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
In February ADCS was collecting submissions for the US Senate Finance Committee.
However there was this press release on 11.03.15 asking for submissions through 15 April.
Hatch, Wyden Launch New Effort to Seek Input on Bipartisan Tax Reform
http://www.finance.senate.gov/newsroom/chairman/release/?id=3bcf1fcf-9dd8-47d4-9202-21a0870cd8d6.
:: Soliciting ideas from interested members of the public and stakeholders on how best to overhaul the nation’s broken tax code to make it simpler, fairer, and more efficient.
Stakeholders and the Public Asked to Submit Ideas to Working Groups, in pdf format and via e-mail among the following 5 divisions.
Individual Income Tax – Individual@finance.senate.gov
Business Income Tax – Business@finance.senate.gov
Savings & Investment – Savings@finance.senate.gov
International Tax – International@finance.senate.gov
Community Development & Infrastructure – CommunityDevelopment@finance.senate.gov
Our issues could cover 1,3, and 4. If you have a business then 2.
ADCS videoed people telling their stories. Perhaps these videos may be posted on IBS or ADCS with links e-mailed to the Senate Finance Committee.
@Dash,
You ask about the “case management” activities going on in our lawsuit. I view this as a “non-event” or optimistically a helpful event which is common at the pre-trial stage of “complicated” trials.
The Government now appreciates that it will not be able to keep to the normal timelines set out in the rules and has therefore asked, with the support of our side, for the help of an “umpire”, a case management judge, to oversee the pre-trial portion of the case. The aim in part is to reduce unnecessary delays and keep the parties acting in a reasonable and efficient manner.
— As another update, the Arvay team (I emphasize that it is a team) continues to prepare the filing of the additional application (that I mentioned in “Litigations Update”) and I don’t have a new estimate yet on when the application will be filed. Also, all should know that I do keep Mr. Arvay well informed on the thoughts and concerns expressed by those on this site.
@Stephen Kish
Thanks–actually in this case I wasn’t so much expressing my thoughts as asking what the significance of this action was. It seemed like an important milestone in the case–the first time an actual judge has weighed in on the case AFAIK. Or at least he is a prothonotary which seems to be something quite close to a judge in Canadian Federal Court:
http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/portal/page/portal/fc_cf_en/lafreniere
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prothonotary#Federal_Court
I was wondering if this relatively minor early decision offered any clues as to where the Court’s sympathies lie and how they might rule on more substantive matters later on. Or perhaps this is such a routine action to take in this type of case that it offers no useful information.
I’m surprised this isn’t the subject of its own separate post here on IBS (quoted from JC, above):
This does offer a small opportunity of hope, considering Hatch’s statements about CBT and RBT. I would like to see others’ thoughts as to the best way to present suggestions to the Finance Committee that will be taken seriously. I think coordinated responses that all make similar suggestions will have more weight with the committee (easier to tabulate) than a bunch of widely-varied and emotional messages.
@ Barbara
There’s been quite a bit of discussion about the Senate Finance Committee’s request for tax reform input.
– Various Brockers have indicated that they are making submissions.
– There will be a video submission from the “Seize the Day” forum in February. Plus they collected “people stories” from the comment sections of websites like the New York Times.
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2015/02/01/call-for-all-americansabroad-expats-accidentals-lprs-submissions-to-senate-finance-committee-by-february-14-2015/
– AARO has composed a form letter to encourage and aid people’s submissions. This is similar to what ACA did for the Ways and Means Committee 2 years ago.
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2015/01/26/senate-finance-committee-forms-working-groups-americansabroad-organize-toronto-feb-2815/comment-page-3/#comment-5744987
@EmBee: Yes, I’ve seen the posts about the video submissions, but this is the first I’ve read about the Finance Committee soliciting direct submissions, sorted by topic, complete with e-mail addresses. Comment #401 on a thread about the ADCS lawsuit is a strange place to find them.
The AARO form letter mainly focuses on FATCA (in big bold letters), and, to be honest, does not offer a compelling argument regarding RBT and other tax specifics,. I feel some of my own manner of putting arguments across can come across as either too broad or naïve. Which is why I would much rather see a good, bullet-pointed list of arguments to present to them, posted prominently on IBS, to encourage all members (and lurkers) to bombard the Finance Committee with.
“…posted prominently on IBS…” Sorry.
Hi wonderful Brockers. I am having spring clean on finances and discover that I can get some much better value for money deals on Telecom/ISP, house/car insurance. whatever money I save for the 12 months .. I will donate to this retainer round. it will hopefully be several hundred GBP.
