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 agree with GwEvil, EmBee. Over and above the call of donors are you and Mr. EmBee!
…and never do you not say it anything but wonderfully well. Thank you.
(Know that I don’t do anything as much as the others — and they are doing this as their second and also full-time volunteer job, day in and day out.)
“Methinks all remains quiet so the opposition doesn’t trump the effort in this case.”
What keeps the government–under the dictatorial Canadian majority government system–from trumping any effort in any case? When it came to the decision involving Canadian prostitution won by Arvay awhile back, the Canadian government just trumped the decision.
We Canadian expats won an important decision on May 5, 2014 before Ontario Superior Court Justice Michael Penny restoring our voting rights. I just found out the bad news today: Harper is looking to use his dictatorial powers to also roll back this victory via C-50 preventing us from voting in the 2015 general election.
I know that lawyers like to play their cards close to the vest. It’s a good poker strategy. The problem is that Harper has been calling their bluff repeatedly and the lawyers don’t seem to be holding a very good hand. I think that non-lawyers need to take charge of the situation and do something to help give the lawyers better cards. But I admit I don’t have a lot of specific ideas.
Any suggestions?
With regards to the ADSC-ADCS lawsuit, on January 21 Democrats Abroad apparatchik Randy Caldwell wrote on the AARO Facebook page the below comment, which clearly indicates the Democrats (snakes who want to be seen as doves — quoting Petros) are watching the Canadian lawsuit closely and presumably looking for any holes in it to exploit.
“Being based on bogosity doesn’t mean it will win or even be taken up.”
“The Canada lawsuit is only about child birthright citizenship and not the totality of the US-Canada agreement concerning FuFat. Under US law they are legal US citizens and by international treaties recognized as such even in Canada.”
21 January at 02:13 · Like
Walter,
Stephen has mentioned several times on Brock, and confirmed with Joe Arvay, that our Canadian lawsuit is not dependent on the specific
characteristics of the two Plaintiffs…
Interesting to know that DA’s Mr. Caldwell is paying attention and keeps up to what we are up to regarding the Canadian litigation.
@C411
That was the point I was trying to make. Do not underestimate how close they are monitoring the lawsuit.
@Walter – The quote references international treaties. Notably the Canadian-US tax treaty permits double taxation by not saying otherwise, on the taxes the US has but not Canada. That treaty is a tempting legal target, yet I believe ADCS will think something like as follows: do we go for the treaty, or CBT, better to go for CBT. Contributions to ADCS are very much worthwhile for US persons living overseas.
The Bloomberg article shows intent of Obama administration to short-circuit the Canadian lawsuit:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-10/americans-overseas-top-annual-record-for-turning-over-passports
“Obama this month proposed making it easier for those who the U.S. considers “accidental” citizens to stay out of the U.S. tax system. What the administration refers to as accidental citizens include people born in the U.S. while their parents were visiting the country from abroad or individuals whose only connection is a parent who was a U.S. citizen.”
“Under the proposal, such people would have to give up their citizenship in 2016 or 2017 and make sure they had complied for the past five years with federal tax laws that would have applied if they were U.S. nonresidents.”
“The Obama administration proposals would be available only to dual citizens who haven’t lived in the U.S. since age 18 1/2 and haven’t had a U.S. passport — except for one they used to leave the U.S.”
The good news is that the Obama administration is clearly paying attention to the lawsuit.
The bad news is that unless the lawsuit expands beyond people considered as being “accidentals,” everyone else will remain subject to the status quo — hence, no incentive for “non-accidentals” to donate.
Everybody is flying all over the place with speculation about all of this but to me the bottom line is this: The Canadian government had the opportunity to deal with this in a manner that would have been iron clad for Canadians. IF they had amended the IGA , as was proposed no less than six times ( SIX times! ) The IGA would be in place and the amendment, if adopted would have protected all Canadians Citizens and Permanent Residents from the illegal inroads of FATCA.
It is that simple and there would have been no need for any lawsuit.
Not only did the Conservatives on the Finance Committee reject every one of these amendment proposals they were adamant and derisive in their rejection.
I maintain that the only thing needed to recharge any seeming reluctance to donate to ADCS is the posting of that Finance Committee video permanently here so that anyone who wavers or who is ignorant of what happened and why the lawsuit was launched in the first place can view that at their leisure. I can guarantee once viewed the enthusiasm for donating goes through the roof!
And it is simply human nature to be impatient when one’s life is turned upside down and every aspect of life has been thrown into question and peril. The impact on individuals and their families is enormous and deliberate.
