is incurring a daily cost for the Litigation. I believe that ADCS is estimating a fund raising requirement of that amount for the total costs of the Litigation though all levels of the legal system. Thus I dont think that allowing a few weeks extension to the Opposition increases our cost … it rather gives us a few more days to raise money ….. Am I wrong?
@Nervousinvestor, Granting a delay to the Government is normal protocol in litigation and will not result in any cost on our part.
@John Smith, There is NO use of funds donated to the ADSC FATCA Canada lawsuit for any other purpose. There is no active fundraising for anything except the ADCS Canadian lawsuit. The latest initiative is funded by and only by two donors who wanted this issue addressed. The reason that ADCS was wiling to assist is that it is an opportunity to provide a precedent for both the State Department and U.S. Treasury to be subjected to judicial oversight. Once that precedent has been established, the door is open for judicial oversight in other areas.
@John Smith, let me just say I know where you are coming from as my “first reaction” was what on earth is this?
But after reading, I said this makes perfect sense and is actually complimentary to the main litigation effort.
I relinquished a decade ago and my relinquishment was clearly documented to the USG, to say as little as possible though a few “here” know some details.
I have become a regular donor to ADCS and have “little” to gain if ADCS succeeds in Canadian Courts. I am not under the bus or even in the back of the bus, I am so far away I do not know where the bus is!!
Having said that, ANY victory in Canadian Court will add another straw on to the camels back!!
I believe that ALL persons lawfully and permanently resident in Canada should be protected from ALL Foreign Powers!! That said, ADCS may succeed in Court and only find that Canadian Citizens are protected and landed immigrants end up in the pit.
My interest is to see one single and maybe small victory as being the impetus in bringing action in the EU.
So this extra effort? It was a stroke of luck, it generates publicity and it may even bear fruit.
Regardless, I had the same OH NO feeling you did and quickly digested it.