We want to move quickly on the Constitutional-Charter trial and are now seeking Witnesses.
The Charter trial cannot proceed until we have the necessary Witnesses.
Witnesses will provide affidavits describing the harm caused to them by the FATCA IGA enabling legislation and will, like Plaintiffs Ginny and Gwen, disclose their names publicly.
If you believe that you have the characteristics of a Canadian who has been somehow harmed by this FATCA legislation, are interested in helping out by becoming a Witness in our lawsuit, and are willing to have your affidavit statements and name go public, send me an email through our ADCS site.
You need to assume that your Witness affidavit and name when made public will find its way to the U.S. IRS and to unpleasant people who will insist that you are not paying your fair share.
Without limiting ourselves to this category, we are especially seeking IRS non-compliant Canadians who have a reportable account, are likely to be turned over by their bank to CRA/IRS because they have a U.S. taint or have already been turned over, and because of their situation, would suffer significant harm (financial and other) if they decided to enter the United States IRS system. For example consider the situation of innocent Tina.
You might have a US taint and own a personal banking account or be responsible for a company, entity, or executor account. Perhaps you have have suffered medical or financial harm, or have had to change, with much difficulty, your behaviour (e.g., divorce, removal of name as Director or as signing authority on account) so as not to harm others in your family or company. You might be responsible as a guardian for a US person who has no possibility of escape. Chances are that most of you with U.S. taint reading this post are IRS non-compliant and refuse to become compliant to a foreign government, notwithstanding FATCA, a PR exercise of the U.S. IRS. The list of possible harms is endless.
We do not want to proceed with the Charter trial without the Witnesses we feel will give us the best chance of success in Federal Court.
We hope that out of the 1,000,000 plus Canadians affected by the FATCA IGA enabling legislation we are contesting — a handful, like Ginny and Gwen, will come forward, take that risk, and go public as Witnesses in our litigation.
Yes, we have a new Liberal Government, but that Canadian FATCA compliance law is still on the books.
It would be a shame if our litigation were compromised because we could not find a few brave Canadians willing to confront publicly the Government that promises to do them harm.
Seeking Canadian Witnesses for Charter Trial.
For me the relationship ‘harms’ fall into 4 main categories –
Institutions (mainly financial)
And perhaps your personal Security (data hacked / stolen by criminals/terrorists)
We do not have enough Witnesses with the needed characteristics to proceed to Charter trial in Federal Court.
We assume that there are 1,000,000 plus U.S.-tainted families in Canada affected by FATCA and hope that a few Canadians will agree to help out in our lawsuit.
In part, we need Canadian individuals who are willing to go public on the psychological (including social and occupational) harm FATCA has caused them.
Tricia recently published on Brock a list of “real life” harms. I am seeking Canadians willing to testify in an affidavit to some of these harms. Your name and affidavit will be made public. If interested, please email me at Stephen.Kish.Chair@adcs-adsc.ca
I want to be a witness for this, but cannot without the backing of family. All the issues on your list resonate with me, but I currently this is the one that endures daily:
“It is the isolation one feels from friends and family at realizing almost no one understands WHAT one is talking about & no one wants to hear it anymore.”
Even those who are also affected but refuse to listen, to take precautionary action, to ask questions, to believe that they need to be forewarned and at least make an effort to understand the choices they are making as to action AND INactions.
I find that people say to me that because I have relinquished, that it is over, I have my CLN, I just should forget about it and move on. Even the Canadian-only people who are paying for the implementation of the FATCA IGA forever via Canadian taxes, and hidden financial institution’s account fees. Even another relative who went through the same process over the same period of time, but at the end, for unexplained reasons decided at the last not to renounce, despite the compliance burdens and expense and ongoing uncertainty that they are imposing on their Canadian-only spouse as they are retiring and may eventually meet with unforeseen US tax complications now and at the end. They also have Canadian-born dual children who inherited the status, and are unfortunately in the system with US passports and probably SSNs – but who are I think still noncompliant – and old enough to understand their situation.
And an ongoing issue is what I chose to do – given the very few options and information at the time, and the significant expense. That causes a lingering grievance because it affected my household so negatively and took so long to resolve. Most of the burden was lifted once I got my CLN. No-one in my family (US or Canadian) really understands what was at stake no matter how I try to explain without a true appreciation of the costs that my family was spared because I relinquished. For example, when/if I become incapable, my Canadian only spouse and child will be spared dealing with the IRS. I can hold POA or be named as executor for family as necessary without reporting their local Canadian accounts to FINCEN. I don’t have to segregate my accounts and my non-US family member’s accounts, RESP, TFSA, etc. I can hold a TFSA again. I can again take work or volunteer in the charitable/ non-profit sector where I might have co-signator powers over non-personal accounts again.
