March 8, 2016 UPDATE: Legal fees paid — on to Federal Court for Charter trial contesting Canadian FATCA IGA legislation.
Canadians and International Supporters:
You came through once again: $594,970 for legal costs have now been donated and our outstanding legal bill is finally paid off.
Thanks especially to those who donated even though they never had any “spare” money to give, and despite this gave over and over and over again.
This last round of fundraising also shows that our Canadian lawsuit remains dependent on the kindness of our International Friends: There would be no lawsuit without their financial help.
Know that a very generous donation (today) from a supporter in the United States made it possible to pay off the remaining legal debt. Also please appreciate that there would be no lawsuit without the help of the Isaac Brock Society which has kindly let us use its website to solicit funds.
Our next step is the Constitutional-Charter trial in Federal Court.
For this we need more Canadian Witnesses, and my next post will be devoted only to a request for Witnesses willing to go public, like our Plaintiffs Ginny and Gwen.
For the future: I want a win in Federal Court — and I want the new Liberal Government not to appeal that win.
Thank you all for your support,
Stephen Kish,
for the Directors,
Alliance for the Defence of Canadian Sovereignty
I would have been very surprised if the government had just rolled over and played dead this early in the game. I believe it is in the interests of both sides to find out–clearly once and for all–whether the IGA is constitutional (from a Canadian, not US, constitutional perspective). That can be done only by proceeding to a full Charter trial. I would be VERY surprised to see either side throwing in the towel at this point.
Put another way (from our side’s perspective) it is much more valuable to spend $610,000 (the total of donations required to take this to the Charter trial) and get a clear ruling in our favour than to spend $513,485 (total donations so far) and win only a tentative political victory.
As I’ve said before I believe it matters hugely which government is in place for the negotiations that must inevitably follow a victory for our side. I’ve never felt it mattered much at this stage of the process.
One important difference between Trudeau and Harper that no one else has mentioned so I’ll mention it: Trudeau (and Wilson-Raybould) are moving forward on schedule. They responded by the expected date of Nov 30 and will get the actual documents to our side by the end of the week. That is a significant change from Harper who stalled endlessly. I believe that Trudeau and Wilson-Raybould want a decision (at least at the trial court level) before next year’s data gets handed over and are going to do what they can to facilitate that.
@Just_a_Canadian
I order to get a “Get out of Jail Free” card from the US government we need a Supreme Court ruling that states the IGA is forbidden by the Canadian Constitution.
That is what I personally believe but of course I have no way to be sure.
Thanks Dash. You said that far better than I did. I believe this too. Most litigation is resolved outside of court with some exceptions of course. But I have not one doubt they know how serious we are and how this will be a thorn in their side, especially if they resolve some or all other cases pending.
The other thing I know is that there is a definite advantage when a case is moved forward to be heard by a panel of three judges. Justice Martineau sat alone. However when there is a three panel judge bench things are often considered very differently.
Here’s another thing for your consideration. We have the best lawyer, Joe Arvay. He managed to overturn a Supreme Court decision in the right to die/assisted suicide case or however you prefer to label it. That is a legal precedent for sure. Most people understand that when a case is decided by a Supreme Court that that is the end of that. He turned that perception on its head.
And whichever way you fall on that issue, I just want you to know that this man is tenacious and a legal scholar. He doesn’t back down. He cares very much about our case.
The simple reality is that lawyers of this calibre are a rarity and expensive. And the reasons are:
they have great resources available to them in their law firms, be that access to exceptional tax lawyers as in our case; or extensive legal research assistants and highly qualified partners and junior lawyers.
This means in practical terms, they set aside their other cases when they work on ours, with devotion and dedication that would amaze a lot of working people.
The money we raise together from our generous donors is very well spent with having a lawyer of this calibre.
One of the reasons I decided to be a plaintiff is the fact that he was the lawyer heading this case. I have that much confidence in him and his team.
I am saying this to assure donors that every dollar you have generously given enables us to have one of the best lawyers in this country. He believes in this as much as we do. And that’s why he has put the Government on notice that we are moving forward. They know he is tenacious because suddenly those 100,000 documents they have sat on for over 15 months are now being turned over.
