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]
Result:
Court Orders:
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.
Stephen Kish
HOPEFULLY THINGS GO WELL IN 2017 FOR THE THREE DAMSELS IN DISTRESS.MAY YOU HAVE HAPPY NEW YEAR.
We just finished watching the Sydney New Year’s Eve Fireworks … http://www.sydneynewyearseve.com/.
So the New Year is wending it’s way around the globe to Canada as I type. I just want to say (as I just did at the Maple Sandbox) that I hope 2017 brings us all the “bee’s knees”, which simply means something sweet and good … like a successful Charter Challenge.
Happy New Year @All
In light of Ginny’s comment …
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2016/12/30/december-22-2016-update-on-canadian-fatca-iga-lawsuit/comment-page-1/#comment-7772128
… here’s something for our “Golden Girls” — Ginny, Gwen and Kazia — to sing together.
Many thanks @Stephen for the update, and thank you to all of you who have made this a reality over the past years.
Re; “I noticed on Brock a recent comment that “Brock is populated with anonymouses who toe the curb……..””.
Anonymous or not, and on the curb or not, some people who didn’t know each other came out that day, met, and stood together with a common purpose. It wasn’t the March on Washington, and no-one was arrested but does that mean it didn’t count?
I will never forget that day or you amazing people – meeting some of the Brockers here for the very first time, in person.
Far better to try and do something together – however small, than do nothing.
Happy New Year. May 2017 see right prevail over might in this effort.
Best wishes all!
I second that @Embee;
“@ Ginny, Gwen and Kazia
Cheers! We applaud your grace and courage.”
And the hard work of everyone who has made the lawsuit, this site and allied efforts possible.
@Ginny, @Anyone……. I consider myself a smart person with a good command of the english language.
I read the court order and two words came to mind….mumbo jumbo……
Could someone please splain in simple terms what is happening.
@ George O
Me too the same but Ginny’s explanation a page back put it in a good enough nutshell for me.
My deepest thanks to our plaintiffs, witnesses, legal team and all others who are working so hard to bring our case successfully to court.
2017 is OUR YEAR!!!! I welcome it with open arms, and more hope than I have had in a very long time. Happy New Year, everyone!
@George The Original and One And Only
Did what Embee say help?
These types of court memos are for the benefit of lawyers- we speak a shorthand- and not geared necessarily to the public who rarely see them. Our aim has been to be as transparent as we can be which is why Stephen shares them to keep everyone apprised.
Case Management Conferences are designed to asses where the case currently stands; to give guidance to the parties and as you can see to fix firm timelines or abrogate from them to allow for each side to complete tasks to move the case forward in complex cases such as ours.
In other words, when our side files its motion for the summary trial, it would slow things down considerably or possibly result in a lot of delays if the respondents ( the defendants) were held to strict timelines under the Rules to respond. 20 or 30 days might work in an uncomplicated matter. Here, the court recognizes this is not uncomplicated so has allowed some leeway.
They have also cautioned that leeway is not always unlimited and thus provided strict times to comply with certain steps.
The good news is that the court is doing its job monitoring our case and is giving directions to both the parties to meet.
Keep in mind, the plaintiffs have always been ready to advance to the next step. And of course, the onus is on us to do so and our lawyers have done nothing less. Their aim is to always advance our cause.
Yes law suits appear to be incredibly slow, due to many factors, but this memo can be taken as a good step to move it along now. And we will keep you posted!
Happy new year George and thanks for your comments, questions and ongoing support.
@ Jan
Thank you for your kind comments. No one in my life has ever called me succinct. I do try but rarely succeed. Do not ever hand me a microphone unless you want to shorten your time on this planet.
@Canadian Ginny, Gwen and Kazia
Yes lawsuits are slow. But I am thankful to have this Canadian lawsuit moving forward. Although I have renounced US citizenship, I resent the extraterritorial overreach of US CBT tax law into Canada, my new country. It should be considered a violation of international law. I will continue to support this lawsuit, the three plaintiffs and witnesses.
@Robert Ross
Not damsels in distress, but fierce, determined women who intend to get this done. Maybe something can be explained to me that I have been curious about. Where were the men? Did some apply? I am not privy to that info which is just as well.
At the end of the day, I give credit to Stephen Kish and our lawyers who, in my opinion, sorted through the applicants and saw the (three) women who were so compatible with each other and probably born risk takers that they took a chance on us.
I consider that my lucky day. I cannot think of a better opportunity afforded to me to give back by way of this cause to all the many opportunities and advantages I have been given in my life. It’s been said that If we listen carefully, there sometimes comes that day when we hear the knock at the door or a faint whisper summoning us to a task greater than ourselves. The response is in one’s choice.
But trust me, I wasn’t setting out to hear that knock. Life happens.
“Where were the men?”
Some of us don’t live in Canada (formerly dual diaspora), some of us already renounced, and some of us had tried to be compliant before renouncing — and after renouncing.
