[We now have a NEW POST taking us up to February 1, 2015. This post will be retired from service.]
THE AUTUMN 2014 UPDATE
Dear Donors,
Together, we reached our goal of $100,000 to pay the November 1 legal bill 11 days ahead of schedule!
Thank you Canadian donors from coast to coast and our friends from around the world for your generosity, support and determination — and especially for not being afraid.
The name of our non-profit corporation is the “Alliance for the Defence of Canadian Sovereignty.”
We were very deliberate in including in our name the word “sovereignty”, which forms a cornerstone of our Claims against the Government of Canada.
Canada and dozens of other countries throughout the world gave into a bully because their “leaders” were afraid of harm caused by a trading “partner” — and they gave their sovereignties away.
Help us convince by example the Leaders and Governments of all countries worldwide that they should return their sovereignties back to their Peoples.
Please continue to support our lawsuit.
“Alone we can do so little. Together we can do so much.” (Helen Keller)
— Plaintiffs Ginny and Gwen, and the ADCS-ADSC team
Chers donateurs,
Ensemble, nous avons atteint notre but d’amasser 100 000 $ pour payer notre facture légale du 1er novembre 11 jours d’avance !
Un gros merci à vous, donateurs canadiens, et à nos amis de tous les coins du monde pour votre grande générosité, soutien et détermination. Et surtout pour votre courage.
Le nom de notre organisme sans but lucratif est « l’Alliance pour la défense de la souveraineté canadienne ».
Nous avons choisi délibérément le mot « souveraineté » puisqu’il constitue la base fondamentale de nos revendications envers le gouvernement du Canada.
Le Canada et des dizaines d’autres pays se sont pliés devant l’intimidation des États-Unis parce que leurs « leaders » ont eu peur des menaces de notre « partenaire » commercial. Ils ont donc vendu leur souveraineté à rabais.
Aidez-nous à convaincre les dirigeants et les gouvernements de tous ces pays qu’ils se doivent de remettre leur souveraineté à leurs peuples.
S’il vous plaît, continuez à soutenir notre cause.
« Seuls, nous pouvons faire si peu. Ensemble, nous pouvons faire beaucoup. » (Helen Keller)
— Ginny, Gwen et toute l’équipe de l’ADCS-ADSC
DONATE to www.adcs-adsc.ca (ADSC en français).
@ calgary411
Yes that’s the man but he isn’t getting 2 votes that I know of. My husband has advance voted NDP and I will be doing the same on the day of the vote. Mr. Barlow just did a rehash and disjointed mix of all the Con talking points from the past 2 years. Sounds like he just grabbed the memos, threw them into a blender and poured them out. There’s no sign of him doing any individual contemplation and no sign of genuine empathy either. How can he say “recent guidance” from the IRS and then list dates from 2011 and 2012? We all know that that “recent guidance” was simply poorly designed disclosure traps. The IRS has been adding and changing its diktats constantly since 2010 and it still hasn’t got its act together to the point where even the financial institutions are still trying to figure out what to do to who and when. All they know is WHAT? — lots of new bewildering paperwork; WHO? — anyone they can catch; and WHEN? — starting July 1st thereabouts. The FIs don’t want to touch the real question which is WHY? Well it’s because they couldn’t find a dime to fight FATCA and decided instead to pay millions to comply while lobbying the Canadian government to protect their acts of compliance.
Who is going to try and get the retro-active money now the IRS has announced no penalties for ovewrseas bad people? This looks huge.
@ Neill
I actually don’t think of it in terms of the money. I see FATCA as:
#1 an egregious breach of a person’s right to privacy
#2 an unconstitutional act of discrimination
#3 an outright assault on Canadian sovereignty
These three things are paramount to me and more than enough to keep me fighting FATCA which is as hegemonic in its way as the wars the USA wages against any and every little country which it sees fit to punish (usually because they were bucking the corrupt worldwide financial system of debt-based money creation).
Another article by Barrie McKenna at
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/personal-finance/taxes/irs-streamlines-back-tax-process-for-ex-americans/article19217522/
I have contributed a comment, pointing to the ADCS website.
@Neill,
This so-called IRS amnesty, if true (no penalties for overseas bad people if you begin to pay now your “fair share”), as Em points out, is irrelevant to the topic of this post: “Please help us take the Government of Canada to court over the FATCA law”.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/personal-finance/taxes/irs-streamlines-back-tax-process-for-ex-americans/article19217522/
https://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2014/06/17/expatriate-americans-break-up-with-uncle-sam-to-escape-tax-rules/comment-page-3/#comment-2045503
—At the end of this “amnesty”, citizenship based taxation will still remain for those individuals the U.S. deems U.S. persons.
Apologies again for what may turn out to be a double posting.
