[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).
More info on loss of U.S. citizenship by expatriating acts. Bear in mind that U.S. court cases resulted from persons who clearly wanted U.S. citizenship. Citizenship is not the problem, extraterritorial taxation is. What if Parliament passed a law requiring taverns around the world to obtain a Canadian licence before serving beer to Canadian citizens.
http://ecuador.usembassy.gov/service/living-in-ecuador/dual-nationality-and-loss-of-citizenship.html
Tell MP’s to propose a treaty to stop U.S. taxation of dual citizens residing in Canada.
Two other ways out of FATCA: 1.) The U.S. said it would reciprocate and it won’t; and 2.) Canada can be dissatisfied with the safeguards implemented to protect the privacy of the sensitive tax information.
Neill has put The Guardian link on the media blogs post: http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/sep/24/americans-chased-by-irs-give-up-citizenship-after-being-forced-out-of-bank-accounts
@ Atticus
Sorry, I don’t hold with using sexist language to talk about female politicians even if you don’t like them at all, Embee.
Sorry? No need to apologize, Atticus, and I won’t either. I actually think a lot worse of her than I expressed in my comment.
@Tom Alciere “What if Parliament passed a law requiring taverns around the world to obtain a Canadian licence before serving beer to Canadian citizens”?
It’s disgusting. Notice the world view from the U.S, consulate link you provide. The U.S. can only envision trouble for “dual” citizens coming from citizenship obligations imposed by some other country. But if the U.S. can force compliance with its laws in the other country, that’s exactly how the world ought to work.
http://ecuador.usembassy.gov/service/living-in-ecuador/dual-nationality-and-loss-of-citizenship.html
Allegiance to which country
“U.S. [[dual] citizens owe allegiance to the United States and are obliged to obey its laws and regulations. Such persons usually have certain obligations to the foreign country as well. [F]ailure to fulfill such obligations may have no adverse effect on the person while in the United States because the foreign country would have few means to force compliance under those circumstances….”
…Or Pearson speaking at a U.S. college, and opposing the bombing in Viet Nam, which led to Johnson’s furious response.
@Tom Alciere
With regard to the extraterritorial applicability of laws, I’m curious how you–or other Brockers–feel about the following in the Canadian Criminal Code:
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-3.html
“Offence in relation to sexual offences against children
Notwithstanding anything in this Act or any other Act, every one who, outside Canada, commits an act or omission that if committed in Canada would be an offence against section 151, 152, 153, 155 or 159, subsection 160(2) or (3), section 163.1, 170, 171, 171.1, 172.1, 172.2 or 173 or subsection 212(4) shall be deemed to commit that act or omission in Canada if the person who commits the act or omission is a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.”
@Tom Alciere
Note also that this law in the Canadian criminal code applies even if the person has no connection to Canada other than lingering Canadian nationality–and even if the laws of their country of residence are fully capable of dealing with the offense. There are, after all, many countries in the world that do not take kindly to the abuse of children–Canada is not unique in this manner.
I believe Canada has extraterritorial laws in a few other cases such as terrorism too.
It looks like a simple fact that the USA not only reinstated people’s citizenship, they also reinstated SLAVERY. Slavery ended in 1865 and was never reinstated until the “fatca” act was created and slipped into American law. The fact that the USA has over 7 million “slaves” alive and well should send shock waves all over the world… this is unbelievable! The difference is that this form of slavery doesn’t only target blacks, it targets everyone, even children!
@Dash;
This has been raised before, here and elsewhere. In my opinion it does not help us in understanding our specific situation.
At question is the intersection of BOTH the fact of citizenship/resident/former resident status AND the extraterritorial taxation of goods and assets located outside the US that have no economic or other connection with the US . Not just the extraterritorial control of those deemed to be ‘US citizens’ . BOTH the individuals AND the assets are located outside the US jurisdiction in question. The fact of a birthplace or a parent’s national origin does not create an extraterritorial economic connection in any logical, rational or defensible manner. It does not change the actual location and origin of the assets.
And the US is imposing control based not only on birthplace/parentage/oath citizenship, but on those with a former resident status which no longer exists AND the assets are also outside the US jurisdiction.
