[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).
EmBee,
I know Blaze is alive because we have been trading emails back and forth today. She is still getting through the long rehab process.
The strong tone of her e-mails as you might expect has not changed.
My wife and I will be stopping by for a visit with Blaze on Thanksgiving weekend. She greatly prefers Swiss Chalet chicken but I will suggest something else.
BTW, in her last email you were mentioned as one of the star donors. Blaze compared you to some other Canadians, but unlike you, who have very deep pockets. The deep pocket Canadians are also upset with FATCA and the loss of Canada’s sovereignty — but do not contribute.
Blaze finds this very disappointing.
@Stephen, any luck with engaging the politicians who fought FATCA and could help with fundraising or at least spreading the word through their contact list, since ACA won’t do that.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401 provides who is a US citizen at birth.
Note this one:
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
and
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
…Now the (g) above was changed 14 Nov. 1986 by Public Law 99-653 and before that there was a longer period of physical presence required:
SEC. 12 Section 301(g)(8U.S.C.1401(g)) is amended by striking out “ten years, at least five”
and inserting in lieu thereof “five years, at least two”.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-100/pdf/STATUTE-100-Pg3655.pdf (third page)
Now, if you were born to a Canadian-only and a US citizen BEFORE that 1986 date and you were born NOT a USA citizen, the question is whether PL 99-653 infected you with USA citizenship after you were born. That is a legal question I cannot touch. I hope I have clarified just what the uncertainty is.
Let me add to the comment above: There’s also the out-of-wedlock rule
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1409
@ Stephen Kish
Thanks for the update on Blaze. Nice to hear her e-mails are strong toned. That’s our Blaze! She’s our trailblazer and we all look forward to learning about all those great ideas I’m sure have been whirling around in her head as she recovers from being sidelined. Tell her we like Swiss Chalet chicken too. 🙂
@CommonSense,
You raise a good point.
ADCS has not given up on the political process in Canada (although litigation and other “legal” approaches are our focus). We are continuing to interact with those MPs who supported our cause (they are my heroes), but I do not yet know how this story will end.
I don’t know that I have deep pockets — I’d love it if they were deeper — but I’ve made another donation, and I hope to make one more before the end of the month. This action is so important for those of us who are sole Canadian citizens, who have never lived as anything other than Canadians, but who happen to have an American parent (my case) or to have been born in the U.S. to at least one Canadian parent. We’re not American tax evaders — we’re not even Americans — but we’re being claimed by a foreign country and betrayed by our own government. My goal is to contribute the current cost of renouncing U.S. citizenship — a citizenship I neither have nor want — to this court case. I’m getting close! This isn’t about money, or taxes. It’s about the right to be able to say that a foreign country can’t impose its laws on us in the country or our birth, or choice, and sole citizenship.
There has been a lot of discussions lately about passing on US citizenship to children. I realized last week I have passed on this “plague” to my three children. Never since my first child was born 22 years ago has this even crossed my mind, as I left the US as 3 year-old. Does anyone know for sure if US citizenship is automatic, or if the children must be registered or claim it on their own?
Another OMG moment…
charl –
We all thought they would never sign the IGA to begin with. So much for that theory.
Not sure who we all is supposed to be. For sure, lots of somebody.
There should be a few oldtimers around who can confirm to you that usxcanada never subscribed to the madness of that state-loving theory.
Is there some version of Freudianism that might describe the uncanny transference or displacement of affection & hope from “Canada” to “Supreme Court of Canada”? (With transmuted yellow stuff now factored into the desire to please or appease the fatherland? PS Yellow stuff is the next logical product after the oral stage.)
@LivingtoRenounce – rest easy! You did NOT pass on the taint. You left as a child and therefore did not live in the US long enough (you’d have had to live there til age 19 for that). You are the same as me…lucky for my kids, I left as a toddler as well.
“We all thought they would never sign the IGA to begin with.”
Just had to respond to that. That’s been a common misconception that I’ve come across these past few years. Friend in Japan, “I’m not worried, they’ll never do it.” But they did. Friend in France, “The French government would never ever sign something like that.” But they did. Acquaintances in Mexico, “This has nothing to do with us. We bank in the US so no impact on us.” But there was.
There you have it. We were right and they were wrong. And I derive NO pleasure whatsoever from this. If I think today that they were hopelessly naive, perhaps I was just as gullible thinking that if people were properly informed, the multitude would rise up in its own defense.
Today the landscape is different – at the very least people are uneasy and uncertain even if they don’t entirely accept that FATCA is coming their way. Folks who treated me like a conspiracy theorist a couple of years ago are now sending ME the WSJ articles. And my brother in Portland who is a pretty serious activist (WTO Seattle) said he was impressed that we had managed to get all this into the media.