Barrie McKenna has another article in the Globe:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/personal-finance/taxes/irs-streamlines-back-tax-process-for-ex-americans/article19217522/
I added a comment as AndrewH1, pointing to the ADCS website. Add more comments and give mine the thumbs up, if you want to help.
Calgary: Thanks for finding out that the Governor General *does* have the right to veto legislation! My politics is so on its ear. Three years ago I would have been appalled that a non-elected head of state could have the right to veto legislation passed by an elected body. But now that I am on the receiving end of this devastatingly immoral government decision I am *so* grateful that we have both the Senate *and* the Governor General who, even if they don’t use it, have the right under our Constitution to veto bad law. As you said, “Let’s change that boring history, Mr. Johnston!”
Live now, Senate Chamber, Senate Sitting No. 74 (will Bill C-31 be read again, Third Reading?): http://senparlvu.parl.gc.ca/Guide.aspx?viewmode=4&categoryid=-1¤tdate=2014-06-18&eventid=9590&languagecode=12298
Yep, Third Reading of Bill C-31 in the Senate today: http://www.parl.gc.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&billId=6483626
http://senparlvu.parl.gc.ca/Guide.aspx?viewmode=4&categoryid=-1¤tdate=2014-06-18&languagecode=12298&eventid=9590
(Interesting discussion at about 3:56:00 about the omnibus bill, portions of which should be on their own, including Part 5.)
Senator Callbeck then calls it an ABUSE OF POWER to have so many items in this budget bill. Says “We see it time and time again.”
About 4:27:30 — Privacy and then listen to proposed amendment The Bill C-31 not be read a Third Time and to take Part 5 out of the Bill. (I do not have the Senators names). Transcript should be available tomorrow?
One step to go: The Governor General / Royal Assent (or other).
@MuzzledNoMore and (?) @Calgary411
With respect to the Governor General, he will sign the bill. To not sign it would create a constitutional crisis. The constitutionality of the bill will be (and should be) decided by the courts, not the GG.
@NorthernShrike
With respect to the GG, there is also the issue that he–in theory–acts on the Queen’s behalf. Since IIRC the Queen has already granted royal assent to very similar legislation in the UK, by doing so she has presumably made her views known that this is NOT the once-in-300+-years occasion when royal assent might be refused.
Something just came to mind regarding Uncle Sam dreaming up whatever justifications it can in order to defend the preservation of the “peculiar institution” of CBT.
The 13th amendment of the US constitution reads:
“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
CBT is therefore not unconstitutional because:
1.) The crime of leaving America can be punishable with slavery and/or involuntary servitude.
2.) Slavery and involuntary servitude can exist outside the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
So there you have it, CBT is in fact constitutional. So renounce now while you still can, and take pleasure feeling the “door of tyranny” hitting you square in the @$$ on the way out. (grin)
Hopefully Jim Bopp will prove me wrong. But Uncle Sam will do just about anything to keep his claws around the throats of expats.
Hansard transcript of yesterday’s Senate brought interesting statements on the audacity of having to vote on so much that is in this (and other) omnibus bills, but Third Reading occurred.
And, now Bill C-31 will go to Canada’s Governor General for Royal Assent: http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/Sen/Chamber/412/Debates/074db_2014-06-18-e.htm
Too lengthy, but search for Hon. Pierrette Ringuette who expressed what we here feel. Or, better, listen to her and her colleague Hon. Céline Hervieux-Payette who seconded her motion. Start at 4:27:30 http://senparlvu.parl.gc.ca/Guide.aspx?viewmode=4&categoryid=-1¤tdate=2014-06-18&languagecode=12298&eventid=9590
Also Senator Day stated:
There’s another piece of legislation, still in Bill C-31, still under the rubric of privacy versus disclosure between agencies, and that relates to the Canada-U.S. agreement in Part 5 of this bill. Part 5 is what we talked about earlier on. Part 5, the Canada-United States Enhanced Tax Information Exchange Agreement, was an attempt by the government to avoid, to a degree, the oppression of earlier legislation that the United States had. We have all received many emails about having to make available — the banks have to go through a due process, and for any potential U.S. taxpayer, the information of all the accounts they have must be sent to the U.S.
Canada has entered into an agreement with the United States, and Part 5 deals exclusively with that, but this is one of those acts within an act. What really bothered me is that they want us to pass the act, at clause 99, that includes the words “as amended from time to time.” So we adopt a piece of legislation that adopts an agreement between Canada and the United States, and that agreement between Canada and the United States may, from time to time, be amended by the executive branch. We will not see that as legislators. We will not say, “That is far too oppressive on the people of Canada and Canadian citizens who might be doing business in the U.S. and therefore might become subject to U.S. tax payment requirements.”
Related sentiments from NZ: https://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2014/04/17/new-zealands-capitulation-to-fatca-laid-bare/comment-page-6/#comment-2051901
Democracy Watch is promoting a new campaign:
“Stop PM/ Premier Abuses” -The SuPremos-What will they do to you next?