And your example is clearly a criminal one, whereas some of what is at issue under discussion here is civil.
See also:
“…For states such as Canada, whose criminal law is based on English law, the territorial principle of jurisdiction is the rule, and extraterritorial jurisdiction is the exception…”…
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/researchpublications/prb0117-e.htm
Two more reasons to support the ADCS legal challenge – AND provides IRS acknowledgement that the data is NOT protected:
The IRS has today issued an alert;”……..to all international financial institutions that are complying with FATCA. Scam artists posing as the IRS have fraudulently solicited financial institutions seeking account holder identities as well as financial account information.
Financial institutions directly registered to comply with FATCA, and those in jurisdictions that are treated as having an IGA in effect to implement the FATCA provisions through their home governments, have already been approached by parties impersonating themselves as the IRS. The IRS now has reports of incidents from various countries and continents.”
The US IRS acknowledges that our bank and personal data may be scammed out of our financial institutions, but doesn’t let that get in the way of extorting it from the entire globe, exposing millions to harm – for no proven benefit. We already know that the IRS is incompetent to protect the data it already collected related to tax filings. We already know that FATCA is designed to go far beyond return information, and to be shared more widely, without consent, notice, control or recourse. Now, it will expose far more people’s financial and personal information to criminals; “……… banks in multiple countries and continents have reported to the IRS that they have been approached by scammers who say they are representing the tax agency………” http://blogs.angloinfo.com/us-tax/2014/09/24/thank-you-fatca-maybe-youll-get-me-kidnapped/
See also:
‘IRS Alerts Foreign Banks about a New FATCA-Related Scam’
by Jason Bramwell on Sep 24 2014
And,
then there are the kidnappers who could really use some robust leads on where to find Americans abroad:
http://blogs.angloinfo.com/us-tax/2014/09/24/thank-you-fatca-maybe-youll-get-me-kidnapped/
‘Thank you FATCA, Maybe You’ll Get Me Kidnapped!’
September 24, 2014
“….Reporting will include the name, address and taxpayer identification number of each US account holder; the account number; account balance and value; the account’s gross receipts and gross withdrawals or payments; and other account related information requested by the IRS.
This very personal information can potentially be worth a great deal of money should it fall into the wrong hands. Remember, this detailed financial and personal information will now be shared and sharing involves the transmission of data. If the data is not kept completely secure, it can easily be used for criminal purposes.
Might FATCA result in kidnappings for ransom of Americans living overseas? Might it result in a further burgeoning of identity thefts and other scams? Indeed, these seem realistic possibilities…..”
Might the IRS alert also provide good evidence for the ADCS legal challenge, of harm and to an offense against our privacy laws and also our right to security of the person?
The alert also seems to give us fodder for the international human rights complaint.
Note to ADCS;
If as the notice says, the scam reports have come in from around the world; “…….The IRS has reports of incidents from multiple countries and continents.”, then wouldn’t we be able to find out if any have come in specifically from Canadian FIs and nonFIs – via FOI? Perhaps we can demand to know this also from our MPs in a blitz. If the Harper government signed Canada up, then they are accountable for exposing Canadian accountholders and taxpayers and citizens and residents to this harm.
See also:
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/intfinlaw/2014/09/fatca-phishing-to-steal-customer-account-data-has-begun.html
The one thing that seems very important here is that Canada has set a new rule for Canadian citizenship. In simple terms, you are NOT a Canadian unless you were born here to Canadian parents. Anything else makes you a dual of whatever country you came here from. I want to scream this message to all other minority groups and show them what Canada has done to prove this new Citizenship rule. Actions speak louder than words and we have all seen the actions of the Harper government throwing Canadians who thought they were Canadians to their country of birth. The outrage needs to get louder and we need local fundraisers/information sessions in target areas like Toronto. These need to be set up in in larger cities, where most newly created “duals” live. These people have no idea what Canada stands for, in fact, as a Canadian born here, I am truly ashamed of a Canada that does this to newcomers.
