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
@Marie,
I have not forgotten your question about the timeline to get to Federal Court. The answer depends on a number of factors, in part related to Government’s time estimate needed to review documents as part of discovery request. The court will provide a reasonable time for this review.
I can say that there is continuing back and forth correspondence between Mr. Arvay and Government on the time estimate (which has not yet been clarified), that he keeps us well informed, and that he is acting aggressively on our behalf. We may be able to say more in about two weeks, but don’t hold me to that time. This is the nature of litigation.
Half a million is cheap for litigation from the best lawyers on the most important issue facing Canadians with American chains. See what our government is spending on lawyers.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/01/28/veterans-lawsuit-canada-harper-government_n_6563592.html
http://westcoastnativenews.com/the-canadian-court-case-mainstream-media-will-not-cover/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-canadian-court-case-mainstream-media-will-not-cover
This article may seem unrelated to Ginny and Gwen’s court case but I just thought everyone would like to see that another constitutional lawyer in yet another case against the government is making some headway. Personally I would love to see the Bank of Canada restored to its pre-1974 mandate so I wish Roco Galati success in this case. It is a matter of Canadian sovereignty in the financial system.
Just another question for the ADCS. If Joseph Arvay were to suddenly be unable to continue with this, is there a greater law firm behind him that could continue on with our quest for justice?
I see some questions and comments about PayPal. I don’t have the answers. BUT I went to the bank last time I donate and withdrew cash. I proceeded to the Shopper’s Drug Mart in store post office where I bought a money order. I had to give my real name, but wasn’t asked for my address. I used the initials for the defense fund, Again, I wasn’t asked for an address. In the mail, done.
@Stephen Kish
Solomon Yue @SolomonYue 1h1 hour ago
@JCDoubleTaxed RO won’t use #FATCA lawsuit $ 2 study CBT’s constitutionality. If u raise 1st $60K, I retain Bopp 2 study if we have a case.
I Tweeted @Solomon Yue that I would spread the word about this Republicans Overseas offer. We don’t hear anything from the Democrats like this.
All-
Stephen Kish wants to go this direction as well yet is remaining focused on the FATCA IGA in Canada – sounds like RO as well on their FATCA lawsuit. A difference is RO would not commit to an entire legal action but just an opinion at this point.
However, I may imagine that any legal opinion on Citizenship Based Taxation may benefit from the progress of the ADCS and fatcalegalaction lawsuits? Read the ADCS claim if you have not – it is sprinkled with the injustices of CBT that may only be highlighted (as well as inaction of Canadian Government in protecting its citizens and residents) in the course of the ADCS legal case.
Following
We just need to know where to send money for CBT lawsuit.
@JC
RO going after Fatca makes more sense… that is something everyone can see is wrong and may get more voters who see that one party cares… CBT is a whole another ball game… if RO tried at this point to get rid of CBT… voters who don’t understand it… will think that Republicans are trying to shield the rich… I always thought *tax evader* were rich hiding their wealth… who thunk I would be one of them & I ain’t even close to being rich… If I was a better tax evader… I wouldn’t have used my own name… I would have a complicated scheme or something… guess I am a crappy criminal…
@Stephen Kish
The Honourable Gerald Keddy said that Canada’s IGA won’t inflict harm on Canadians as those affected by FATCA have an obligation to file US tax anyway, YET, the Harper government would like to tout the exemption of various accounts from reporting as some kind of great negotiation on their part. As far as I can see, the Harper government has offered US tax evasion as our only means of protection in the IGA. What kind of responsible government would do that?
I say once we are finished raising the $500k, we immediately open a second front and go after CBT. Everyone says Bopp is one of the best in the USA. I think we can do $60K after we fully fund our FACTA action.
@JC,
It is very good news that Republicans Overseas (RO) is now interested in a CBT lawsuit in U.S. You may or may not like the Republicans but I can’t see any downside in this. I feel that $60k for a legal opinion from Jim Bopp is reasonable.
@Bubblebustin,
My answer is to sue the “responsible” government that promised not to harm us. Everyone, please keep the donations coming.
Well, I am with Stephen on this one: We CAN and should do both.
No time to be faint of heart. And the SOONER the better. They are playing us and time is of the essence.
