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
Arizona, another Canadian hotspot: http://www.bensonnews-sun.com/news/article_bc94d65c-e2e4-11e4-890f-7bdf29d91f4c.html
Previous Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien makes a joke about being eligible to run for President because his father was BORN IN and spent the first 10 years of his life in New Hampshire. If Chretien senior was born in the US in New Hampshire, then (Wellie?/Willie?) Chretien was a US citizen. Is Jean Chretien a dual – Canadian citizen by birthplace and American via parentage?
https://twitter.com/CABC_co/status/676420346753318913
There are numerous references to former Prime Minister Chretien’s US connections via his father:
http://clinton6.nara.gov/1995/02/1995-02-23-president-and-pm-chretien-in-exchange-of-toasts.html
https://books.google.ca/books?id=DHEYy2qUlV0C&lpg=PA136&ots=RX-pwbQ3h5&dq=father%20AND%20Chr%C3%A9tien%20AND%20%22new%20hampshire%22%20AND%20%22prime%20minister%22&pg=PA136#v=onepage&q=new%20hampshire&f=false
The history of French Canadian movement to the US and back is partly detailed in this book:
‘Frog Town: Portrait of a French Canadian Parish in New England’ Laurence Armand French
University Press of America, Jul 8, 2014 – available for preview in Google books.
I think we can expect that there are significant numbers of Quebeckers affected by US extraterritorial FATCA, FBAR and CBT.
I don’t know — do you think so? Here is a chart I hadn’t seen before, referring both to Nationality and Citizenship of Children Born in Wedlock Outside the US: https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/PDF/NationalityChart1.pdf. Where would that parent fall into giving his son USC (i.e., the parent born and living in the US the first 10 years of his life)?
Perhaps the current Liberal government might want to consider whether ex-Prime Minister Chretien and his assets are subject to the FATCA IGA in Canada?
https://twitter.com/CABC_co/status/676420346753318913
Being a politician (and lawyer) who assisted in the creation of our Charter of Rights
( http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/joseph-jacques-jean-chretien/ ) , it would be interesting to know what he thinks of the Liberal government’s continuation of the Conservative defense against the ADCS lawsuit – particularly after they raised questions ) http://www.canadianbusiness.com/blogs-and-comment/ted-hsu-and-scott-brison-have-questions-about-the-coming-u-s-foreign-account-crackdown-good-questions/ ) and rightly criticized the FATCA IGA harshly in Parliament ( https://openparliament.ca/search/?q=fatca+Party:+%22Liberal%22 ).
There have to be other high profile Canadian politicians, business figures and others who are deemed ‘taxable US Persons/citizens’ – some who may be currently in the Liberal government, in banking, in law, in public service, and other positions where they have an FBAR and US extraterritorial tax obligation.
Are they all laying low? We know that at least one high profile Conservative Canadian politician – ex Premier David Alward had a significant US tax problem ( http://hodgen.com/new-brunswick-premier-is-in-the-ovdi/ https://expatsinca.wordpress.com/2011/10/12/new-brunswick-premier-david-alward-caught-in-fatca-nightmare/ ) and finally renounced:
“..Alward, who had dual citizenship, had to renounce his U.S. citizenship to accept the diplomatic posting there [Boston]….”…
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/david-alward-named-canadian-consul-general-in-boston-1.3047614
It beggars belief that they’ve all complied and have renounced.
Jean Chretien was born 11 January 1934 in Shawinigan, QC ( http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/joseph-jacques-jean-chretien/ ) and some of the laws re birthright via parentage changed in May 1934. I’m just going on what Chretien said in his speech. And his father did spend time in NH. Of course many people are fuzzy about US citizenship laws – re birthright via parentage, and things were a lot looser in terms of emigration/immigration across the Canada / US border so information re citizenship/residency status may not be available. I couldn’t find any information about where his mother was born.
Then Chretien is correct according to the uscis.gov chart.
He was born in 1934 before May 24, 1934, when he would acquire??? (rather than claim???) USC as either parent (HIS DAD) a USC* and that USC parent resided in the U.S. (FOR NO SPECIFIED TIME PERIOD).
@calgary, perhaps someone could retweet the CABC clip with the hashtag #FATCA and ask where Chretien stands on the FATCAnizing of Canadians with US status and the Liberal defence against our lawsuit? We can’t prove Chretien is a taxable USP in Canada but we can raise the question based on his own comments.