FATCA’s security problems for Americans abroad were made known to Brockers two years ago (sorry, I can’t find the comment thread here) Michael Young’s predictions are coming to fruition:
“The American government is effectively asking foreign institutions to prepare detailed data bases of American citizens, with no guidelines explaining how this information must be protected. For a country obsessed with the security of its citizens in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, such behavior is paradoxical, indeed astonishing.”
More:
https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/commentaryanalysis/fatcas_security_problem
Virginia just updated her blog to include a link to the Michael Young piece.
@badger
“This has been raised before, here and elsewhere. In my opinion it does not help us in understanding our specific situation.”
Can you point me to where it was discussed before?
To me it is really, really key to understanding all of this. When certain countries (not just the US) started–a number of years ago–with enforcing certain laws extraterritorially, it raised a red flag with me. I thought “they’re starting with the most nefarious of criminals–the child molesters and the terrorists–but it won’t stop there”.
And, sure enough, it hasn’t. The next step was to hunt down real tax evaders–not a sympathetic group but usually not quite as hated as child molesters and terrorists–with real assets hidden illegally in Switzerland.
And then the next step, of course, was FATCA targeting ordinary people who shouldn’t be considered as tax evaders.
And the line between civil and criminal is getting blurry here. These ordinary people are not officially charged with a crime but to comply need to submit financial data to the “Financial Crimes Enforcement
Network”.
I do think that these extraterritorial laws targeting the least sympathetic of criminals have been a foot in the door that governments have used as a first step to much less justified actions–and so are important in understanding all of this.
“The one thing that seems very important here is that Canada has set a new rule for Canadian citizenship. In simple terms, you are NOT a Canadian unless you were born here to Canadian parents. Anything else makes you a dual of whatever country you came here from.”
But the rule’s much worse than that! The rule extends beyond where YOU were born to where one of your PARENTS was born, like Carol’s son, who has lived in Canada his entire life but is trapped in U.S. citizenship because he is ineligible to legally renounce. Canada allows the U.S. laws to trump its laws within its own borders for those the U.S. defines as a “U.S. person” even for Canadians NOT born in the U.S., who have NEVER lived there, and who have NEVER acquired any U.S. income or assets of any kind!
@Jan, True, BUT (and this is a big but), it is MUCH easier to hide ‘US person’ status if you have a non-US birthplace. Those whose Canadian (or other non-US) passport show a US birthplace, are scarred for life.
@Jan,
Also, one could argue that those born in US to non-US parents, who left as children, are LESS American than those born outside of US to American parents (who therefore have American lineage despite their non-US birthplace).
Yes, I am splitting hairs here, and it is ALL unfair -i.e. CBT (or birthplace taxation or parent birthplace taxation or greencard taxation or whatever you want to call it) is unfair for all those unfortunate people caught in the definition of ‘US person’ with lives outside USA. However, as I said above, if you do not have a US birth certificate, and if you do not have a US birthplace on your NON-US passport, you have a much greater chance of escaping detection for the ‘crime’ of your parents (whether due to lineage or their choice of your birthplace).
Maybe the comments are posted after the comment period closes?
I expect you are right and comments are posted later. It seems like 43 comments can’t possibly be the true full number. Surely many more people have commented and they must be filtering along the lines described in the right hand column. So it will be very interesting to see which and what comments they are counting as representative. It’s a pity there has not been some way for us to count the number of actual comments submitted by Brockers.
Oops, I posted that in the wrong thread.
I’ve checked out other dockets where comments are open and they appear to be posting them for public viewing.
@WhiteKat, You’re right, it’s easier to escape detection (and they certainly give people a lot motivation to try to escape detection). But ONCE they detect you, it’s game over–esp.lly for someone like Carol’s son, who cannot legally renounce.
@Brockers -People, my point is that it’s not just the “dual citizens” the U.S. is after. The U.S. is not just enforcing “citizenship-based taxation” because FATCA doesn’t stop at targeting U.S. citizens, but goes way beyond that to entrap whoever they consider a “U.S. person”! Notice the language in all their documents concerns “U.S. persons”, not merely “U.S. citizens”. And this is why banks abroad are supposed to snoop out all kinds of U.S. indicia, not merely an account-holder’s birthplace.
