WITNESS SEARCH UPDATE FOR CANADIAN FATCA IGA LAWSUIT:
WE STILL SEEK MORE CANADIAN WITNESSES:
Have you experienced marital stress or breakup, or medical or psychiatric illness because Canada turned you and your family over to a foreign country — or because you were afraid and entered into IRS compliance and suffered harm, or because you are in “hiding” and can’t afford to be IRS compliant or to renounce? Be a witness.
No single witness will be “perfect” from a litigation point of view. We will be seeking more witnesses (almost) right up to the time of submission of court documents. Your specific situation, that we cannot predict, might have unique characteristics that would be helpful in the lawsuit.
If you cannot be a witness, please tell a friend who you think might be interested.
— If you are interested in becoming a witness You will describe your harm in a written affidavit which will be made public and you can contact me at stephen.kish.chair@adcs-adsc.ca See our website at www.adcs-adsc-ca
FOR THOSE CANADIANS WHO ALREADY VOLUNTEERED: Unless you have already been informed by me or by our legal team that you will not be a witness, there is still the possibility — or (for some) likelihood — that you will be asked to be a witness. I’m sorry but I cannot estimate the time it will take for our legal team to get back to you with their decision. This is because they need to “mesh” the characteristics of all of the necessary witnesses and testimonies with the actual detailed submission that contains the entirety of their evidence, which are all still evolving. Please be patient in our getting back to you with a decision. Thank you for your help.
@Deckard1139
Would Canadian lawmakers care if data was shared with other US agencies, when they don’t even have wherewithal to challenge the US on its failure to reciprocate under the IGA?
“They made us do it”, has already proven a good enough excuse for trampling on our Charter, what are a few more laws in the name of “cooperation”?
“For example, Article 26, section 2 of the US Model Treaty provides that any information received under that article must be treated as secret in the same manner as information obtained under the domestic laws of that country.”
Which, in many countries including the US now, means publicly disclosable.
@Bubblebustin, re;
““They made us do it”, has already proven a good enough excuse for trampling on our Charter, what are a few more laws in the name of “cooperation”?”
Exactly. Perhaps that is the translation of the true meaning of the quote below – heralding the upcoming US Master’s scheduled address to what we mistakenly thought was OUR Parliament in OUR sovereign autonomous country.
“Our two nations are more closely aligned than ever,” Obama said.
See;
‘Obama to address Canadian Parliament in June ‘
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/03/10/obama-to-address-canadian-parliament-in-june.html
Makes me feel like burning a giant mockup of my cancelled US passport (obtained only under duress, as finally, crossborder travel into the US required me to get a US passport).
Update re date of foreign leader Obama to address our Canadian Parliament:
“White House and Canadian officials are eyeing June 29 or 30 as the date for U.S. President Barack Obama’s address to a joint session of Parliament, CBC News has learned.”……
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeua-three-amigos-summit-1.3565189
The prospect of our MPs standing up and applauding Obama makes me want to puke.
That’ll be enough about bodily functions for today.
TRANSPARENCY is code for lack of privacy.
SECRECY is code to imply that privacy is bad.
If we don’t get a witness to fit the billing soon, Stephen is going to use a bigger, bolder font and we’ll all fall out of our seats when the Brock site appears on our screens.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/04/david-cameron-has-no-intention-of-apologising-to-donald-trump-fo/
I hope the Republicans Overseas have enough sense to tell Trump to repeal FATCA if he wants any campaign contributions because really little else he talks about matters. The Donald might make an appearance in London during August.
EmBee says
May 4, 2016 at 8:38 pm
If we don’t get a witness to fit the billing soon, Stephen is going to use a bigger, bolder font and we’ll all fall out of our seats when the Brock site appears on our screens.
……………..
I’ve wondered all along about getting a witness with a non-reg account at $50,000 that has been tagged as a US person, and is aware of the tag. Most Canadians would max out RRSPs and TFSAs before even opening non-reg accounts. Most Canadians don’t have the money to max out the reg accounts. At 50, I sure as hell don’t.
Stephen should start a new fundraiser to just raise the $50,000.77 US and just give it to Gwen or Ginny to deposit in their bank account so they will have a covered account.
(The $50,000 is for the deposit and the $0.77 US is for a Canadian loonie that Gwen and Ginny will flip to decide who actually gets the deposit.)
“Stephen should start a new fundraiser to just raise the $50,000.77 US and just give it to Gwen or Ginny to deposit in their bank account so they will have a covered account.”
Lending would be enough; the money can be returned to lenders. The account will be reportable after it even has that amount for one day.
