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
@Dash1729
US Congressman Rand Paul has no involvement or standing in the Canadian lawsuit being advanced by plaintiffs G & G, the ADCS, and their counsel Joe Arvay and his team at Farris Law.
The amount of $66K relates to that Canadian lawsuit.
Rand Paul is a plaintiff in a separate US based lawsuit being advanced by Jim Bopp that also involves some of the same people who are leading ADCS.
As for the Canadian lawsuit; having been involved in litigation as a plaintiff, I would NEVER let the defendant’s know I did not have the resources to advance the matter.
If I were a defendant in a lawsuit, and learned that the plaintiffs may run out of funds to continue the lawsuit, I would simply dummy-up and go radio-silent. It is the plaintiffs who have to drag the defendants up the courthouse steps. The defendants advantage in any civil suit is that, once they have filed a statement of defence, they can then delay by doing nothing until forced to by a motion.
I think that written words sometime come off much harsher than the writer intended, particularly when the subject matter is sensitive, the reader is stressed out, or when the writer is not overly talented with regard to being able to express his/her thoughts and feelings or being able to understand their impact on the reader. Just saying….we all have a long battle ahead still.
On the other hand, some people reveal what assholes they are when they write.
LOL. Lighten up everyone. Yesterday was a good day!
Tricia, I have no problem with Dash mentioning the fact that I did not vote in King County (Washington State) in 2015 (assuming that is correct). The way it works, I think, is that there is nothing really “off-topic” on any post.
Wondering, I would be uncomfortable in not letting our supporters know how much money we need and when we need it. The defendants are at the moment completely (as you say) “radio-silent” and the ball is in our court to advance the litigation.
—And I agree with WhiteKat and her statement that yesterday was a good day (and this morning is not so bad either).
Just to clarify so as not to hurt anyone’s feelings accidentally, I do not believe Dash is an asshole.
As for voting records, I run websites displaying that data for eight U.S.A. States but I have been told that use of Canadian voting lists is restricted. Restrictions in U.S.A. vary by State.
In Utah, there was a nasty data breach at the Department of Health in 2012, prompting politicians to scramble to assure Utahns that the politicians value their privacy and that no such thing would ever happen again. Then I bought the Utah voter list and built a website displaying people’s names, voter ID numbers, birth dates, home addresses, party affiliations and telephone numbers. The form says your telephone number is optional but many voters listed it anyway, which made it public.
Their reaction can be watched at
http://utahlegislature.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?clip_id=16824&meta_id=496228
There was one other thought I had about a European legal challenge.
If the campaign was organised as a UK charity,for example, all donors should be eligible for tax relief.
So if someone was a making approx more than £48,000 to £50,000 and donates say £100 and their marginal tax rate is 40% that donation would ultimately cost on £60 once deducted off their self assessment form. Also 20% marginal rate payers should be eligible as well.
My main point is at least the UK Government would be subsidising a legal challenge with taxpayer’s money if legal aid wasn’t available.
As for “Seeing Red” – I agree wholeheartedly with @SeeingRed
AND with every word he/she said regarding @Dash’s post.
Taunting, condescending , rude and disrespectful.
Clearly unsympathetic to the plight of an entire group who seek , very seriously, the ways and means of securing freedom and sovereignty from egregious acts intruding on innocent lives.
And then, the ‘ I’ve got the means to give you the entire amount if you , Stephen Kish , will do this or that ‘ , and then, ‘you and Lori can stay with me while you come here to vote. Lori on the couch and you on the floor, cause I live modestly’
REEALLY! ( As Jim Carrey would say)
Aside from reaching into this forum and releasing private information about Stephen and snidely challenging him to be coerced to do what the writer wants done , in a manner the writer wants done’ all for the ‘bribe’ of contributing the remaining funds needed to further the lawsuit, the ENTIRE post is an affront and objectionable on all sorts of levels.
I ‘saw RED’ myself when reading it and quite happy to see that @Seeing Red had posted such a response.
Frankly, I thought it was spot on with one exception:
It should have been accompanied with a SLAP up side the head!!
Oh, and @WhiteKat:
You were right. The SECOND time!
@Dash
Put your money where your mouth is!!
Just my opinion of course, and a couple thing for background litigation information:
The defendants don’t have to do anything to advance the litigation as the onus is on the plaintiffs. However they are obliged to provide their documents. Is there something we can do about that legally? Sure, we can bring a motion ( = more co$ts) to compel production of documents pursuant to Federal court rules. Should we be doing that asap? In my opinion not until we have finished the final leg of our fundraising ( which we will do).