That said, I achieved peace of mind. If the US comes to me after the fact about anything at all, I am prepared to tell the IRS to FO. And I hope to achieve some redress for myself and others via IBS, Maple Sandbox and ADCS.
May the force be with us.
May we obtain justice.
We are in the right.
I just added your sentence of harm to the list.
You are right about family support. Being a witness in which one goes public with a statement has to be a family decision.
This is the most significant item for me as well, Stephen and badger and Patricia.
I hope I am accepted as a witness because it is not over for me and at least one of my family and the ADCS-ADSC litigation is the only light I see. I reject that I should have to look over my shoulder for the rest of my life because of obscene US law that I knew nothing about until 2007 — or that anyone else of us should have to do so.
*A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian* — and every Canadian should be protected by its government the same as or above its financial institutions. It’s up to this new government to figure out how to make our Prime Minister’s election statement a reality.
How formerly useful lives have changed.
This may sound like a foolish question. I am wondering why it is an absolute legal requirement that witnesses must go public with their identity. There seem to be other situations where the courts protect the identity of persons involved in legal proceedings. For example, there was a court case in Toronto that involved harm to a person (a sexual assault case) and the women’s identity was kept from the public. I believe she was only known as Jane Doe. I am sure that many more people would be willing to come forward as witnesses if their identity was protected by the court. Most people naturally would not want the banks or the US government to find out who they are. The fact that people have a fear of going public with their identity is a good demonstration of how this law causes harm ie people have to hide when they have done nothing wrong.
It will be our legal team who will make the decision on who is selected as a witness and under what circumstances. My understanding is that the court would be extremely reluctant to accept an argument that the name of a witness should not be disclosed in our trial. In a general sense, the Crown lawyers will want to test the credibility of the witnesses and as part of this will reasonably need to know their names.
Yes, of course there would be much more enthusiasm in being a witness if you could be anonymous, But we need witnesses willing to go public with their affidavits,. There may possibly be as you suggest a way to inform that court that many have a fear of disclosing and testifying, but all potential witnesses in our trial should assume that their identities will be disclosed — just like those of Ginny and Gwen..
Maybe the Charter trial has to be delayed until a victim of the information turnover gets penalized by the US. A witness, or better a plaintiff, who has actually been injured will be more powerful than someone who only has good reason to fear prospective injury.
Maybe that’s why the US hasn’t penalized Petros yet.
Stephen Kish –
We do not have enough Witnesses with the needed characteristics to proceed to Charter trial in Federal Court.
Half a million dollars later, harken unto to this echo from the archive:
Snooze. Mouseys poke noses out of hidey-holes to chat about designating outed fellow mouseys to “represent” a few more who are willing to go public as “members.” Ding-dong kitty-cat! … etc
Conclusion: Broccultism stares into the darkness?
“When you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you.” — Our Friend Fred
As I mentioned in my post above, we are also seeking Witnesses out of the 155,000 or so who have accounts already turned over, without their consent, to the IRS. We also need Witnesses who have received a FATCA demand letter from the bank — it is assumed that if the FATCA letter is not answered, the account becomes reportable and is “automatically” reported if the bank is doing its “job”.
We would like a range of Witnesses suffering from different types of harms and do know, as I think (?) usxcanada points out, that it will not be easy to find people willing to disclose publicly.
Back in 2013 one person responding to usxcanada’s comment above said:
“@usxcanada, Yep. No way I would ever stick my neck out in hopes of being believed. I shouldn’t have to do that, and not only that, there is no guarantee that I would be believed by anyone, even if I did.”
Ginny and Gwen of course have stuck their necks way out, providing proof of concept to all that some Canadians are willing to take the risk.
Over the years I have personally known men that have the disposition of “usxcanada” and all of them have ultimately been responsible for the gravest of damages in business, in government and in uniformed service. I have also known men with that disposition in academia but they produced little and were ultimately responsible to nothing so they did not matter in the end being able to cause little harm anyway.
Individuals stepping forward? In recent years, the United States went to war in 2001 and 99% plus did not step forward. The USA took the grave responsibility and went to war with a tiny subset of the population and kept sending the same men and women back into combat because so few others stepped forward. So there is nothing, nothing at all surprising at all in seeing few step forward to possibly be in the cross hairs with this litigation matter. There are indeed people who should be mocked and it is not ADCS.
“Half million dollars” which in reality is an absolute bargain at many levels. This litigation could very well fail but this very litigation has created an engagement with persons who would not have known the horror they are facing until too late. In regards to CBT, advance knowledge is worth tens of thousands of dollars in preventable damages instead of being blind sided.
Stephen Kish, Gwen, Ginny, everyone at @ADCS, Petros et al, can face themselves in the mirror each and every morning. Yet, I have no doubt at times they do worry each and every day if this was the right thing to do.
Yet, what has “usxcanada” actually done for his fellow man? I think I know the answer to that question from what I have now seen over time.