That’s progress. However, in reaction to the media coverage and places like Brock, more and more I’m hearing the “soothers” working their insidious magic which goes something like this: Don’t worry, just file those darn returns/FBARs (and don’t sweat accuracy – just do the best you can). That will be good enough because Treasury/IRS isn’t after people like you and me. And those bank accounts closures? Just give it time and in a few short years after FATCA has become GATCA, the discrimination against US Persons will stop. As for the renunciations, they will peak and then drop off again.
And that’s a very attractive message for people who are scared especially when it comes from some sort of authority.. It’s telling them that they don’t have to do anything because it will all work itself out in a few short years.
Horse manure. The bank account closures and discrimination started right after FATCA was passed. From 2011 to the present day, has it stopped? Has it even slowed down? No, it’s just spread to more countries.
But it’s a powerful message because folks WANT to believe it. It’s wishful thinking at its worst. I think a much more realistic vision says that what is happening right now will continue well into the future. And the “soothers” themselves will eventually get screwed too as their credibility goes to hell and people lose patience, lose heart and resolve to make it go away the only way they know how: renounce.
Yikes! What a depressing picture and I’m talking myself into a funk here. I will shut up now and go walk the garden for a bit.
@Victoria
I worry, too. FATCA has recently caught what seems to be a really corrupt operation involving Belize that was engaged in deliberate tax evasion through shell companies, the pumping and dumping of penny stocks, and money laundering. Will the American public care about the reforms that are needed if FATCA is seen as ‘getting the bad guys’ (some of whom also seem to have underestimated the impact of FATCA)?
I have been wondering if any members of the Joint Committee on Taxation might have particular interests that could be used to get rid of the worst features. Unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to be anyone who is big on disability rights, although Debbie Stabenow has an interest in mental health. She is also the only woman on the committee, which is not good considering that the women’s caucus seems to be more sympathetic. Senator Chuck Grassley and Rep. Rangel seem to have an interest in building ties with the rest of the world, but all some of the other members of the committee seem to be interested in building is a bigger wall on the border with Mexico. Although the Republican Party is sympathetic, the Republicans on the JCT seem to be mainly concerned with getting the books to balance. There are some members who might be sympathetic to the problems facing military veterans, particularly Rangel.
@Publius Very insightful comment. I hadn’t thought of that but you’re right. Just as there were OVDI/OVDP press releases extolling their “success”, we will surely start seeing headlines that say, in effect, “Thanks to FATCA, tax evaders thwarted.” Enough of that and we risk being in a position where the gains we’ve made getting people’s lukewarm support for an anti-FATCA/CBT argument based on obvious injustices will be put alongside the “successes” of FATCA/GATCA. That day is clearly coming and so the pressure will be on us to accept the fallback position which is some sort of FATCA mitigation (in their minds CBT has already been mitigated with the FEIE/FTCs and they feel no need to give us more than that).
Meeting the JCT was the scariest meeting I attended. These people are deadly serious. You want something changed? Then you have to walk in there and make your case as coldly and as logically as you can and have evidence backing up your assertions. And that is where we fail. Anecdotes? Good enough to interest them; not good enough to have them act on it. THE question I have had in my mind about the RBT argument is just how its proponents presented the actual evidence that revenue would be neutral or there would be a slight gain for the US government. Because looking at it coldly – radically changing the US tax system to be residence-based and saying, in effect, this changes nothing (revenue neutral with the possibility of a slight gain) is NOT a terribly attractive argument for people who are charged with “getting the books to balance.” Today they are not balanced and there is clearly a lack of revenue (or too much spending, all depends on your POV). For me everything points in the direction of their and the lawmakers not doing anything. Not enough evidence for action, no real urgency for them (they have time), and a real possibility that FATCA will have some successes to counter the negative press it is getting.
What would change the game? That is THE question for me. I think it’s the court cases. This is the pain and boredom surcharge, guys and gals, for inflicting FATCA on us. As a sideshow it would be good if Americans abroad punished the beejesus out of the Dems – that would certainly help. Basically I think it comes down to sticks and carrots. We have none of the latter, so sticks it is. We have nuisance power here and that’s not nothing if we use it well.
@GwEvil
Except… I never married. See, here in Qubec, most francophones from my generation did not marry (though my spouse and I have been together 27 years). So if I understand the law correctly, I only need to have lived in the US for one year. I hope I’m wrong.