Sorry, the clip already had those hashtags – which is how I found it. Maybe more could retweet it?
Here are Chretien’s full remarks about his and his family’s US connections, including his father’s role for decades (50?) as a director of the “Canado-Americaines” association:
https://youtu.be/UlduvpvAPn4
Note how the CABC describes itself:
“The Canadian American Business Council is the voice of business in the world’s most prosperous relationship. Established in 1987 in Washington, D.C., the Council is a non-profit, non-partisan, issues-oriented organization dedicated to elevating the private sector perspective on issues that affect our two nations, Canada and the United States.
Our members are key business leaders and stakeholders from both sides of the border ranging from entrepreneurs to best name brands in the world. Collectively, CABC members employ about two million people and have annual revenues of close to $1.5 trillion. The Council’s activities include high-level briefings on issues of current concern, assistance with practical trade and policy challenges, significant networking opportunities, and informative seminars.
The CABC Board roster is represented by Air Canada, Barrick Gold, Baxter Corporation, Bennett Jones, Bombardier, Borden Ladner Gervais, Campbell’s Soup Company, Canadian National Railway, Capitol Hill Consulting Group, The Coca-Cola Company, Contextere, Dickstein Shapiro, Enbridge, Energy Equipment and Infrastructure Alliance, ExxonMobil, Facebook, Ford Motor Company, General Electric, Google, Harley-Davidson Canada, Johnson&Johnson, Lockheed Martin, MasterCard, Motion Picture Association-Canada, Revolution Organics, Rio Tinto Canada, Shell, Spectra Energy, TD Bank Group, and UPS.
The CABC Advisory Board is chaired by the current Canadian Ambassador to the U.S. and is composed of all former Ambassadors to Canada and the U.S., as well as former Congressman John LaFalce, former Senator Jack Austin, P.C., Q.C., and former Minister Barbara McDougall, P.C., O.C.”
TD is a member. So it beggars belief that CABC and Chretien don’t know about FATCA and the impact of US extraterritorial taxation on Canadians.
Can somebody please copy and archive that Chretien speech https://youtu.be/UlduvpvAPn4 before it disappears?
Thanks!
The possibility of Jean Chrétien being FATCA’d is quite delicious however, even if he never formally gave up his jus sanguinis US citizenship (if indeed he ever had it), it would have been relinquished when he was elected to Parliament (1963). He might want to get a back-dated CLN though, just in case someone at one of his financial institutions ever has the nerve to ask him to pick between a W8 and a W9. (I wouldn’t want to be the one asking because he can probably still throw a mean punch.) It probably wasn’t too wise of him to joke about running against Trump. Definitely save that video!
@EmBee
I thought that someone has to perform a relinquishing act with the intention of relinquishing US citizenship for it to be valid. I know that most people could probably overcome this obstacle as non-public figures, but may not be so easy for Cretien should he only now discover he’s in fact a USC.
@ Bubblebustin
If Jean Chrétien says it was his intent to relinquish do you really think anyone would argue with him? And, of course, he would say he was just kidding if anyone brought up the Trump thing. Badger’s find today brings up the question of is he or is he not and Chrétien would literally have to be grilled by an expert like John Richardson to get the correct answer. I like the thought of John grilling Jean but that’s just more of my wishful thinking.
Cretien mustn’t think he’s really a US citizen, because if he did he wouldn’t find it such a laughing matter.
Chrétien and retaliation of U.S. against Canada over Iraq war:
“Experts argued that if Canada stayed out of the [Iraq war] it would suffer serious economic retaliation from Washington. Canada’s economic health was tied so tightly to the Americans, some critics [like our FATCA-embracing banks] said, that it had no choice but to follow the U.S. into war. Chrétien wasn’t buying one bit into this. The suggestion that Canada was so dependent on the U.S. that it couldn’t exercise freedom of choice riled him…. “They won’t retaliate” he told reporters…” [Lawrence Martin]
Let’s not forget who was POTUS during J. Chretien’s term.