You know the feet dragging is what governments do best when it suits them and they have endless taxpayer money, in their view, to stall and and obstruct progress.
I am kind of in agreement with @US_Foreign_Person about best to go after FATCA first.
While I would like to see a legal opinion about CBT, I wonder then what. If you have a legal opinion then usually that is a basis for press releases and then onward to the legal action. I am thinking that an opinion against CBT would only benefit from the progress of ADCS and fatcalegalaction court action.
Legal action against CBT is a second front while we need to focus on FATCA. RO have not filed their legal action against FATCA/FBAR fines yet. Then I worry that while many of us think this opinion would be great and wonderful, I wonder about the potential for omission in the opinion and latitude to not get it right because high powered lawyers are busy people and they have not lived the terror.
Example of legal not getting it right. Early on with ADCS one of the legal people was quoted in the press for saying that Canadians do not have tax liability because of the tax treaty preventing double taxation, they only have compliance issues. I “point of informationed” that one that yes there definitely is double taxation (AMT, NIIT, Australian retirement account, certainly double compliance which should be considered taxing and a tax in itself as when one is shipped goods certainly the freight charge on those goods is considered part of the cost, & all the taxes the US has but your country does not, and stop using the incredibly narrow US Treasury Department definition of “preventing double taxation”. DO challenge the Canadian Government when they say that the tax treaty “eliminates double taxation.”
Example 2: Bopp claim. http://tiny.cc/1dnrmx The “opinion” just considers the FATCA 30% witholdings against the banks – and says this is flimsy as could be categorized as a tax – YET has no mention of or considerations of the individuals (only the banks are considered) who may get 30% of their account withheld because a box is not ticked right and even if no tax is owed. I tried to point this out to Solomon Yue.
There is that saying GIGO – garbage in garbage out. Applied here the high powered very busy legal people who have not lived the terror, need really good briefs and areas to consider, from perhaps several angles. I am thinking of the caliber of @Anne Frank. Having said all this I see the ADCS claim as very well put together. Anyone reading this who has not read the ADCS claim do so, and you will see it very much concerns CBT. And contribute to ADCS.
Without CBT, there is no FACTA (for non resident Americans). CBT is the issue, FACTA is just an enforcement tool of CBT. Even if there is no FACTA, Americans abroad are still subject to IRS rules and regulations, it would just be harder to be outed.
We have to be aware that we may not win our Canadian court course. Wouldn’t it be better to open up a second front (CBT challenge) now, then wait to do it in 2-4 years after the FACTA suit is resolved? In the event we lose our FACTA lawsuit, what a tragic waste of time it would be holding off the CBT suit. I don’t think there is any harm in doing both at once (proving we finish fundraising for the FACTA suit first).
@Phil timing of CBT legal opinion and of the lawsuit is of issue.
In terms of the ADCS lawsuit I believe there are many parts of it, some may not succeed. But overall, I may only imagine success. Failure would only show the Canadian Charter a worthless piece of paper. I may only bring up some points and questions, I leave the rest to the capable hands of Stephen Kish and others.
@Stephen Kish
“You may or may not like the Republicans but I can’t see any downside in this.”
I hadn’t realized until just today when I checked Wikipedia that Mr. Bopp is himself affiliated with the Republican party:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bopp
I should have checked this before but I’d just assumed that Jim Bopp was a non-partisan hired gun currently working with Republicans.
I see a partisan affiliation of the lawyer–with EITHER party–as a serious problem. This is–as has often been said–a marathon. What happens if, in the future, the Republicans are in favor of FATCA (or CBT, etc) and the Democrats oppose it? Will Bopp continue to fight hard? This is the kind of issue where I could easily see party positions changing after they take power.
The facts are that currently the democrats and democrats abroad support CBT and FACTA. The republicans are currently advocating for the repeal of both. In my opinion, I think our best shot at changing CBT is between now and the next two to five years. The implementation of FACTA has helped get the issue out. We can’t worry about what might happen as that could lead to paralysis by analysis. I never ever thought I would want to align with republicans. However, I will seek out the help of anyone willing to help. Bopp is considered one of the top constitutional lawyers in the United States. He has a success rate of approximately 70+ percent with cases before the United States Supreme Court. I don’t care about his or anyone else’s politics. As long as they can help now, who cares?