The gross page views keep ticking up …. now nearly 12 Million plus 600K from the old site. So well on the way to 13 Million views … am I imagining things or is interest in the topic accelerating ? I see new (to me) names posting from time to time …. great things happen when small pebbles (or twigs) accumulate. Keep on keeping on … FATCA is such a rotten concept that it must fail … the only question is when. We do NOT need a re-run of Fascism, Extremism nor an increase of Police States in this world. We need good people peacefully standing strong for good things.
So what happened to the video?
@Victoria, I don’t believe the discriminations will stop and the reason is that FFIs are scared to death of the financial consequences, like the record fine assessed to BNP-Paribas. This sends a pretty strong message, meaning the US is willing and capable to punish ANY bank who they deem not compliant – IGA or not.
That in itself is enough to continue the discrimination.
The only thing that may stop it is legal action preventing it in foreign countries. We have yet to see it anywhere, except maybe in Denmark? And even that was not enough to stop other banks from discriminating. This is pretty sad.
You’re right on elected representatives needing proof to switch to RBT. I agree with you, and I think we can’t blame them for that. Who would want to make such a drastic change, on the illogical claim that taxing less people is going to bring in slightly more revenue? I would not without a solid case.
Maybe ACA should spend resources on building a solid case, since they took the lead on that.
The other issue is that they might not like where the savings are made. If that means closing most of the international branch of the IRS that deals with that and laying off a lot of people, is that such a good outcome for them, for the benefit of people living abroad, that don’t bring them many votes.
It’s hard to quantify the benefits that this may have to exports. Would that really lead to more Americans moving abroad and promoting/selling US products? Mr Conklin could chip in here. But is his situation anecdotal, because the country did not have a tax treaty with the US? It’s tough to build a case.
Many multinationals send Americans abroad, to help develop, sell products and spread their culture abroad. It costs them more now to do that because of CBT, but that does not prevent them from doing it.
Whoever works on building the CBT case must do a darn good convincing job, with reliable data associated with it.
And maybe they should just try it out for a short term period, but long enough to show a trend. Is that possible?
“If you don’t act, the danger becomes stronger” quote from Ai Weiwei. To those people “with any kind of pockets” please contribute to our ADCS cause. Freedom is always taken away in tiny increments and then one day we wake up and ask “How did that happen”! Well, it’s happening and if we don’t pay attention as Victoria quoted earlier we will wind up with no freedom whatsoever. Is anybody listening? A group effort has a strong voice and it’s costs money. Since we all can’t gather together as in Hong Kong ADCS is our only hope of protest.
@ LivingtoRenounce I do believe you are correct, only 1 year is required for an unmarried mother to pass on citizenship. Your children have the US “taint” So sad that the US can claim people that have never lived in the US as their tax slaves. See the discussions on this thread for Oct 2, there are links to US websites where you can confirm the laws. Bubblebustin educated me on this fact.
Stephen,
Was someone (like Deckard) as well videotaping the event? Seems to be way past time — it should never have taken this long to produce! A decision could or should be made to use our own if you can get no immediate product from ACAGF. There must be some kind of agenda for not providing the video. My gut tells me that ACAGF (and perhaps ACA as well) doesn’t approve of it being used us for education and our possible litigation purposes regarding expatriations from the USA. You have certainly been patient with their stalling.
Living to Renounce& Heartsick: how many Angels can dance on the head of a pin? The regs state that the children ‘are entitled to US citizenship’. Not the same as ‘are US citizens’
If they don’t want it, they don’t have to have it. Sort of like cod liver oil.
Victoria, a depressing picture indeed but realistic in my view. I, too, heard people say that Canada would never agree to such and here we had our Conservative government work behind our backs to sign an IGA with the US, ignoring our submissions and the Opposition Parties good work completely!, passing legislation in yet another omnibus bill and then not even including the recognition in their press release of their passing law to have US law override Canadian law, making one million Canadians and their families second class to any others by way of discrimination by national origin. They obfuscate to this day by saying that Canadian registered accounts are exempt. As I commented,
Then, we are told not to be paranoid as if all of this is imagined — that vast sums of money have and are continuing to be spent putting the machinery of FATCA in place. Magical thinking in whatever capacity is dangerous. None of us should have our heads buried completely or even partially in the sand. The Canadian litigation is very important. Every donation to http://www.adcs-adsc.ca/ is so important and so appreciated.
EmBee,
I, too, got a message to send a thank you from Blaze to pass on to you — on your wishes for her and for your many contributions to http://www.adcs-adsc.ca/. Many here keep sending good thoughts her way.
@ Stephen Kish
You may want to use this article to support your argument re. dining at Swiss Chalet.
http://www.activistpost.com/2013/04/50-ways-to-starve-beast.html
@Duke of Devon and heartsick
Thanks! I’m going to go with Duke of Devon’s interpretation.