Regardless as to how this shakes out in the end, I look forward to some day visiting with Dr. Kish in Toronto and having a cup of coffee with him and being able to look him in the eye, shake his hand and humbly say Thank You, no matter what happens with the lawsuit.
The reality is that NO politicians or political parties have stood with their Countrymen but the good people at ADCS have stood up for their Countrymen and brothers/sisters around the world. ADCS has proclaimed to all those persons, “You are NOT alone.”
You are NOT Alone is indeed the gift that can not have a value pegged to it.
I send money to ADCS and I am not resident in Canada nor a “confirmed” Canadian Citizen. Victory or loss in a Canadian Courtroom will NOT affect me or my family yet I send money in assorted currencies. Why do I do this? Just as ADCS has proclaimed to me that I am NOT alone, as a human being I must do what I can to stand with them so they too know they are not alone. (Mark 12:31)
I have children with a wide age span all minors and in five years this whole FATCA/IGA matter will be settled. My kids after age 18 will likely need to renounce/relinquish because no matter how this pans out, the USA in practice is no longer tolerating multi-nationality. But as a dad I will need to talk with each of them and will need to explain what I did in an attempt to make a difference.
When that time comes I will explain to them that I supported a group far away in Canada that would have no impact on our family. I will also explain to them that I made myself known to members of the US Congress (including privately in person) along with members of my countries Parliament.
So I do actually wonder whose eyes and heart “stares into the darkness?” I think I know the answer to that question as well.
Hmmm…..I was starting to think along the lines of Norman (4 comments ago) and wondering if it would be wise to wait until the out of control bully does more, tangible damage to someone, thereby making the argument far more concrete. Is this law-suit indeed providing shield for us at the current time? And, being ignorant of all things “legal,” I have another question. If we don’t win the charter case during the first round, is it good or bad for a future court case, once serious damage starts occurring, ie. has a bad precedent been set, OR, are we further head as we could just “re-open” the old case with hard proof of damage? I don’t know.
Of course, the entire reportable banking stuff IS pure discrimination, but is it enough for a resounding victory? Just thinking out loud. (And, FYI, I WILL be sending another donation to ADCS this week.)
(PS, if anyone can figure out what USX Canada is saying, please translate.)
@Stephen Kish, “Ginny and Gwen of course have stuck their necks way out, providing proof of concept to all that some Canadians are willing to take the risk.”
And that is why I need to personally as in eye to eye need to shake hands and say Thank You.
Its not a matter of shaking hands IF things work out, its a matter of shaking hands to express profound thanks regardless how it works out because that is the very cloth I am cut from.
In the end, we are ultimately judged whom we stand with over the years. In this season, I stand with all of you, no regrets, no woulda/coulda/shoulda.
IF the Charter “holds” then this lawsuit will be affirmed. At that time, there will be politicians likely including your Prime Minister who will then proclaim his “behind the scenes misgivings of the prior PM” and that he is “proud of the Charter.” But in the end you will take the greatest joy from those that stood with you on 1 Jan 2015 and 1 Jan 2016.
You nailed it. Who among us, even our brave Ginny and Gwen, could have stood alone? We went into this together and now we have something to hope for — a victory at the Charter Trial of 2016. However, whether that trial ends in a win, loss or draw there’s comfort to be taken from the process and the people who are going through this process with us. For those who are leading us through this process we should be forever grateful and lend whatever support we can. Even post trial, if the result is not as it should be, there is still another option — refuse to comply — and that is something refuseniks would have to do together (strength in numbers).
“As I mentioned in my post above, we are also seeking Witnesses out of the 155,000 or so who have accounts already turned over, without their consent, to the IRS. We also need Witnesses who have received a FATCA demand letter from the bank”
But those only provide good reasons to fear prospective penalties, which is not the same as actually getting a penalty from the IRS. As mentioned, maybe the reason they haven’t penalized Petros yet is because they know that would make him a good witness.
‘If we don’t win the charter case during the first round, is it good or bad for a future court case, once serious damage starts occurring, ie. has a bad precedent been set, OR, are we further head as we could just “re-open” the old case with hard proof of damage?’
I don’t know the answer for Canadian courts, but have some miserable observations about US courts. Even in cases where hard proof of damage was already visible, notice that the Dred Scott case and Korematsu case have never been overturned. Regardless of whether a new case can be opened with hard proof of damage, there will already be bad precedents.
‘The reality is that NO politicians or political parties have stood with their Countrymen but the good people at ADCS have stood up for their Countrymen and brothers/sisters around the world. ADCS has proclaimed to all those persons, “You are NOT alone.”’
Yet most of those persons don’t understand. They will remain ostriches until their turns come.
The politicians understand though. Whether it’s America’s diaspora or the Jewish diaspora, politicians benefit by abusing scapegoats.