To mount a successful challenge to anything on the US side in 2-5 years the pace will have to quicken considerably. The pace of the Canadian challenge, although not as quick as I’d like, has been a bit more energetic.
I find this conversacion very interesting. I have several thoughts.
The Canadian legal accion is extremely courageous, and I am immensely supportive of the plaintiffs. However, it is a purely internal Canadian affair. If it succeeds (I am not knowledgeable enough to determine the probability of that), it will only affect the condicions under which Canadian financial institucions can submit to the law. A success will cause trouble, but only in Canada, not in the United States or elsewhere in the world, including America Central.
The Republican-led legal accion in the US is also interesting, but seems to me much less articulated than in Canada. There are many holes in the legal opinion that was circulated: for instance, the claim of breach of the 8th Amendment is really related to FBAR, not FATCA. The claim that the IGAs lacks the Senate’s approval is generally accepted as the most solid of the lawsuit, but it is unclear what category of plaintiff could bring a claim against the Departament of Treasury for passing them; it seems to me that either the Senate as a body, or possibly individual Senators would be the parties able to seek redress/relief, but not individual citizens. I cannot imagine the Senate doing this, and therefore have carefully managed expectacions for this suit.
The idea of challenging citizen taxation in American courts is appealing. However, the Court Supreme already ruled on this issue in Cook against Tait. Since there have been no material legislative development since that case, it is unlikely that the Court Supreme would find a reason to even take up the case for review.
So I think that the best hope for progress is legislative accion in the United States Congress. It is extremely encouraging that the Republican Comittee Nacional had taken posicion against FATCA and (if I understand correctly) for a move to residence taxation. It is however extremely disappointing that the Republicans do not want to take accion in this Congress, but in 2017 at the earliest and only if they win the eleccion preaidencial in 2016. I personally believe that the Republicans are too unpopular with Latino voters, especially with connexcions to America Central or Puerto Rico, to win vital swing states like Florida.
We should really pressure Republicans to act in this Congress as it is the best hope for meaningful changes to the situacion.
@Dash
There you go again.
“I hadn’t realized until just today when I checked Wikipedia that Mr. Bopp is himself affiliated with the Republican party….. I see a partisan affiliation of the lawyer–with EITHER party–as a serious problem.”
Who gives a crap what party Bopp is associated with? At least the Republicans are on the right side of the issue. Where are the Democrats?
“What happens if, in the future, the Republicans are in favor of FATCA (or CBT, etc) and the Democrats oppose it?”
Fat chance!
https://cdn.gop.com/docs/RESOLUTION_SUPPORTING_RESIDENCE_BASED_TAXATION.pdf
https://cdn.gop.com/docs/RESOLUTION-TO-REPEAL-THE-FOREIGN-ACCOUNT-TAX-COMPLIANCE-ACT-FATCA.pdf
Donate today!
http://www.adcs-adsc.ca/
https://fatcalegalaction.com/
@FromTheWilderness
According to the documents you provided the Republicans are “urging Congress”. Since the Republicans now control Congress, the proof will be in the pudding as to whether they are serious or not. If they are serious we will see action soon, albeit it might face an Obama veto.
Just so you know I’m the Republican PCO for my precinct so I think I have some knowledge of what’s actually a priority for Republicans on the ground right now. Independently of my PCO role, I’m involved through my job in lobbying my elected representatives–all of whom (both Senators and the Congrescritter) happen to be Democrats right now.
@Dash
I’m a Libertarian and personally don’t really like or trust either of the two main parties. However, the Republicans have pledged at the RNC level to take actions which are clearly in the interests of expats. The Democrats attitude towards expats is still “let them eat cake.”
I do agree that “the proof will be in the pudding as to whether they [Republicans] are serious or not.” But at the moment they’re all we have so I’m going to do everything I can to help them stay on course.
“I’m involved through my job in lobbying my elected representatives–all of whom (both Senators and the Congrescritter) happen to be Democrats right now.” — Perhaps you can talk some sense into their “stuck on stupid” minds and let them know that we don’t want cake, we just want to be left alone so we can live our lives normally.
Sorry to the previous two posters, but the expression “the proof is in the pudding,” should be “the proof in the pudding is in the eating.” Nails on the blackboard and all that:-)