No wonder we’re so badly misunderstood by many American homelands. They think we ALL are born-and-bred, bona fide U.S. citizens who are trying to shirk “our” obligations to “our” country. They don’t understand that FATCA is after a LOT of people (including working-class people, the elderly, disabled people, kids) in other countries who aren’t even U.S. citizens nor U.S.-born!
If this was properly understood, more people would wake up. No country has the moral right to do this, none whatsoever. In my book, this is reason enough to fight the IGA Canada signed and FATCA.
“Bank of Scotland forces all customers to waive rights to pass banking information to the IRS”
“All TD Bank customers must agree to pass private banking information to the IRS”
Instead of this becoming a US person problem, in a sense all Canadians become US persons and at risk of having their information sent to the US.
The banks themselves will provide some of the answers how to manage FATCA legally as they implement by covert means.
Resident citizens should be outraged their bank is asking all their rights and autonomy with that bank account to be signed away for the benefit of the US Government.
This is an example how to make FATCA a problem of all Canadians and get people thinking beyond the ‘they’re a US citizen it doesn’t affect me mentality.’ If it isn’t a general Canadian problem, why is the bank asking you to sign all your rights and autonomy away for your account?
The text in a Bank of Scotland terms and conditions could be used by Canadian Banks as well.
The BoS is asking existing and new customers from Aug 2014 to agree to the following:
(clause 22 page 20)
– Waive all your data protection and privacy rights
– Waive any claims to any losses involved to passing on this data
– You agree the data can be passed to any tax authority in the world
– You agree you will provide additional documents / information to the bank
– If you don’t comply they can:
– Close your account
– Withhold any taxes
– Transfer your account out of jurisdiction
This clause applies to customers who the bank deems is subject to another country’s tax regime.
Note the language discriminates against everyone to make it more difficult to accuse the bank of discrimination. However, somewhere in the process discrimination takes place whether on the front end or in a backroom. They don’t say that they’re passing over everyone’s data.
Government’s have to be put legally in a position to make it all data or none for resident citizens.
Here’s the clause:
22. Tax reporting and withholding for customers
who are subject to the tax regime of certain other
countries (including the US).
22.1 We (or other companies in the Lloyds Banking
Group) may be required by legislation or by
agreement with tax authorities to report certain
information about you and your relationship with
us, including information about your accounts:
a) to the tax authorities in the UK, which may then
pass that information to the tax authorities in
another country where you may be subject to
tax; or
b) directly to the tax authorities in other countries
(such as the US) where we reasonably think or
are required to presume you are subject to tax.
22.2 Where we are required to report information
about you and/or your relationship with us,
including information about your accounts,
this information includes (but is not limited to)
the account number, the amount of interest
paid or credited to the account, the account
balance or value, your name, address, country of
residence and social security number or taxpayer
identification number. In addition, we may need
you to provide us with further information,
documents or certifications about your identity,
tax residence, nationality and status.
22.3 If we are required to report information about your
accounts, you agree that:
a) you will provide additional information
or documents we need from you and
confidentiality rights under applicable data
protection, bank secrecy or similar laws will not
apply to this information we report or obtain
from you to comply with our obligations;
b) if you do not provide us with information
or documents we need, we may (i) apply a
withholding tax to amounts, including interest,
we pay to you; or (ii) close your account; or (iii)
transfer the account to an affiliate in another
jurisdiction; and
c) we will not be liable to you for any loss you
may suffer as a result of our complying with
legislation or agreements with tax authorities
in accordance with this condition 22, unless
that loss is caused by our gross negligence,
wilful default or fraud.
http://www.bankofscotland.co.uk/bankaccounts/pdf/bank-account-conditions.pdf
@Dash1729
On the question of extraterritorial application of Canadian law there are some very real question as to whether it is Constitutional from the perspective of Canadian law. Several justices of the Supreme Court of Canada have raised concerns on this issue. Myself and the ADCS board has looked at this issue in the past. I will have to dig up some of my old research.
@Don – most people will sign whatever the bank hands them without reading it, so the banks will get away with it. Until someone has real world consequences of signing their rights away, such as getting a letter from the IRS, they won’t even realize what they have done.