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
Hope I got the code right- if not, please fix?
Jane,
I see your most recent comment:
but I don’t see anything else from you after comment on March 6th. I’ll try to help if I can but something must be missing.
Congratulations to everyone who’s been part of this truly international fundraising effort. I’m so happy to see that final frustrating amount cleared-off in one fell swoop. Thank you to one and all for your contributions, especially to that final, very generous donor!
What a terrific way to demonstrate our resolve as the Canadian government reluctantly prepares to table its response to NDP Revenue critic Pierre-Luc Dusseault’s questions. Time once again to shake the trees and see if we can get some media coverage of these important milestones this week.
So good to see the legal bill paid off! It’s great to see what we can do when we all work together towards a goal. The Canadian battle is just one part of what promises to be a long fight for the rights of the US diaspora. While the Canadians among us focus on their upcoming day in court, it’s time for those of us in other countries to start thinking about the best way forward.
Karen,
It is so good to see over-due balance for the Canadian litigation finally paid off so we can move forward here in Canada. And, you’re right on that — it is a long fight ahead for the rights of the US diaspora.
The way forward is for those in these other countries to support the CBT lawsuit.
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2015/11/20/alliance-for-the-defeat-of-citizenship-taxation-adct-announces-cbt-lawsuit/.
A very great day in the history of our fight for justice and freedom! My deepest thanks to our friend from south of the border who has completed this gargantuan fund-raising task!
Canada needs to get on the right side of history, MuzzledNoMore, and do what France is doing. Let’s not however overlook the fact that France was one of the earliest to sign an IGA, from what I recall.
France is really pissed about what Justice did to BNP Paribas:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-bnp-paribas-settlement-sentencing-idUSKBN0NM41K20150501
Any thoughts on promoting the soon to be filed law suit inside the USA to take down CBT? I know it was hard to finish off paying the FATCA law suit and it was over due, but even if money trickles in for the anti CBT law suit, it would still be very helpful. I support everything that everyone is doing. From the UN Human Rights complaints, to the letter writing campaigns to politicians, and all else. However, I continue to believe our best shot at relief is through the courts. We have the FATCA suit funded now through the federal court phase, that is awesome. BUT, we must realize that we “may” not prevail in this. It is best to have a multi pronged approach. It would be awesome to have our FATCA law suit here in Canada as well as a CBT law suit inside the USA. It would double our chances. Plus, a successful FATCA law suit here doesn’t end CBT. It may buy us a couple years of non enforcement of CBT, but the USA government would eventually figure out a new way to attack us. If we were to win a CBT law suit, FATCA would be rendered useless for American’s abroad.
Phil,
Thanks for your comment. This is from earlier today and I hope it is what you and others outside of Canada (and some inside) are looking for:
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2016/03/08/we-need-69521-by-january-1-2016-to-pay-the-canadian-fatca-lawsuit-legal-bills-and-keep-our-litigation-moving-forward-il-nous-reste-69-521-a-ramasser-pour-notre-poursuite-judiciaire/comment-page-87/#comment-7290961
Thank you. I am in Canada as well and have supported the FATCA law suit. I am not expecting us here in Canada to fully fund the new law suit, but if we can start chipping away at it now that the FATCA suit is covered for now, why not? Its in our own interests for reasons stated above. Two modes of attack in case the FATCA suit loses in court. Don’t want to be a downer but you always have to plan for unforeseen’s or plan B’s. Especially with something as critical as this is.
Phil, If the Canadian FATCA suit loses we might want to appeal. Conversely if we win, the CDN government might appeal. Both scenarios will cost big bucks. Maybe a better approach (as opposed to fund raising for a lawsuit in the US) would be to raise funds to support either of those outcomes.
Appeal was the wrong word to use in my prior comment. I mean you cannot appeal to the Supreme Court right? Or can you?
So that leads me to the following two questions. Do we have any recourse legally in Canada against the CDN government if we lose the trial? If we win the trial can the CDN government continue to fight us through the courts?
Another scenario to consider in the event we win is if the banks decide to disobey CDN law and abide by FATCA, in which case we may want to sue the banks, which of course will require more fund raising from Canadians.
I guess the point I am trying to get at is that unless we are sure we won’t need or be able to do legal battling within Canada, then it might not be prudent for concerned Canadians to divert funding into a US based lawsuit.
Grrrr…. Edit function would be wonderful.
Should have wrote : “you cannot appeal to the Supreme Court WHEN IT HAS ALREADY MADE A DECISION, right? Or can you?”
Ok I get it now I think….sigh. We are going to federal court (not Supreme Court) therefore whatever decision is made (whether in our favour or not) can be challenged at the Supreme Court. Right?
WhiteKat, you were correct in your first post. If we win at the federal court level, the Government side can appeal to the Court of Appeal and vice versa.
Which ever way the Court of Appeal rules, the Supreme court can decline an appeal from there without stating any reasons, which is a way of affirming the C of A decision, or they can choose to hear an appeal.
Also you are right, normally once the Supreme Court of Canada makes a decision, it is a final one because by definition they are the highest court in our land.
However, and personally I find this fascinating from a legal point of view, this ‘finality’ has been extended a couple times. In fact our own lawyer Joe Arvay did this when he tried the Carter right to die case which over turned a previous Supreme Court Rodriguez decision of 1999 which stated it was a criminal offense to assist anyone trying to end their life.