Are the defendants concerned about our fundraising slowing down a bit recently? How could they be? I imagine it amazes them that such a motley group of people to use George’s expression has ever come this far. I am sure they did not expect us to have raised 90% to date. Unlike them, we have been transparent with our costs. As a tax payer, I will never know theirs.
On a completely different topic, it amazes me that voter lists and which party a person supported
or voted for is in the public domain. A candidate running for office in Canada cannot ask you those types of questions. All they can ask you, unless you volunteer more is if they have your support.Last night’s sleep was so much better, thank you donors.
@FuriousAC,
Ummmm…..I think you misunderstood my comment.
Let’s be a bit careful here. I remember when one Brocker and myself (in a much less terrible manner) were impersonated on this site. Dash1729 is generally a straight-talking but respectful commenter. It might not have been him … or if it was him, he might be having a very off-day. I’ve had those and on one in particular I went into a very freaky rage and took it out my fear and frustration on my husband. These are difficult times and all I can say, again, is stay strong, stay committed and stay together.
Regarding voter lists and party affiliation in the U.S., I think the only way one’s choice of party could become known from official records is if the person votes in a primary election, i.e., to choose a party’s candidate. I remember my Mom saying many years ago that that is why a lot of people don’t vote in a primary, and thus keep their party choice private.
@Dash said:
Does the Republican Party know that you are using your access to voting records as a PCO (Precinct Committee Officer) in an attempt to publicly bully and berate someone?
I think they would not be happy at such a clear clear misuse of the role.
You should be thankful Stephen seems to take it in stride, I think many others would be making a complaint if they were targeted in such a way. I know I would.
Of course, it might be difficult to do that because you–unlike Stephen–do not post under your real name.
Lynne Swanson
P.S. I don’t know why I feel the need to stand up for Stephen. As he has consistently demonstrated, Stephen is perfectly capable of doing so himself–with class and respect. But, Stephen did not choose Rand Paul as his co-plaintiff. I assume it was Jim Bopp who did.
As others have pointed out, that lawsuit is completely separate from Ginny and Gwen’s ADCS Canadian lawsuit with Joe Arvay, which is the one we are attempting to fund here by raising the remaining “piddly sum.” Rand Paul does not and should not have anything to do with this Canadian lawsuit.
On the voting topic. When I lived “offshore” from Canada I didn’t vote in either country. I wasn’t a US citizen (therefore ineligible) and I didn’t know much about what was happening back in Canada (no internet then). For a couple of years I wasn’t even sure who the Canadian PM was. I know that sounds incredible but we didn’t have great TV reception (attic antennas in the mountains are usually inadequate) and the local news never featured Canada anyway. Phonecalls back home were not for discussing politics. We made our necessarily brief phonecalls from a phone booth 8 miles down the road (no phone lines in our area). Not voting didn’t bother me much and besides we really had to focus on simply getting by since the “American dream” seemed to be for others living in a different matrix than ours. I guess what I’m saying is, that in my case, at that particular time, in those particular circumstances, it would have felt wrong for me to cast a vote in a Canadian election because I lacked information, even though if I had tried hard enough I could have at least found out the candidates’ names in my former riding. This is where the internet has been such a game changer — information at the press of a finger. It still amazes me.
@embee re: “I’ve had those and on one in particular I went into a very freaky rage and took it out my fear and frustration on my husband.”
All I can say is I am shocked, just shocked!
US Citizenship arguments thickening around Ted Cruz.
Per Daily Mail:
“Cruz was born in Canada in 1970 to a mother who was a U.S. citizen – giving him ‘natural born’ citizenship under the U.S. Constitution – although there is little legal precedent for that theory being tested on a presidential nominee.
But Grayson says Eleanor Cruz may have forfeited her U.S. citizenship by taking a Canadian oath of citizenship – as specified in Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. He went on to say that there is no documented evidence that she was in fact born in the United States.
Ted Cruz’s citizenship became an issue in recent days because of Trump, who is mindful of Cruz’s polling lead in Iowa and this week suggested the Texas senator seek a declaratory judgment in court.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3390647/Ted-Cruz-birther-row-court-Democrat-gets-ready-case-focusing-Cruz-s-MOTHER-wife-weighs-in.html#ixzz3wgn3z6iT
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Some of the arguments re Cruz and mere might be of interest to persons being FATCA’d
@ EmBee,
It’s the real McCoy. Figured I could and should clarify that (and reassure people we’d have removed it or any comment by an imposter, no matter what it says). However, I think it’s healthy not to jump to conclusions, so I think it was good you encouraged others not to.
I appreciate your entire comment and especially “These are difficult times and all I can say, again, is stay strong, stay committed and stay together.”