Also, today marks the 60th anniversary of Rosa Parks standing up for her rights and the rights of others to sit wherever they prefer on a bus. My heroine. She did that on her own with support of her friends.
Let’s hope that the current government holds the IGA to a higher constitutional standard than the mere 5% chance of passing Charter muster that the last government used to push controversial legislation through with:
“The Justice Minister is required under a 1985 law to tell Parliament if a proposed law is not “consistent” with the Charter. To Mr. Schmidt, a law is either consistent or it is not. But his superiors in the department didn’t agree.
“Oh, that’s not what we do,” he says he was told. “We ask ourselves whether there’s an argument.” And even if the argument has less than a five-per-cent chance of success in the courts, it can still be “credible” – in other words, consistent.
“That is a kind of doublespeak,” the now-retired Mr. Schmidt says.”…
…”Since the Justice Department formalized its “credible argument” interpretation of the law in 1993, there has not been a single instance in which the Justice Minister has advised Parliament that a law is not consistent with the Charter.”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/lawyers-lawsuit-highlights-ottawas-court-clashes-over-charter-rights/article26449862/
As far as I can tell, this matter is still before the courts:
http://charterdefence.ca/
Just_a_Canadian — I was going to post that same reason (c), but you got to it first! If the Canadian courts “make them” negate or revise the IGA, it would be more comfortable for the government, taking the decision out of their hands.
The hope placed in Trudeau turns out be misplaced. No surprise there for many. The fact has always been that the government, on this or any other case, can outspend virtually any adversary that comes along, using our own tax dollars against us. There is something very wrong with this of course, but there seems to be no remedy, not even changing the party in power.
Rosa Parks broke the “LAW” by refusing to sit at the back of the bus and she is now rewarded for her actions. I will break the “LAW” as well when me or my wife is asked our place of birth by our bank or the CRA. I wonder if we will be rewarded for our actions against the USA and Canadian governments for discriminating against us? Are we pursuing an inquiry to get funding from the now reinstated court challenge act? Stephan Dion was instrumental in having this reinstated for people like us…..
Here’s a thought, Native Canadian. You could write Stephan D and ask thank him and include the gift of your t-shirt.
That is a great idea Ginny. I would only have to change the back wording. I would remove the “Conservative” and replace it with “New Liberal” government helps foreign government enforce their laws in Canada against Canadians.
Could you get someone to cross out “Conservative” and write “Liberal”. Your shirt carries our struggle.
No one here should be surprised that the Liberals are following the same path as the Conservatives re FATCA. In fact, it would be astonishing if they didn’t. After all, Liberals have embarrassed themselves for years with their fawning, school-girl crush on Barack Obama. Heck, the Liberal’s election campaign was even helmed by leftover members of Obama’s original team. Does anyone here seriously think they would risk a greatly-coveted and long-denied BFF status with this US administration by getting into a dispute over FATCA?
No, much easier for them to keep Justin tethered to the reality distortion field they apparently borrowed from Steve Jobs and no longer have any urgency to return.
Eritrea did this to its ex-pats:
http://www.embassyeritrea.org/consular/PDF-docs/2percent_tax_form.pdf
http://www.embassyeritrea.org/consular/PDF-docs/PASSPORT_REQUIREMENTS.pdf
http://www.embassyeritrea.org/consular/PDF-docs/ERID_ENGLISH_%20TIGRIGNA%20_Information.pdf
http://www.embassyeritrea.org/consular/PDF-docs/id_replacement_eng.pdf
In response, the US Ambassador to the UN said this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gewPTSK2hJU
And the US Embassy in Eritrea said this:
http://eritrea.usembassy.gov/unscr_2023.html
Canada said:
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/eritrea-consulate-receives-final-straw-warning-to-stop-extorting-expatriates-in-canada
Bad Eritrea.
*********************************************************************************************************************************
The US did this to its expats:
http://canada.usembassy.gov/service/taxpayer-assistance2.html
In Canada, politicians said this (“Congress has spoken”– 9 minute mark):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_HtDtNB-cM
And then passed this:
https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/treaties/Pages/FATCA.aspx
The US states that the 2% diaspora tax helps destabilizes the Horn of Africa. How many regions does the US diaspora tax help destabilize? #Hypocrisy
*****************************************************************************************************************
Am I still in hot water because of Sociopathic Society posts?