I bet Petros would have had the guts to be plaintiff, but he had also already renounced, and if I’m not mistaken, he had complied with tax reporting though not FBAR reporting.
That reminds me, I think most members of the US’s diaspora will be safe if they don’t comply with FBAR reporting. Before renouncing, the law requires them to comply, but the law is nearly unenforceable. If the US only wants to sue for civil penalties for failing to file FBARs, they can’t. US District Court for the District of Columbia by definition[*] gets jurisdiction over non-residents in matters of income tax (title 26 US code) but not FBAR (title 31 US code), so there’s no court that the US can sue them in. If the US wants to prosecute someone criminally they can, because any US district counrt can have criminal jurisdiction over non-residents, but it would have to take a lot to convince the US to prosecute.[**]
[* Don’t ask me what Congress meant by calling this a definition.]
[** When the IRS framed me for fraud they threatened to prosecute criminally, but they didn’t. When I finally learned why, I filed motions to compel the US to prosecute me, but they still refused.]
Thanks for the update and Happy New Year to all.
I echo all the previous comments of gratitude, support and admiration for the three Plaintiffs.
I got some more clarity on the problem that we are all facing and I got that clarity over at the Expat facebook page.
There is a person arguing that the Swiss Man with the Theatre business only has himself to blame…..
I reject that full stop as that is blaming the victim.
The Three Plaintiffs are all VICTIMS!!
The remedy they desire is to be treated equally to all Canadians, they are no less a Canadian and no more a Canadian.
Would it be right that Canadians with a place of birth in the USA receive an interest rate two points greater than a Canadian born in Toronto?
This legal case is so simple at its very core…..Ginny I suspect that is what you have been thinking all along with your lawyer hat off. 🙂
And over at the Facebook page I have no person that the person arguing is a decent person and supports the cause but he is blaming the victim.
Excuse my analogy but it is one that makes the point, blaming Canadians deemed US Persons is no different than blaming a woman who is raped because she wore revealing clothing.
Justin Trudeau is effectively blaming Ginny because she “chose” to be born in Detroit and not Windsor, so its her fault and she needs to fix her problem because its not Trudeaus fault.
This blaming the victim is nuts and must stop here and must stop now.
Again, I would love for Ginny to take the stand and make her peace.
@ Canadian Ginny
@Norman Diamond
I support your cause 1000% but I would have liked to have seen gentlemen present.
As to “where are all the men”, yes indeed,where are they? I know that it’s not only men who are renouncing. There must be another reason. After all,we stil live in a male dominated world,be they poiticians,lawyers,military. Where are the macho dual MPs,macho dual businessmen in Canada in this picture?
“Excuse my analogy but it is one that makes the point, blaming Canadians deemed US Persons is no different than blaming a woman who is raped because she wore revealing clothing.”
It’s very different.
Blaming Canadians deemed US persons is like blaming Americans who happen to be in a place where terrorists come in and line up the targets they’re going to slaughter. They didn’t choose their ancestries.
Blaming a music lover who is stabbed because he listened to Chopin is like blaming a woman who is raped because she wore revealing clothing. They exercised legitimate choices.
“I know that it’s not only men who are renouncing.”
Sure, but the problem is to find some who HAVEN’T renounced (and haven’t tried to comply), like the three plaintiffs.
When faced with a situation that makes absolutely no logical sense, One has three choices. Fight to correct the situation,as these three courageous plaintiffs are doing. Another,like when asked a stupid question or confronted by a dangerous person,is to simply walk away gingerly while being aware of what’s at hand.I believe the majority who are not empowerd fall in that category.Lastly, one can simply give in to the situation and I’m not being judgemental here about renouncing either. At least,in Canada,we still have those choices. Not so elsewhere.
There are four fundamental forms of behaviour, known as the four F’s:
Feeding
Fighting
Fleeing
Mating
The only one we’re missing is the first one.
Okay, we’ve got fighting (in court). We’ve got fleeting (a dangerous situation). Now ,what what are we feeding?
Yes,we have feeding.Feeding the beast,of course,the IRS. Amen.
Oh, I thought we were missing the first one in the list, but you’re right, we’ve got all four.
@Brockers….Is “Canadian Federal Court FATCA IGA lawsuit SUMMARY:” the top portion with the read headline a new add on……or is George just getting old and visually impaired?
Anyways I like the summary but on message with the paranoid bullying of your neighbor to the south you need to add;
-UNITED STATES, the FBI and CIA have just released through unnamed sources that the Isaax Brock Society is actually the Ivan Brock Society a Russian front organization founded by a person named Petrovski aka Petros.
—–
Never in my wildest dreams did I ever think the USA would have a flashback to Joe McCarthy, never ever.
Glad I left……so glad I left………some of the same people that rightly protested the Vietnam War are now seeing reds under rocks. Its a mad house and absolute mad house…..
I now have zero doubt that IBS is being watched by the paranoid due south.
George O.
Hmmm. Brings to mind another George O. 🙂
Well, if “they” are watching, let’s hope they are impressed by how bipartisan and angry we are.