Dear Supporters,
Many of you probably predicted that I would not be saying this today, but this message is not a dream: You came up with yet another $100,000 payment — now making a total of $400,000 provided to the Arvay team.
In the last twelve days you actually donated more than $40,000 — an amazing achievement for small donors. This accomplishment proves to all those people who want us to fail — that we are very determined.
You gave until it hurt and then you gave a lot more. It’s hard not to get teary-eyed over the generosity of our supporters, who have come through every time.
We know that the pace of your litigation is painfully slow, and this is unfortunately as expected. The Government will continue to do its best to slow down the process, but we now have the assistance of a case management judge to help keep the process moving more fairly.
We filed in August 2014 and it has taken a very long time (one year) before we are finally into a (summary) trial (August 4-5, 2015). We cannot predict the outcomes of this trial, based on only part of our arguments and, with your continued support, we will prepare for all possibilities.
[Happy birthday Gwen!]
Thank you for your trust,
Stephen Kish,
ADCS-ADSC Chair,— on behalf of Plaintiffs Ginny and Gwen, their families, and the ADCS-ADSC Directors
——————————————————————————————————-
Chers amis et donateurs,
Certains d’entre vous avaient probablement pensé que je ne pourrais pasvous annoncer une si bonne nouvelle aujourd’hui. Mais voilà : ensemble, nous avons réussi à ramasser un autre montant de 100 000 $, ce qui fait un total de 400 000 $ à remettre à l’équipe de MeArvay.
Dans les 12 derniers jours seulement, vous avez donné plus de 40 000 $, un exploit tout à fait extraordinaire pour des « petits donateurs ». À tous ceux qui souhaitent nous voir échouer, cette réussite prouve que nous sommes des plus déterminés. Et que nous réussirons.
Vous avez donné jusqu’à ce que ça fasse mal, puis vous avez donné encore. Difficile de rester insensible devant une si grande générosité.
Nous sommes bien conscients du fait que notre litige avance de façon péniblement lente. Malheureusement, tout ça est normal. Le gouvernement continue à ralentirle processus, mais on nous a maintenant attitré un juge responsable de la gestion de notre dossier qui veillera à ce que le processus progresse de façon plus juste.
En août 2014, nous avons engagé une poursuite contre le gouvernement canadien. Près d’un an plus tard, nous avons enfin la date pour notre procès sommaire : les 4 et 5 août 2015. Impossible de prévoir le dénouement de ce procès, basé uniquement sur une partie de nos arguments juridiques. Mais avec votre appui, nous serons prêts pour toutes les possibilités.
(Bonne fête, Gwen !)
Au nom de nos deux plaignantes, Ginny et Gwen, de leurs familles et des directeurs de l’ADCS-ADSC, je vous remercie de votre confiance.
Stephen Kish,
Président de l’ADCS-ADSC
I am not a lawyer, but I saw this, and was wondering whether it might help towards the success of the ADCS legal challenge;
http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/14639/index.do
Case name Canada (Attorney General) v. Federation of Law Societies of Canada
Collection Supreme Court Judgments
Date 2015-02-13
Neutral citation 2015 SCC 7
Case number 35399
Judges McLachlin, Beverley; LeBel, Louis; Abella, Rosalie Silberman; Cromwell, Thomas Albert; Moldaver, Michael J.; Karakatsanis, Andromache; Wagner, Richard
On appeal from British Columbia
Subjects Constitutional law
Notes SCC Case Information: 35399
Hope this judgement might have some application to, and help in creating some precedent that will contribute to the demise of the FATCA IGA due to the effect on lawyer’s trust accounts in Canada – where either the client is a ‘US taxable person’ or the lawyer is. Perhaps this will supply extra ammunition for the ADCS challenge. I am hoping that some of the same intervenors ( Criminal Lawyers’ Association (Ontario), Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Law Society of British Columbia, Canadian Bar Association, Advocates’ Society, Barreau du Québec and Chambre des notaires du Québec ) will find our challenge compelling as well.
I see that authors cited include the UN, European, and international sources as well as the Canadian Charter of Rights, and John Stuart Mills.
Worth a look.
badger,
Relevant / the same? http://www.moodysgartner.com/supreme-court-of-canada-rules-that-fintrac-requirements-do-not-apply-to-law-firms-solicitor-client-privilege-remains-strong-in-canada/
I share the same concerns as Dash1729.