The United States of America is the world’s largest “reality distortion field”, (AKA American exceptionalism). That is the reason why we have such a hard time understanding how Homelanders can possibly think the way they do. Those people have no grasp on reality and haven’t had for a very long time. That’s why hoping they will eventually eliminate their CBT is a total waste of time.
If you don’t believe me, you only need to watch Donald Trump and those other nut cases for a graphic demonstration of the fantasy world they live in. The best we can hope for is to neuter FATCA in our own country.
Agreed on both counts. And as far as neutering FATCA in Canada goes, IMO the best that can be hoped for is a carve out for resident Canadian citizens and *maybe* all residents of Canada. I don’t see any chance of Canada throwing out the IGA in its entirety given FATCA’s acceptance by the rest of the developed countries.
Not with me Petros. Regardless … I suggest that you Post Away !
Not with me either, Petros. Come on back, the water is fine. After all, you created this home for us and I am grateful for that. It matters not to me whether we all agree on every point. We are adults who understand that respect for each other should be paramount. In fact, I wouldn’t be comfortable in a world where people couldn’t express different views. This is your house. You have been on vacation too long. Pull up a chair and chat with us again. I have stocked the fireplace with lots of logs. Light it up!
It looks like we have a new Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Revenue by the way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuel_Dubourg
Perhaps we should ask him whether the new government intends to enter into a IGA between Canada and Haiti with no reciprocity and enshrine the term “Haitian Person” and “Place of Birth in Haiti” into the Income Tax Act. If a future government did this would MP Dubourg think this a violation of the charter or not a violation of the charter.
@ Tim
This looks like a good appointment. Over at the Sandbox Lynne noted:
In the House of Commons on June 11, 2014, he [Emmanuel Dubourg] said CRA “will do the dirty work of transmitting the information to the IRS…We are truly appalled by it, because doing this kind of thing to assist the Americans is not appropriate.”
It would have been nice if he’d been appointed Minister of National Revenue but as Parliamentary Secretary he will have Ms. Lebouthillier’s ear so hopefully he will sway her to our side as he obviously did not like the implications of FATCA while in opposition to the previous government.
In case you are curious the previous Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue was Gerard Keddy who is no longer an MP. I know many Brockers have fond memories of Gerard Keddy.
Keep sending letters to the new Liberal Government — but we also need to move forward aggressively with our litigation and the Charter Trial. ADCS is back to litigation mode and we need more donations.
Lynne just sent this letter to Mr. Dubourg in which she pointedly reminded him of his pre-election statements.
In each of your letters, you might provide first a pre-election quote from the MP, and then say something like: “Could you please explain this to me: what was it that changed your mind?”
The letter is cross posted from Sandbox: http://maplesandbox.ca/2015/dear-mr-dubourg-stop-cra-from-fatca-dirty-work/
“Dear Mr. Dubourg:
CRA “will do the dirty work of transmitting (FATCA) information to the IRS…We are truly appalled by it because doing this kind of thing to assist the Americans is not appropriate.” (Emmanuel Dubourg, House of Commons, June 11, 2004)
“The largest assault by the Conservatives against personal information came in the form of Bill C-31″ for FATCA. “This breach of Canadian tax secrecy is dangerous..We must deny the Conservatives permission to allow the transmission of personal information without the authorization of a judge, under the pretense of combating tax evasion.” (Emmanuel Dubourg, National Post article An Attack On Our Privacy, June 4, 2014)
Congratulations on becoming Parliamentary Secretary for National Revenue.
What will you and the Minister of National Revenue now do to stop CRA from doing the “dirty work of transmitting (FATCA) information to the IRS?” You must stop this FATCA Attack On Our Privacy because–as you so clearly wrote in a national newspaper–“This breach of Canadian tax secrecy is dangerous.”
Lynne Swanson”
Thank you Lynne, for everything you have done and are doing.