One of the points in the letter states- prohibit omnibus bills (especially budgets) that amend unrelated laws at once.
http://democracywatch.ca/campaigns/stop-the-supremos/
Ann over at Maple Sandbox noted, as have I and others here, that the Brock commenting system is not working properly at the moment (it seems to be an intermittent problem). I hope this will be fixed soon but I know how difficult intermittent problems can be to remedy. Ann’s concern I think is that this trouble navigating Brock might even affect donations to ADCS. I truly hope not because this legal challenge is all that is keeping me going right now. Koskinen’s so-called “amnesty” is of no help to me but for others it could be and that too could affect donations. (Compliance seekers will need their money to pay for the cost of doing their compliance work — i.e. compliance condors, penalties, anti-anxiety prescriptions, etc.)
I would love to see as many Brocker-Boxers as possible focusing on the ADCS fund. This is, I believe, a matter of righting a very big wrong which is the fault of both the USA and CND governments. There just has to be a time in our lives where we dig in our heels and tell them: “You have gone too far. Back off!” We need that eventual favourable Supreme Court ruling to do this.
Yes please, everyone! We need people to continue to donate. We must persevere! Please spread the information about the legal fund far and wide! Plug this continually! Thank you!!
It’s Time for a Poem from Em — More or Less
If the Brock and Sandbox web sites get into a big mess,
Just write a cheque to relieve all your blog addict distress.
Be sure to spell out all the words in A.D.C. and S.
Then send your cheque along to the legal fund’s address.
This will help us all achieve our hard-won court success
Of not allowing charter rights and freedoms to regress.
Alliance for the Defence of Canadian Sovereignty
Attn: Stephen Kish
283 College Street, P.O. Box 67678
Toronto, Ontario, CANADA
M5T 3M1
Brava Em!!
@ brockers
I should get my bonus letter any day now and then I will know how much I can give for my 2nd donation to ADCS. am enquiring about having a book street sale in London to raise funds (as the ADCS is a Commonwelath non profit organisation the local authority here might -JUST might-give permission)
ADCS is now part of my monthly budget cycle and along with my mortgage will hopefully be one of my biggest reregular outgoings.
@ crystal london
That is awesome. Great idea about the book sale — hope it’s a go. I wish we knew if we were close or way off the mark with the donations coming in but I completely understand why the ADCS board has to keep those cards close their vests.
Calgary: The fast forward button wouldn’t work for me at your link to the June 18 Senate audio but I got the impression from your post that Bill C-31 has, indeed, passed the Senate. If this is the case could you make this information a separate post. I think the news should be headlined. Sadly, I think NorthernShrike is right; not much hope that the Governor General would do anything to stop it.
I want to call attention to an article appearing in the Friday June 20 issue of the Ottawa Citizen (p. A2). It may appear in other papers published by PostMedia. I was unable to find it online:
Stephen Maher, “Elections Act to be tested: two groups will challenge bill in Superior Court”.
The challenge is being launched by the Council of Canadians and the Canadian Federation of Students.
A couple of observations:
First, I wonder whether they might a source of advice on fund raising. Council of Canadians has an annual budget of about $5 million. That’s a whole lot more than we have, but it would still be a challenge for them to come up with $1 million+ for a single court challenge. I am unable to find budget data for the Canadian Federation of Students, but they presumably operate with limited funds. They are supported by student unions across Canadian universities and colleges.
Second, maybe Stephen Maher would take an interest in our issue. Having said that, I note that he has written a number of articles on election issues, not on constitutional issues as such.
Thanks, MuzzledNoMore. I will make a post of that ‘Third Reading Completed’. I have gone to the video again (http://senparlvu.parl.gc.ca/Guide.aspx?viewmode=4&categoryid=-1¤tdate=2014-06-18&languagecode=12298&eventid=9590) and pull the “indicator” to this point to listen: About 4:27:30. i.e., I didn’t use “fast-forward”. Can you give that a try and let me know if it works for you?
I haven’t, so far, found anything to indicate the final step of Royal Assent by the Governor General. I guess we’ll know that when we hear from the media that Bill C-31 has received Royal Assent, having skipped all of the other important discussion and process of this omnibus bill. Yes, I too, know NorthernShrike is right — it is all now just pomp and ceremony.
And, so important, that we find donors to join us to support the Challenge — http://www.adcs-adsc.ca/.
Do you folks in Toronto think that the man in this article might be able to offer some guidance on the sourcing of help.
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2014/04/07/alan_borovoy_a_troublemaker_who_made_history_goar.html
Could these folk be a source of advice / funding ?
http://globalnews.ca/news/1082551/supreme-court-of-canada-to-hear-case-for-nadon-eligibility/
“The Constitutional Rights Centre and constitutional lawyer Rocco Galati launched the initial challenge, and Quebec has joined the fray.”