As per the IGA, the Canadian government is supposed to hand out the data in September. That leaves barely enough time if things go well.
@Concerned
Thank you for clarifying the timing. A date in September does allow (barely) enough time if the more optimistic end of the time ranges mentioned happens. So perhaps Mr. Arvay’s strategy here is to initially file this second action, hope that the September deadline can be achieved, but if it doesn’t, file for an injunction on the second action by September. And–as I said–perhaps Mr. Arvay cannot fully reveal his strategy for now and what has been said is the most he can say for now.
The timings still seem potentially achievable but tight and only achievable if things go quite well.
I don’t know if the ADCS team is getting heart palpitations because of the excruciatingly slow rise of the May 1st deadline thermometer but I would not blame them. It is worrisome but then I remember how three times before we made those deadlines and that GwEvil, for one, has nerves of steel. I hope the team is okay and that donations will soon pick up soon to prevent the onset of any palpitations.
@EmBee
I plan to continue to donate at my current pace–the ADCS folks know what that is–with one possible extra donation coming soon. I do agree that the pace of donations overall has been quite slow of late. However I also note that for the two prior deadlines (the first retainer didn’t have a specific deadline) people rose to the occasion and the pace of giving picked up considerably as the deadline neared–so I have great confidence in folks that everyone will again rise to the occasion before May 1!
I do note that both the posting here about the new Arvay action as well as the posting about the new Arvay action at ADCS mention the possibility of an additional cost to that action. I wonder if some are waiting to see what the additional price tag is, and whether they can commit to a potentially higher bill, before deciding what to do–and also of course hoping to get more information about the new Arvay action.
The time frame for starting the new Arvay action is currently estimated at 4-8 weeks so the current time frame would place the start of that action before the existing May 1 deadline. Thus people may feel they can wait to see what Arvay does next before deciding on their own donation strategy (although I realize that no absolute guarantees on timings have been made).
I’m not sure if that is what is in play and–as I say–I plan myself to continue giving without reduction or delay in my giving–but I wonder if some are in wait-and-see mode given that a shift in gears may be in the works.
@ Dash1729
Thank you for not going into wait-and-see mode. Me too. My plans are to keep on donating until I match or exceed what I donated in 2014. (This year I freed myself from having to wait for my pension cheques to arrive so my schedule is more flexible now.) As I understand it, the litigation fee is a negotiated fixed amount so I think Mr. Arvay’s new strategy will be included in that. (Someone will correct that if I’m wrong.) However there is an independent audit fee of the ADCS finances coming up which is probably not included in the litigation fee.
@Dash and EmBee – I am not sure whether I have nerves of steel…I just put my head down and keep trudging along with the daily fight, and when I raise my head to see what’s going on with our donations, I usually just hold my breath to see (with hope) whether the thermometer needs raising.
I used to wake up with heart palpitations every morning and obsessively check the post on Brock, but as time has gone on, I have learned to stay calmer and keep on believing in the power of the little people, since we have done it over and over. I cannot speak for Stephen who has probably had to up his blood pressure medication a few times over the course of this lawsuit and donation process!
So…all that to say…Thank you for continuing to support us. I certainly hope everyone will follow your example and keep on the steady course as you have pledged to do. We WILL prevail!
@nervousinvestor
Thanks for your comments on the Economist site, you do us all proud. Trying to talk sense to many homelanders can be like trying to deprogram cult members. They keep coming up with the same phrases like the US being the great “defender of liberty” even when the discussion is about this US assault on liberty. Or “just renounce”, as if such a thing were possible. Sure, you can leave eventually, after you turn over a large portion of your foriegn earned money, but that’s not liberty, that’s ransom.
@EmBee
Your dedication is inspiring and I will donate again before too long. It must be very frustrating for you that more Canadians have not got behind the effort to protect their rights. This government assault on its own laws effects all Canadians, not just the million or so US persons residing there. But even just pocket change from those with the most to lose, would easily put you over the top.
@ ProudAussie
My problem is that instead of being a “busy bee” like I should, I tend to be more of a “worry wart”. However GwEvil has a bad-assed good attitude — defiantly pressing forward.
This might sound too ambitious, but the Alliance for the Defence of Canadian Sovereignty may wish to consider evolving into an international organisation supporting victims of citizenship-based taxation as well as Fatca worldwide. Many U.S. Persons (whatever this means) cannot afford to challenge these issues in court so would require financial backing from supporters. Having said this, I’m quite sure that there are pros and cons in doing so, whilst fundraising would be a phenomenal task.