Good for you crystal London. I hope to be in Ontario in a few weeks (for the birth of a grandchild) and plan to take my modest contribution of $500 in cash with me … the same one I promised for the last round and was unable to arrange at that time. Don’t know whether I will be able to sweeten it at all … but we shall see. I hope to be able to meet a Brocker or two to deliver the cash.
AtticusinCanada – Thank you for your support on the Jamaican media sites.
I haven’t seen it mentioned here (maybe I just missed it), but has anyone thought about the fact that under the new anti-terrorism bill, C-51, all Brockers will, technically, be considered terrorists? The Bill clearly states that anyone who threatens the economy of Canada or promotes such acts will now be considered a terrorist. Winning this lawsuit will surely cause harm to the Canadian banks that threw us under the bus to preserve their US profits. What are everyone’s thoughts on this?
@RefugeeFromCanada,
Good point. I wonder if any Brockers participated in the recent C-51 demos. That might have been a good opportunity to get some anti-FATCA IGA digs in as well.
I and one other Brocker attended in Calgary. In conversations stated that this was following the same process as omnibus Bill C-31 and the IGA that implemented US FATCA law in Canada. No time to go into it as the energy and voice was toward Bill C-51, marching about six blocks both ways on the *promenade* Stephen Avenue of downtown Calgary. I would have gone on to a panel discussion in another quadrant of town but it was almost over by the time that demonstration ended.
A very good turn-out for Conservative-heavy Calgary and much different than my and Outraged’s efforts for FATCA outside the 2013 Conservative Convention in Calgary. As we are all very aware, it’s difficult for people to show their faces or reveal their names for the rights of *US Persons in Canada* and, not surprisingly, those I talked with were NOT aware.
That same was discussed here, RefugeeFromAmerica, earlier:
from me: http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/media-and-blog-articles-open-for-comments/comment-page-128/#comment-5724552
from EmBee: http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/media-and-blog-articles-open-for-comments/comment-page-128/#comment-5724810
from badger: http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/media-and-blog-articles-open-for-comments/comment-page-128/#comment-5741950
@RefugeefromAmeriaca;
I too have been very concerned re the potential for Bill C-51 to be used to suppress dissent in any number of arenas, including our opposition to FATCA, because as Michael Geist points out:
“irst, the bill permits information sharing across government for an incredibly wide range of purposes, most of which have nothing to do with terrorism. The government has tried to justify the provisions on the grounds that Canadians would support sharing information for national security purposes, but the bill allows sharing for reasons that would surprise and disturb most Canadians.
Second, the scope of sharing is exceptionally broad, covering 17 government institutions with government granting itself the right to expand sharing to other departments. In fact, the bill even permits further disclosure “to any person, for any purpose.” In other words, there are few limits on how information the government collects can be shared internally, with other governments, or with any entity it sees fit.”
quote from:
‘Privacy under attack in anti-terror bill: Geist’
“The Harper government’s Bill C-51 contains information-sharing provisions that are ‘clearly excessive,’ says privacy experts.”
Toronto Star, Michael Geist Technology, Published on Fri Mar 13 2015
http://www.thestar.com/business/2015/03/13/privacy-under-attack-in-anti-terror-bill-geist.html
And if the government is able to erode our privacy rights in general under the very broad wording and provisions of Bill C-51, then it makes what it is doing under FATCA consistent :
Geist says of Bill C-51; “…the bill even permits further disclosure “to any person, for any purpose.” In other words, there are few limits on how information the government collects can be shared internally, with other governments, or with any entity it sees fit.” …”.
It appears to be an all out assault on our Charter and constitutional rights – including the right to security of the person, to privacy and to control our personal information – this is an attack on several different fronts at once – but with very similar aims and tactics by the federal government for its own purposes – and without oversight, without substantive debate or public consultation, and without democratic controls.
This is very dangerous to the kind of rights and freedoms that Canada purports to stand for.
Canada, we stand on guard for thee – against Bill C-51 as well as other related manifestations like the FATCA IGA.
They are all very much related.
Under new proposed Canadian anti-terrorism Bill C-51, anyone threatening the economy of Canada will be considered a terrorist #FATCA?! Well, then we can consider the United States the Number 1 terrorist in the world.
@ Barbara
I see your point. The AARO form letter is FATCA focused and as I look back, so was the ACA form letter for Ways & Means. Since submissions can be made up to April 15th maybe we should try to get an RBT focused form letter together too. It would be a somewhat safer way for people to reduce their danger of exposure because personal information could be optional. These letters would be counted in the submission tally, making a good sized pile clearly advocating for RBT. After all, it’s suggestions for reforming the tax system that they are seeking. I can’t think of any better suggestion than ditching CBT and adopting RBT.