The Canadian government can always use the non withstanding clause to overturn Supreme Court decision in this type of case. If the American apply the 30% with holding, it would destroy our economy. Anybody that export or imports product, anybody who travels to USA will be effected. If push came to shove even the industrial union would want out. People can say either renounce or get some nasty letters from the IRS which you can ignore as long as you did not made that income in USA when you were a USA only citizen. What do you expect the party in power do if the 30% withholding is applied?
Of course you are a risk if you cross the border and are not tax compliant. But that would be the case even without FATCA.
I think the strongest way for FATCA to be beaten is US banks. The US bank that would eventually have to implement reciprocity. They then would argue about benefit cost to USA. A conventional Republican president looking at the benefit cost analysis on the US side will overturn it. Of course I think the chances of a conventional Republican candidate getting elected are very small.
I imagine that tax shelter country would still be forced to report.
Ginny did they not teach you about the non withstanding clause?
“Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is part of the Constitution of Canada. It is commonly known as the notwithstanding clause (or la clause dérogatoire in French), or as the override power, and it allows Parliament or provincial legislatures to override certain portions of the Charter. It was, and continues to be, perhaps the most controversial provision of the Charter.[1]””
“However, the concept of the notwithstanding clause was not created with the Charter. The presence of the clause makes the Charter similar to the Canadian Bill of Rights (1960), which, under section 2, states that “an Act of the Parliament” may declare that a law “shall operate notwithstanding the Canadian Bill of Rights.” A primary difference is that the Bill of Rights’ notwithstanding clause could be used to invalidate any right, not just specified clauses as with the Charter. The Saskatchewan Human Rights Code (1979), the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms (1977), and the Alberta Bill of Rights (1972) also contain devices like the notwithstanding clause.[21]”
Certain right are not subject to non withstanding clause but I do not think it applies in this case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_Thirty-three_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms
George 3rd
Not trying to be pedantic here, but legally sec. 33 of the Charter ( the notwithstanding clause) is not used to overturn a Supreme Court decision because that would make no sense.
it is invoked provincially or by the federal government when either is introducing a bill, and is only effective for five years. So its effect is to preclude a court from declaring the bill from being ultra vires. It is therefore, politically dangerous to invoke, and if I recall correctly has only been so invoked in two or three provincial cases. And has never to date been invoked by the Feds.
Bottom line : it used when introducing a bill, never to over ride a Supreme Court decision.
@ George3rd
Once again it seems we were typing and posting at the same time.
To answer your question: “Ginny did they not teach you about the non withstanding clause?”
Yes George 3rd they did. Thank you for your inquiry about my legal education. And then I went on to teach it to my law students who also understand it.
And if you reread your wiki entry, you too will see it does not nor ever has overturned a SCC decision. It is invoked when introducing a bill as by definition, it is an over ride of a charter right.
Therefore, it does not apply to our case despite your worries or declaration that it does.
@calgary411 et al.
Yes – funding the CBT lawsuit is important. I have been making regular donations and will continue to do so. But I think we also have to work on our own governments. I see that there has been some progress in France in the past day (https://www.facebook.com/groups/citizenshiptaxation/permalink/1000890603334021/ – which has been discussed in other threads here on Brock). The more countries we can get to question the extraterritorial information/tax grab by the US, the better.
If you think the Canadian government will not use it to overturn a “judicial review” that can destroy our economy I have bridge in Brooklyn to sell
“The federal Parliament, a provincial legislature, or a territorial legislature may declare that one of its laws or part of a law applies temporarily (“notwithstanding”) countermanding sections of the Charter, thereby nullifying any judicial review by overriding the Charter protections for a limited period of time. ”
After 5 years the next government will apply the same non withstanding clause
@george trois
Having been raised by a very fine father who advised me that there are some opinions that some folks hold strongly to despite the facts, the only thing I can now say to you is: there seems to be a very high horse you are riding that would prefer to be stabled tonight.
I have no interest in purchasing any real estate in the US let alone a bridge.
We are not in a judicial review situation, if that helps your understanding. The IGA is a done deal, which is obviously why we are able to challenge it in our law suit. Section 33 needs to be/is invoked contemporaneously with the introduction of a bill which precludes any legal challenge.
If you think I am wrong, ask yourself why the Government in its Reply documents didn’t invoke it as a defense.
Thus concludes my sharing of my legal education with you tonight. I am really straining to be polite here G3, but you seem to be itching for a fight and my dog has already gone to sleep and so now will I.
The conservative felt like they did not need it when it was passed,
If the Supreme court uphold challenge the Liberal will pass another IGA with the non withstanding clause,
Do you think Obama does not know there is a non withstanding clause in the Canadian constitution.
George III. Not even close. Canada will not invoke the Notwithstanding clause. What they will try to invoke is section 1.
This lawsuit will only be the opening salvo in a protracted battle. If we are successful, the banks will say that they HAVE to report to the IRS directly. To prevent that, would require a law forbidding them to do so. Remember Canada passed the Foreign Extrterritorial Measures Act FEMA. It has only ever used once-to block US extraterritorial measures against Cuba that affected Canada.
( too bad they haven’t used FEMA against FATCA. – they could)
So we are at the mid point of the beginning not the mid point of the war.
To prevail, we will need France, the E.U., maybe China and others to join in. The only other way is for the US congress to come to its’senses and if you think that is going to happen………..
Actually FEMA the Canadian Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act ( not the US federal emergency measures act. ) makes interesting reading. We should study it for possible use against FATCA. I like that- a new slogan FEMA against FATCA
Deserves further work.