The foot dragging by the government is infuriating and so is the long and drawn out machinations of court cases, rulings, appeals, etc.
Because ordinary Canadians are negatively influenced every single day the silence and delay is all the more acutely felt.
The fact that most of those Conservative MPs on the Finance Committee are not seeking re-election is also infuriating. They do great damage to Canadians and their families and then they walk away with a pension for which WE will pay for the rest of their lives!
Infuriating simply does not cover the range of emotions THAT invokes!!
The fact that we HAVE a lawsuit, funded entirely by everyday , ordinary Canadians and have a superior litigator and his team at the helm gives hope and where otherwise there would be none.
We know the playing field. We know the players. We know the long game. And we know we MUST win. And to win we MUST fund this lawsuit.
The fact that Joe Arvay actually won a lawsuit in which ALL judges ruled in favour of his premise and actually REVERSED themselves in a prior ruling on this issue IS very big news.
And should fill any intrepid souls with renewed enthusiasm for funding our lawsuit no matter where they live on this planet!
@ Walter
I’m not an “accidental dual”. I’m not an American citizen. However, I’m still highly motivated to continue donating to ADCS. I’ve never before experienced sustained stress like I have in the past three years and like every senior citizen I’ve pulled through many distressing losses and situations in my life. Falling into a pit of perpetual uncertainty regarding my own status and walking every tremulous step of the way with my husband towards his CLN has taken its toll on me. How much worse it would be for me if there were not others who see the betrayal of our Canadian government and are doing the best they can to overturn the FATCA IGA legislation — a major step towards blasting through the Amerlin FATCA wall and bringing down the CBT house of insanity. I’m reassured that the Arvay team has this new potential Obama wrinkle covered and can bring in more plaintiffs if they need to. Of course I could contribute to legal efforts in the U.S.A. to right the wrong of CBT/FBAR/FATCA but I have a limited budget and since I’m a Canadian it will be the Canadian ADCS lawsuit which will get all of my monetary support. Of course, I’ll be cheering for whatever the Americans might do to help on their side of the border as well.
@ FuriousAC
Once again you are hitting nails on their heads all over the place. Thanks!
Let’s look at the Obama proposal and even the suggestion of it as the thin edge of the wedge we need. It’s just one of an increasing number of them now. Now that the Republicans are eager to use us as a pawns to win elections, this could go anywhere:
“Dr. Amanda Klekowskivon Koppenfels of University of Kent surveyed 1,546 expats who renounced their citizenship from December 5, 2014 to January 20, 2015. 43% of them have annual pre-tax household incomes of under US$100,000. When will the Democrat Party stop calling all expats “FAT CAT” tax cheats?
Real foreign FAT CAT tax cheats who were clients of HSBC’s controversial Swiss bank have donated as much as $81 million to the charitable foundation run by Hillary Clinton and her family (http://gu.com/p/45kxn/stw). When Hillary runs for President, we will make this is a campaign issue for her.”
https://www.facebook.com/republicansoverseas/posts/349576808559454
Politics make strange bedfellows, of that there is no doubt.
If the Repubbies want to use that against a campaign, fine. I don’t CARE how they do it ( legislation, litigation or both) Just as long as they DO it. And the sooner the better. Talk is cheap. Congress had the opportunity to force Treasury to drop this illegal IGA campaign against nations across the globe, because they knew it was neither a treaty nor was it ratified by Congress. NOT having the majority was a big factor but now that they do there is little excuse for dragging it out.
(Rand Paul has had legislation dealing with this in the Senate for years now)
I am with the group that sees attacking it on both legislation and litigation. IF there were motivation, legislation would work very quickly since they DO now have a majority. As for litigation, which will take much longer unless they go for injunctory relief to protect rights in the interim ( which I see our lawsuit does, unless I read it wrong)
The dangers of allowing this insidious black inky evil continuing to infiltrate lives like an odious fog enveloping every living thing while legislation and litigation wend their plodding way like oil on a cold day
really is a crime against humanity!!
I will be attending in Toronto on Feb 14th. If anyone from the London area needs a ride, just send me a message and thanks.
Walter,
I don’t understand. Regarding your statement, even after my last comment to you (http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2015/01/25/99750-more-needed-in-94-days-to-make-the-may-1-2015-payment-for-canadian-fatca-iga-lawsuit-il-nous-reste-99750-a-ramasser-pour-notre-poursuite-judiciaire/comment-page-6/#comment-5544480)…
Once again…
Our lawsuit advocates for ALL peoples harmed by FATCA and is NOT limited to a minority of so-called “duals-at-birth”.