@ RefugeeFromAmerica
Who will be a “terrorist” if Bill C-51 isn’t stopped? Good question. There’s always the danger of “mission creep”, as the interim Privacy Commissioner pointed out in the Bill C-31 hearings last year. NOTE: The current Privacy Commissioner wasn’t even invited to the Bill C-51 hearings this year. Outrageous!
@ calgary411
Good for you for being part of yesterday’s Bill C-51 protest in Calgary. What a contrast to your gallant stand against FATCA two years ago. I don’t watch or read too much from the mainstream media (don’t trust it) so I don’t know if 10,488 comments is exceptionally high for a CBC article or not but I would say that 85% plus were against Bill C-51. Are Canadians finally waking up? I hope so.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/bill-c-51-day-of-action-protests-denounce-new-policing-powers-1.2994226
@RefugeeFromAmerica
“The Bill clearly states that anyone who threatens the economy of Canada or promotes such acts will now be considered a terrorist.”
By this definition most people running startups–or venture capitalists “promoting” such activities–in Silicon Valley would be terrorists, as they clearly aim to “disrupt” the existing economy through new technologies.
If we let C51 pass, we become a police state which adds to the list of promises,”A Canada that we won’t recognize!” Well, Harper came out of the closet alive and now look what we’re fighting. Harper and his bunch are the real terrorists in our society. “Out damn spot” in October!
@EmBee: It seems that the Finance Committee does want personal information on all submissions–name, e-mail, phone. People should be conscious of this, because they might discount anonymous submissions. But I assume we all have “names” and “e-mails” that are safe to provide, and it’s unlikely anyone will call the phone number listed to verify information.
I will think hard over the next few days how to compose a short but effective submission that they might actually read. But any guidelines from those more experienced than me will be helpful.
And thanks to Mark Twain for making a separate post about this issue.
@ Barbara
I was thinking that even if name and such were revealed that sending a form letter with no personal information added could not be construed as being non-compliant, merely concerned. Everyone has a right to be concerned — nothing wrong with that. This would be perhaps a subset of anonymity. Anyway it might inspire some people to make a submission when they otherwise would not. Short and effective is the way to go and I like bullet points. (The_Animal would probably put in real bullets.) It seems like a good plan to take both a personal approach (when people are comfortable enough to do that) and an impersonal yet concerned approach. One might begin by saying, “It has come to my attention that the United States practices a form of taxation that …” or something to that effect.
Lots of good discussion on Bill C-51 and the possible connection to IBS and ADCS…I think there could be real trouble ahead for anyone who dares to oppose the corporatist agenda, represented in Canada by the Harper government.
I truly never thought I’d see these kinds of things happening in Canada in my lifetime. Truly shocking and dismaying…
@Embee, re: “I don’t watch or read too much from the mainstream media (don’t trust it) so I don’t know if 10,488 comments is exceptionally high for a CBC article or not but I would say that 85% plus were against Bill C-51. Are Canadians finally waking up? I hope so. ”
Unfortunately, I don’t think so, regardless that the majority of comments appear to be against bill C-51. Polls seem to indicate otherwise. From a recent Globe&Mail Article: ” More than four in five Canadians – 82 per cent – back the new legislation to expand the powers of intelligence agencies and police, according to the survey of 1,509 Canadians conducted by the Angus Reid Institute. Far from seeing it as too sweeping, they tend to want more: 36 per cent say it does not go far enough.”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/new-poll-finds-harpers-anti-terror-bill-is-a-political-juggernaut/article23067983/
I think what you are seeing in the comments is a type of bias (there is a term for it but for the life of me I cannot remember what it is), but it is similar to what we saw in some of the articles regarding Joe Arvay’s latest win for legalized assisted suicide. Oftentimes it seemed from the comments to various articles that most Canadians were against assisted suicide, when in fact polls reveal this is not the case. This happens when only certain people are motivated enough to comment which creates a bias which is not a true reflection of what the population as a whole really thinks.
@Embee, I’m thinking maybe its called self-selection bias. Another good example, is when only Brockers comment on FATCA articles.
However, having said that, who knows if the polls were constructed and administered properly.
“…when only Brockers comment on FATCA articles.”
Careful WhiteKat, we wouldn’t confirm some opinions that there’s some kind of “herd mentality” at play here 😉