The more lawsuits across the world, the stronger our cause. Ginny and Gwen are very brave to commit themselves to protecting our rights.
@GwEvil (Gwen)
Thanks to you and to Ginny for your ongoing commitment to this fight and courage to take action!
Donation on its way!
@Duality
I’m pretty sure people on here have discussed legal challenges in countries outside North America. I’m not a lawyer and Canada and the USA are the only countries where I’ve lived long enough to even have a good layman’s understanding of the law–I’d love to see more legal challenges in other countries but wouldn’t know where to begin when it came to strategizing.
Perhaps IBS / MS / ADSC would be interested in considering a formal alliance with American Expatriates, which is only a FB page at the moment but has grown to 800 members very quickly. It is mainly European in orientation but also global in scope.
Focusing purely on Canada and having an “appearance” of being focused on the interests of “accidentals” will limit how much money can be raised.
Walt,
Anyone who takes a few minutes to educate themselves by reading information on this site will see very clearly that funds being raised here are for a Canadian FATCA suit. The other side project is a privately funded issue that has nothing to do with the fundraising. This has been explained and re-explained over and over.
@Phil
My point is that Isaac Brock and ADSC should consider expanding the size of their base.
@ProudAussie. Thank you for your kind comments. As much as a legal confrontation, I see this as a battle to disseminate real information to not only the “Elected Law Makers” but to the Electors who put those people there … to counter the Propaganda by vested interests. The Bureaucrats are beyond redemption for the most part as they exhibit in my view their selfishly corrupt attitude to defend and expand their personal vested interests at all costs, to increase their Taxpayer funded sinecures and Taxpayer funded appointments as Inquisitors and Torturers (destroying entire families in the process) … rather like Gestapo and SS personnel after WWII … “we were just following orders”. I see the battle against this sort of Global Information Exchange / Global Control of People as a Battle to allow PEOPLE to have freedom and the ability to vote with their feet (and their liquid assets) to escape Tyranny, to find opportunities or spouses wherever these might be located or to simply get a new view on Earth and to crack a fresh “Tube o’ Fosters”.
Don’t let the buggers tie the ‘Roo down mate ! LOL. Or as those in my country might say Free I, Free di Rasta !
As one Jamaican artist sang in the heat of the 1970s tyranny of Democratic Socialism in Jamaica:
Pluto Shervington – I Man Born Ya lyrics
http://www.thelyricarchive.com/song/2947659-474751/I-Man-Born-Ya
One more Jamaican gaan abroad
One more disciple leave the yaad
but if you think seh we ago stand up and wait
no way while we hold the gate fi yu
no think so at all.
But I man on ya, I man born ya
I nah leave ya fi go a Canada
No way sah, pot a bwayl ya, belly full ya
Sweet Jamaica
But when you stop and check out the facts
its a whole heap of things Jamaica lack
but when you run from a problem it neva solve
no man want fi get involved at all
we sit down and bawl
But I man on ya, I man born ya
I nah leave ya fi go a ‘merica
No way sah, pot a bwayl ya, a belly full ya
Sweet Jamaica
Five flight a day to Miami
Don’t mean a thing to this man
As long as, man give labour honest work fi money
There is not a man can move me from my land.
So, all you Jamaicans gaan abroad
When last you really check a yaad
Remember saltish friters, Bulla and Pear
Wash it down with an ice cold beer
a true, it no bad at all.
But I man on ya, I man born ya
I nah leave ya fi go a Canada
No way sah, pot a bwayl ya, belly full ya
Sweet Jamaica.
But I man on ya, I man born ya
I nah leave ya fi go a ‘merica
No way sah, pot a bwayl ya, belly full ya
Sweet Jamaica.
I man on ya, I man born ya
Yet almost before the song could be played on the radio, Mr Shervington was on one of those “5 Flights a day to Miami” and seems to have remained based there since though he still returns to Ja occasionally. Pluto’s music is loved in Jamaica (and in the Diaspora) yet the timing of his run to Miami is forever the cause of understanding laughter. He voted with his feet for, I imagine, political and economic reasons … despite his abiding love for Jamaica. Assuming that he is now a US Citizen (or even a Green Card holder) WHY should he ever have to surrender either of his citizenships for any reason?