‘Today, President’s Obama’s press secretary had this to say about Rand Paul’s quest to keep bank accounts private: “…So I’m not really sure whose concerns Senator Paul is speaking up for, maybe he can elaborate on that a little bit. I suspect it’s not middle class families in Kentucky he has in mind.”]’
That’s right. It’s middle class grandmas in Canada he has in mind. Wonder who gave him that idea?
But wait. Doesn’t Kentucky have a Toyota plant? Does Toyota send any middle class employees from Japan to work at that plant for a year or two? Oops. Maybe it’s middle class families in Kentucky he has in mind after all.
@ Dash1729 and Norman Diamond
And if the government lawyers figure out this scheme … then what?
Right, EmBee, is it still harm if it’s self-inflicted?
@ Bubblebustin
I’d call it more contrived than self-inflicted.
This plan seems too clever by half.
I’m glad I made you laugh the other day, and grateful that due to timing you didn’t waste any orange juice or wreck your keyboard 😉
@ Stephen Kish
I don’t think it’s possible to make that description of the type of witness needed “inspiring” (it is what it is and that’s that) and I was just kidding about the font size getting bigger. I hope someone volunteers soon because I know it must be tough to want to see steady progress being made towards the trial and getting hung up on a detail that the legal team obviously deems to be important to success. Senator Paul’s description of a bank account is very much like what you could say about the contents of a person’s cell phone … the privacy of both should be protected. It’s a good quote and bears repeating:
Re; contrived vs. self-inflicted harm:
If a person exercizing their legal Constitutional rights seeks to exercise them knowing that the current situation is one in which it is likely that they will be discriminated against, what difference does it make if they had prior reason to believe that if they did so, UNconstitutional discrimination and harm would result?
Those fighting for equal rights during the civil rights era in the US and who for example were seeking to be served at segregated ‘whites-only’ restaurant counters in the South or riding at the front of the bus or lining up to register to vote during the Jim Crow era reasonably foresaw that harm could come to them if they did so. That does not invalidate that the harm that came to them when they sought to exercize their civil rights was illegal and unconstitutional and discriminatory. They did not create the harm. They did not compel those who harmed them to do so. A person should not be compelled to avoid harm by enforcing illegal and unconstitutional barriers on themselves, or by refraining from being in a situation in which others would or might act illegally and unconstitutionally against them.
If the government is going to require that an actual harm must be evident, and someone acts legally in seeking to perform the very act in the very conditions in which unconstitutional and unjust harm has been occurring in order to reproduce the harm they have been trying to raise a warning against, I don’t see how it can be dismissed just because it might be seen as ‘contrived’.
If I were to seek to open an account, and use my Canadian passport as one piece of ID rather than my provincial driver’s license (which does NOT indicate my US birthplace) and I am then FATCA’ed by the Banksters, (because my Canadian passport shows my US birthplace) – though I am no longer a US person – does my choice of which ID I produce for them make any resultant harm and unconstitutional discrimination based on national origin and birthplace my fault and my responsibility ?
I can see how it possibly wouldn’t be wise in a practical sense, and one of the Banksters defending the IGA told Parliamentarians that he didn’t think that many Canadians would be FATCA’d – because he pooh-poohed how likely it was that passports were commonly being used to open Canadian bank accounts (which was a bs bad faith attempt to rationalize harm on his part, because the first piece of ID that a local purveyor of PC Financial accounts suggested I bring in, in order to open an account with them, not that long ago, was a passport http://www.banking.pcfinancial.ca/mkt/common/lookingfor/faqdailybanking-en.html#gs and I have no CANADIAN birth certificate to produce – because I was born in the US ).
Here is the rationalizing I refer to in statements by Darren Hannah of the Canadian Bankers Association as he answers a leading question by CON MP Mike Allen who is trying to rationalize away the impact of the FATCA IGA by trying to pretend that even amongst border communities with lots of crossborder births and thus lots of ‘accidental Americans’ not many people would have US indicia show up in their banking records. Note that is not the same thing as who is affected, only how probable it is that banking records will show US indicia in a search;
MP Mike Allen;
“……. Mr. Hannah, what is the likelihood of any of them being picked up in the sweep by the bank?”
“Mr. Darren Hannah:
Well, unless for some reason they provided U.S. identification at the time they opened their account—and I don’t know why they would have done that, or what that would have been—from the financial institution’s point of view at that point in time, there’s nothing there to suggest that they are U.S. persons.
All of the information they probably provided on the account to open the account is likely Canadian in source. That’s usually things like a driver’s licence and that sort of thing. It would be highly unlikely, I suspect, that there would be anything there to suggest that they’re U.S. persons, and therefore that would be the end of that.”
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=e&Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=2&DocId=6601885#Int-8362235
The onus should not be on those harmed to hide and to make bad unconstitutional laws work.