Earlier this week, I caught part of a panel on CNN discussing Trump’s comments about Cruz not being a “natural born” U.S. citizen, and how Cruz had had a Canadian passport. One man on the panel said (paraphrasing here) Cruz couldn’t have had a Canadian passport — Cruz didn’t even know he was a Canadian! After all, he left Canada when he was five years old!
Crown attorney just advised Arvay team that because of more technical difficulties, there is another delay in document turnover — and now our litigator should have them on Monday. We shall see. Hard to believe that this is the first time Government has had to hand over a large number of documents in litigation.
@nervousinvestor @canoe:
Here is an Open Letter I sent to Senator Cruz two years ago today appealing to him to make it as easy for his fellow Canadians to Cruz In Reverse out of unwanted U.S. citizenship.\
He did not reply.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Cruzing-in-Reverse-by-Lynne-Swanson-Taxes-140108-477.html
NOTE: This is on three pages, so you need to click to read pages 2 and 3.
Blaze/Lynne,
Your excellent Open Letter to Senator Cruz needs to be brought forward and published in the Toronto Star (and other media) as it relates to the article badger refers to in comment http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/media-and-blog-articles-open-for-comments-part-3-of-3/comment-page-3/#comment-7050284:
Toronto Star publishes Bloomberg article *Legal experts weigh in on Ted Cruz’s Canadian citizenship issues*, January 8, 2016
Was Senator Cruz, up to the time he officially renounced his Canadian citizenship, a Canadian citizen who happened to abide in the USA?
Note that federal Privacy Commissioner Therrien has chosen NOT to speak out about the discrimination demanded by the implementation of the FATCA IGA. He chooses to ignore the case that we have tried to bring to his attention. He chooses to ignore that the FATCA IGA is rooted in the abrogation of our Charter rights. He ignores that the FATCA IGA supports and indeed demands active discrimination against Canadian citizens and legal residents INSIDE Canada via the mandated screening by Canadian financial (and many NON-financial institutions) for the presence of ‘US indicia’ – which includes the very same types of proscribed categories (national origin and birthplace), and which is very obviously Canada’s active collaboration with the enforcement of a foreign nation’s laws (US extraterritorial CBT) on Canadian soil – injuriously applied against CANADIAN citizens and legal permanent residents. FATCA also demands other personal information such as address. Yet, in contrast to his silence and complicity re FATCA, Therrien is very publicly outspoken about the use of some of the SAME proscribed grounds when it comes to screening travellers:
“….Privacy Commissioner Daniel Therrien is pressing the Canada Border Services Agency to explain the program’s rationale and build in safeguards to protect civil liberties.
Canadian law requires commercial airlines to provide the border agency with specific information about passengers flying to Canada, including name, birthdate, citizenship, seat number and other data.”………
……” “The privacy commissioner is concerned travellers may now be targeted for increased scrutiny if they fit the general attributes of a group — “subjected to recurring and unnecessary attention at the border because of characteristics they cannot change,” such as age, gender, nationality, birthplace, or racial or ethnic origin.
Therrien’s office recommended the border agency:
— Demonstrate the necessity of scenario-based targeting, beyond the general purpose of aligning Canada’s system with that of the U.S.;
— Be more transparent by fleshing out the privacy impact assessment with general descriptions of the types of scenarios that might be used to identify potentially high-risk travellers;
— Conduct regular reviews of the “effectiveness and proportionality of scenarios,” including an examination of impacts on civil liberties and human rights;…….”…….
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/01/07/new-airline-passenger-vetting-could-amount-to-racial-profiling-watchdog_n_8927506.html
In what way does Privacy Commissioner Therrien rationalize his silent and tacit APPROVAL of discrimination against TRAVELLERS “……. targeted for increased scrutiny if they fit the general attributes of a group — “subjected to recurring and unnecessary attention at the border because of characteristics they cannot change,” such as age, gender, nationality, birthplace, or racial or ethnic origin…..” and yet Therrien tacitly supports the use of screening for and discrimination based on the “general group attributes” of “nationality” and “birthplace” under the FATCA IGA in aid of the facilitation of the extraterritorial TAX claims of a foreign nation (the US). How does he square away his loud and public disapproval of the use of nationality and birthplace as grounds for discrimination in matters of purported national security (and harmonization with US law) in this current instance – where he is very forthright about stating his disapproval and concern that “…. travellers may now be targeted for increased scrutiny if they fit the general attributes of a group — “subjected to recurring and unnecessary attention at the border because of characteristics they cannot change,” such as age, gender, nationality, birthplace, or racial or ethnic origin.” as to the press in this story http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/01/07/new-airline-passenger-vetting-could-amount-to-racial-profiling-watchdog_n_8927506.html ?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/new-airline-passenger-vetting-could-amount-to-racial-profiling-watchdog/article28047213/
See also Toronto Star’s print version of the story today.