Enjoy this second lyric for the fun (and wisdom):
Pluto Shervington – Your Honour lyrics
http://www.thelyricarchive.com/song/2947652-474751/Your-Honour
Oh, Lord.
Anybody see my trial, grieve for I.
Why, Lord?
I was badly beaten, found by loved ones.
Battered by an irate husband
Searching for a man that wasn’t I.
When we reach the court, we gone inside
The Honour, Justice, shall preside
Over this place. The trial shall begin.
Your Honour
I was in the closet minding I and I own business.
Your Honour
It was a complete stranger causing these disturbances.
‘e claim seh I touch ‘im wife
Which is a wicked and awful lie.
Mi two han’ did occupy
Mi shirt in mi lef’ an’ mi pants in mi right.
Mi han’ dem was occupy
Mi shirt in mi lef’ an’ mi pants in mi right.
Dear Judge,
Can dis court accept my story from mi heart.
Why, Judge?
If by chance yuh don’t believe this tale
Ask im wife she will not fail
To agree I was a better man than he.
Just in case she refuse to answer
Ask the maid downstairs, Agatha
She’ll only be glad to testify for me.
Your Honour
I was in the closet minding I and I own business.
Your Honour
It was a complete stranger causing these disturbances.
‘im claim seh I touch ‘im wife
Which is a wicked and awful lie.
Mi two han’ did occupy
Mi shirt in mi lef’ an’ mi pants in mi right.
Mi han’ dem was occupy
Mi shirt in mi lef’ an’ mi pants in mi right.
Dear Corporal,
As yuh lock me in dis prison, pray for I.
Please, Corporal,
Please don’t leave me hear to wonder
Why di court has made dis blunder
Grabbed me for a crime dat wasn’t dere.
Corporal,
When yoh gwine to send mi dinner
Send yuh mother or yuh sister
One more day of dis, I cannot bear.
Your Honour
I was in the closet minding I and I own business.
Your Honour
It was a complete stranger causing these disturbances.
‘e claim seh I touch ‘im wife
Which is a wicked and awful lie.
Mi two han’ did occupy
Mi shirt in mi lef’ an’ mi pants in mi right.
Mi han’ dem was occupy
Mi shirt in mi lef’ an’ mi pants in mi right.
Consider this folks :
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/officer-reveals-planting-evidence-lying-part-game/
Walt
“Focusing purely on Canada and having an “appearance” of being focused on the interests of “accidentals” will limit how much money can be raised”.
I agree with you about possibly aligning with some other credible groups to create a huge opposition against CBT. I just don’t understand why some people (not necessarily you) think this site is focusing its efforts on relief for accidentals when that is clearly not the case. 99.9 percent of the focus of this site is on the FATCA law suit in Canada. The other stuff is a side project privately funded and has been reported that way from the beginning months ago.
@Phil
It has always been a bit unclear to me how “accidental Americans” are defined. This seems to me an important but legally vague term. One could have two different people in very similar circumstances legally–one of whom considers themselves an “accidental” and other doesn’t. The difference would be that the latter person knew they were still a US citizen and actively wanted to keep that status–at least before the current enforcement regime made it virtually impossible to do so as an expat. The former person may have had no idea until recently that the USG still considered them a citizen and it may have come as quite a shock to them to learn that the USG still considers them a citizen (primarily for the purpose of extorting money and private data from them).
But both people are affected by CBT/FBARs/FATCA and it isn’t clear how you could focus on helping just one without helping the other even if you wanted to.
A lot of people were “forced” to get a US passport by a power crazy border guard. My wife never wanted anything to do with the USA but was clearly forced into a US passport to vacation in the US. Those types of “accidentals” might make up a 3rd category of “US tainted” people being screwed by the US and Canada. This lawsuit is protecting everyone as it is forcing the Canadian government to put it’s citizens first and provide their FULL protections they have as a Canadian citizen. The only way to really and clearly define this as an act of war from the USA is simple. What other country on earth could pull this off with Canada? None!!! Mr. Harper, you blundering idiot, you never even got your dam pipeline did you?
@NativeCanadian
Yes that may be a slightly different 3rd category that your wife and others are in although I would consider it mainly to be an “accidental” category if they never (even in the past) wanted to be a US citizen but were forced into some form of compliance (be it CBT or at the border or whatever).
If homelanders need a definition of an accidental citizen, you can always use Ted Cruz and he was surprised to be considered a Canadian after moving to the US as a child.