A person should not be compelled to avoid harm by enforcing illegal and unconstitutional barriers on themselves, or by refraining from being in a situation in which others would or might act illegally and unconstitutionally against them.
The test and evidence of necessity to justify the IGA and enabling legislation as an exception to the Privacy Act, and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms should be undertaken as advised by then Privacy Commissioner Chantal Bernier (see exchange below). That test was never met nor evidence gathered as far as I can see. See her advice in this exchange;
https://openparliament.ca/committees/finance/41-2/35/murray-rankin-5/
3:45 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin Victoria, BC
Okay. That’s excellent.
Now I have a question for Madam Bernier, from the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. We had testimony from Mr. Ernewein, of the Department of Finance, who said, “Our understanding is that in relation to Canadian law, the Privacy Act and its various provisions are subject to other laws of Parliament.” We’re led to believe that this agreement could supersede the Privacy Act. Is that your opinion as well?
3:50 p.m.
Interim Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Chantal Bernier
The Privacy Act has been declared to be quasi-constitutional by the courts. He was perhaps referring to section 8 of the Privacy Act; that section does mention “subject” to other laws. However, in general, the Privacy Act has quasi-constitutional status.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin Victoria, BC
Therefore, what that means, in lay terms, is that if the intergovernmental agreement or the provisions of Bill C-31 are in conflict with the Privacy Act, the Privacy Act would prevail.
3:50 p.m.
Interim Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Chantal Bernier
That would be my view, certainly.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin Victoria, BC
Okay.
I’d like to ask you about something else you said just now. I’m very pleased to see that you’ve also drawn this committee’s attention to the provisions of the Income Tax Act that allow CRA officials to tell the police about things that concern them, without any warrant. You’ve said that this information would be shared between the CRA and law enforcement authorities without “judicial oversight”. I take it that you think that would be an aberration. What word would you use to describe that situation?
3:50 p.m.
Interim Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Chantal Bernier
I would describe it as an exception, and that exception needs to be justified as necessary and proportionate, so I urge you to seek the demonstration that indeed it would be necessary to have this exception.
https://openparliament.ca/committees/finance/41-2/35/chantal-bernier-5/
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin Victoria, BC
Necessary? Do you mean in terms of compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
May 14th, 2014 / 3:50 p.m.
Interim Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Chantal Bernier
Yes, absolutely. Obviously you have section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which speaks of necessity “prescribed by law” and “justified in a free and democratic society”. That is the test to meet, and I think evidence should be gathered from this committee as to why this provision is felt to be necessary.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin Victoria, BC
So it’s of concern to the Privacy Commissioner?
3:50 p.m.
Interim Privacy Commissioner, Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
Chantal Bernier
It is of concern to us, yes.
Well said Badger. I agree.
Badger: “A person should not be compelled to avoid harm by enforcing illegal and unconstitutional barriers on themselves, or by refraining from being in a situation in which others would or might act illegally and unconstitutionally against them.” EXACTLY!
I would think that Mr. Arvay should be able to use this argument.
A plaintiff or witness wouldn’t have to actually acquire 50K and open an account just for the purpose of showing harm. They could have a legitly contrived reason to do this, if you know what I mean. They could get their name added to an already existing account over 50K. There are lots of very legit reasons to do this which could coincidentally happen to arise (i.e. could argue that it not be a contrived situation). For example, if a plaintiff or witness has a parent who is getting older and perhaps needs help with their banking, and thus arranges to have their parent’s bank account become joint with their name on it. They may KNOW what this means, but they NEED to help their parent out. Not contrived, but convenient with regards to the trial.
Just a thought.
legitly?
The ‘needing to help parent’ reason for suddently having 50K is a good one. I mean, is the CDN government telling us that a CDN retiree’s account data is to be sent to the IRS for penalty assessment (cause this is the next step) because she was unlucky enough to have birthed her kid in the USA.
Power of attorney held by a US person on an account owned by a Canadian makes said account FBAR reportable. I am not sure whether this also makes it FATCA reportable. If it did, any plaintiff/witness who has power of attorney on a parent’s account – which is not an unusual situation – would have a FATCA reportable account.
@ WhiteKat
Actually your idea sounds much more reasonable than what has been suggested. Good thinking girl! Signing authority on another person’s or entitity’s account is very legitimate, doesn’t have have quite so contrived an appearance and illustrates brilliantly just how deeply FATCA delves into the nooks and crannies of Canadians’ finances and wellbeing. It’s just a matter of finding the all-Canadian person or entity willing to trust the potential witness with that signing authority … all in the name of a very good cause. Even a refusal (in writing) of a bank to issue that signing authority due to POB of the potential witness would be useful I think.