Is there anything more I or we can do to convince you an other readers, Walter, that our Canadian lawsuit IS NOT LIMITED TO DUALS AT BIRTH?
Re the quote apparently from the DA fellow (?) — “The Canada lawsuit is only about child birthright citizenship and not the totality of the US-Canada agreement…”
This misses the important points in the Canadian lawsuit about violation of the Canadian Charter, which affects all Canadians. Time to go back and re-read the Statement of Claim!
@Canoe,
Thank you for making this important point.
As a matter of fact it is a good idea to re read the statement of claim often to refresh our memory and resolve. And then donate, donate, donate.
@C411
The logic of my concern goes like this:
1. Obama’s proposal gets through and he manages to let the two “accidental” plaintiffs off the hook for US tax liabilities before the case is decided in Canada.
2. The Canadian court takes the opinion that the two “accidental” plaintiffs are not being damaged by the US.
3. Then what?
@Walter. Then what about the rest of the damages to others CANADIANS. The problem is simple. What the hell has the Canadian government done to change this? Why is the weak Canadian dictator Harper allowing the US congress to speak again? Congress is deciding the fate of Accidentals, not the Canadian government. May Harper and his stooges ROT IN HELL for not standing up for CANADIANS accidental or not. That is the issue and why this court case will be fought furiously in court! More donations coming no matter what “congress” says.
@NativeCanadian
Something to have in mind is that there are donors (like me) who do not live in Canada and are not “accidentals.” Therefore, it is important that the outcome of the lawsuit affects ALL Americans living in Canada, which in theory should also resonate across the rest of the world.
My concern is whether or not the Obama administration is cleverly outmaneuvering the effectiveness of the Canadian lawsuit by simply getting the two plaintiffs off the hook, thus undermining their claims of being damaged by the US, thus undermining the lawsuit, thus undermining any potential ripple effect across the rest of the world, for which many (like me) are hoping.
1. See post with analyses at http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2015/02/11/more-analysis-on-the-u-s-proposal-to-provide-relief-for-certain-accidental-dual-citizens/ and the views regarding the *proposal*, one only of which is…
2. Our lawsuit advocates for ALL peoples harmed by FATCA and is NOT limited to a minority of so-called “duals-at-birth”.
3. Then what — I’m no seer. It is up the the Canadian courts whether or not the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and other Canadian laws can be overridden by US extra-territorial law. This affects ALL Canadians, whether or not they know it. To let this happen because *Congress has spoken*, in my opinion, is unthinkable.
@Walter
You raise a valid concern. However, Obama’s proposal still would require accidental duals at birth to take action with the US State Dept. and, I assume, pay the $2350 renunciation fee. Why should we have to?
The lawsuit is about all Canadians of US origin having their Charter rights violated – no bank or FI should be able to discriminate against any Canadian citizen or resident of US origin by asking if they were born in the USA.
With all due respect, please do not call us “Americans in Canada” – we are Canadians. The outcome will affect us all – not just those of us who are accidental duals at birth. And we appreciate your donations! Hopefully a legal victory in Canada will help the rest of you in other countries.
@C411
The question is, does it make sense to add more plaintiffs, specifically, people who were born in the US and moved to Canada as adults?
If yes, are there people fitting that profile who are willing to take on the risk of exposing themselves?
Uncle Sam is a sneaky bastard, it would be a damn shame if he manages to wiggle his way out of this by slipping something into a budget bill that gets passed. Remember, FATCA was slipped into a bill that nobody wanted to be seen voting against.
@ Mr. A
“However, Obama’s proposal still would require accidental duals at birth to take action with the US State Dept. and, I assume, pay the $2350 renunciation fee. Why should we have to?”
The State Department unilaterally raised the renunciation fee from zero to $450 and again to $2,350. What would stop them from unilaterally waiving the fee for those deemed to be “accidentals?”
@all
The point I am trying to make is that it is better to be pro-active, anticipate the tricky maneuvers the US will try to pull off, and take appropriate counter-measures before its too late. Obama’s proposal is “indicia” of such maneuvers (pun intended).
And please do expect the US, its compliance vulture industry and pet media outlets to ramp up a propaganda campaign to try to undermine confidence in the effectiveness of the lawsuit. They would love nothing more than to restrict the donor supply if they can (yes, they are that dirty).