Jean Chretien was the Prime Minister during the period when in Parliament, this was said on the occasion of the United Nations Fiftieth Anniversary of Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
“Human Rights and the Right to Privacy
Hon. Norman K. Atkins: Honourable senators, Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to a tax upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
This article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is perhaps more relevant now than it was when it was enacted. Protection of privacy became vitally important as we moved into the age of computers. We are all aware of the personal data that is stored in the memory of a computer, and of the abuse one could suffer if any of that data was either incorrect or used in an unauthorized fashion.
Our medical histories, credit information, bank balances and investment information are all stored in various computer terminals where we transact our personal business. The government has records that contain income tax information, and, with recent changes to the Canada Elections Act, Elections Canada now has permanent records of where we live, the number of voters in each household and the sex of each voter. We must be protected against the unauthorized collection or use of such information.
I would have to disagree with Marshall McLuhan, who was unaware of all the new technological advances when he made his utterings. He said that as the world reached the global village stage, we would no longer place a high value on individual privacy. I believe that we are now living in a global village, and privacy has become even more important than it ever was. One has only to take note of the establishment and work of both federal and provincial privacy commissions to see the importance that Canadians place on this right.
It is also important that, as part of our right to privacy, we be able to access the computer banks that store personal information about us. While we should enjoy the privacy right to be left alone, we must also have the right to seek out and correct false information, gathered and stored, regarding our personal lives.
Honourable senators, everyone in Canada should be able to live their lives peacefully without fear of an invasion of their privacy.”
Funny that now, so many years later, under the FATCA IGA, we don’t enjoy what that Conservative Senator defended on the occasion of the United Nations Fiftieth Anniversary of Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
And,
I didn’t know about the Canadian contribution to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;
“…..Honourable senators, given the unique importance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples, I am mindful of the key contribution made by Professor John Peters Humphrey of Canada in preparing the draft that led to its adoption by the United Nations. We on this side, as others do, feel strongly that the launch of the fiftieth anniversary should be marked in a special manner by publicly reflecting on the various articles of this remarkable document. ”
Hon. John Lynch-Staunton (Leader of the Opposition)
Source:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/Sen/Chamber/361/Debates/029db_1997-12-10-e.htm#0.2.X57BJ2.YURZ7K.TRPH0H.DL
Debates of the Senate (Hansard)
1st Session, 36th Parliament,
Volume 137, Issue 29
Wednesday, December 10, 1997
Does anyone know if it was also Chretien who presided over Canada as Prime Minister when the assistance in collection clause was agreed to in the Canada / US tax treaty?
The assistance in collection clause (“.. the revenue rule was circumvented in 1995 when Canada entered into a bilateral agreement as part of the U.S-Canada income tax treaty to provide mutual assistance in collection of taxes….”…”Canada is not required to provide assistance in collection of U.S. tax if the taxpayer is a Canadian citizen during the period that relates to the tax claim.”… http://www.thor.ca/blog/2015/08/the-rise-of-international-tax-collection/ ) was enacted by the government of the time, in 1995 – under the reign of Chretien ( 20th Prime Minister of Canada from November 4, 1993 to December 12, 2003. ).
If Chretien relinquished when he became Prime Minister, then how could he claim in that clip that he possessed the right to enter the US, and to run for President?
If Chretien relinquished when he became Prime Minister, then how could he claim in that clip that he possessed the right to enter the US, and to run for President?
Chretien has an unusually sardonic sense of humour. He has often said anything he wanted to get a laugh. Imo, he was a joy to watch, as opposed to the Trump man.
@Canadian Ginny;
re;
“Let’s not forget who was POTUS during J. Chretien’s term.”
It was Clinton. Clinton was also the POTUS in power when Chretien’s government passed the assistance in collection clause (1995). Now we’re looking potentially at another Clinton government.
Clinton initially (they seemed to get along well and were golf buddies) but then Bush, who he would not follow into Iraq in 2003.
Mr. A that’s my recollection as well. Chretien had no love for Bush.
@Canadian Ginny
Yes, I don’t think those two got along. And Bush (like Obama) never seemed to give Canada any respect. I remember his State of the Union address right after Sept. 11/01, when he thanked a long list of countries for their assistance but (deliberately) neglected to mention Canada. Canada did a lot to help divert flights when US air space was shut down etc. I think Bush gave a belated thank you years later.
I sometimes wonder: what if Congress had presented FATCA to Bush instead of Obama? Would Bush have signed it into law?