Canadian Federal Court FATCA IGA lawsuit SUMMARY:
— PLAINTIFFS argue that throwing Canadians under the CRA-IRS bus, because they are deemed by United States or local bank teller to be “U.S. tax-persons”, violates Canada’s Charter of Rights and the Sovereignty of our country.
— PRIME MINISTER JUSTIN TRUDEAU (his representatives, the Attorney General and the Revenue Minister) argues that the United States is a mighty, powerful nation that must be feared: EVEN IF throwing a few million Canadian families under the bus “technically” violates Canada’s Charter and Sovereignty, it is ok, even praiseworthy, to do so — because of the economic sanction the United States “promises” to impose if Canada does not give up its once proud sovereignty.
— This is a new update with some timelines from the Canadian Federal Court showing what has to be done before we know the Charter-Constitutional trial date (taking place next year). In part, there will be motions and responses related to differences of opinions as to what documents and information have to be provided prior to trial.
We can’t provide or speculate on what will be in the Government Motion until the motion is formally received by the Registry Office:
“Order dated 22-DEC-2016 rendered by Roger Lafrenière, Esq., Prothonotary Matter considered with personal appearance
The Court’s decision is with regard to Case Management Conference [recently held by the parties to move the litigation forward]
1. D [The Defendants --- Attorney General and Revenue Minister] are granted leave to s/f [serve/file] their motion in writing for production of documents and particulars.
2. P [The Plaintiffs --- Kazia, Ginny, and Gwen] shall s/f their responding motion record within 28 days from the date of service of the D motion referred to in paragraph 1 above
3. P are granted leave to bring their motion for summary trial [the Charter-Constitutional trial]. P are dispensed from s/f a motion record at this stage and shall instead s/f a notice of motion and contemporaneously serve their affidavit evidence [e.g. testimonies from our Witnesses and Expert Witnesses].
4. The timeline for the D to file a response to the P motion for summary trial is suspended until further order
5. Any further affs, docs, or particulars, and anything else req’d by any order resulting from the D’s motion referred to in para 1 above shall be produced by the Ps to the Ds within 30 days of such order
6. The parties shall make best efforts to schedule the Ds examinations for discovery of the Ps within 45 days of satisfaction of the requirements, if any, described in para 5 above
7. The parties shall requisition a CMC [Case Management Conference] as soon as possible following completion of the steps set out in para 5 and 6 above in order to, among other things: A) fix a timetable for completion of the steps leading to the hearing of the P motion for summary trial; and B) schedule the hearing of the P motion for summary trial.
Filed on 22-DEC-2016 copies sent to parties”
Sorry again for the slow pace.
— I noticed on Brock a recent comment that “Brock is populated with anonymouses who toe the curb.” but confirm that our Witnesses (as well as our Plaintiffs) have all been willing to “out themselves” publicly.