UPDATE SEPTEMBER 19, 2015: SEE ALSO DISCLAIMER AND LITIGATION UPDATES.
[This post, which began in May and having over 1000 revisions and 2000 comments, is being retired from service and updates. It lived through the success of reaching a total of $500,000 in donations from our kind, dear supporters who had little money to give, the hope and disappointment with the summary trial decision, and the certainty that we are now finally moving on to the Charter trial.]
CANADIAN CHARTER TRIAL UPDATE:
— We have instructed the Arvay team to prepare for the “Constitutional-Charter” trial. This means that our focus now, as it was in the beginning of our lawsuit, is on the Charter trial.
Unless there is a new expense in the future that we have not anticipated, the monies from your donations will be sufficient to take us through the “constitutional-charter” trial in Federal Court. However, to pay other legal bills we will need additional donations from our supporters, and a request for donations will appear on another post soon.
OUR LITIGATION HISTORY:
One year ago, on August 11, 2014, Litigator Joseph Arvay filed a FATCA IGA lawsuit in Canada Federal Court on behalf of Plaintiffs Ginny and Gwen, the Alliance for the Defence of Canadian Sovereignty (en français), and all peoples.
Because of a Government delay we initiated a “summary trial”, using a portion of the arguments, which offered the possibility of preventing private banking information from being turned over to the IRS before September 30, 2015. See Alliance’s Claims, our Alliance blog, and AUGUST 4-5 SUMMARY TRIAL FILINGS in LITIGATION UPDATES.
@ Wondering,
I applaud and concur with your stand, particularly your comment “An attempt by a foreign state to threaten, harass, discourage or otherwise interfere with ADCS fundraising could be constructively considered an act of tampering or obstruction of justice.”, plus comments about the Jews in Germany 80 years ago.
In terms of “It would be nice if more of the estimated HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of so-called “US persons residing in Canada” chipped in a few dollars each!”, may I suggest that you (and all others reading this post) consider adopting/adapting/using the letter posted on
https://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2015/06/04/two-fatca-iga-anniversaries-june-19th-and-july-1st-what-are-you-doing/
and forward same to EVERYONE on your address-book list. While this situation in Canada focuses on (and arose in relation to) those of us with “US taint”, just like in Germany in the 1930s, the loss of such UN-supported rights is an issue that should be of concern to all in this vast democratic G-7 country.
As I mention on that page, All Brockers should feel free to copy or adapt this letter and circulate it as widely as you want (don’t forget your hairdresser and your insurance agent and your neighbor and her cousin who seemed curious about FATCA at last week’s BBQ, and your child’s piano teacher and the members of your bridge group and your friend’s daughter who married that US fellow and that old friend you don’t like that much but he keeps sending you emails with funny stories – – maybe he would circulate this letter to his “list” (mine did!), and, and, and …………..) 🙂 🙂 🙂
And, I agree also, Wondering, especially…
And, also with…
It is a quandry why so many do not feel it important to stand up for the rights of themselves, their spouses, their children!! Amazing and I will NEVER understand that.
Please help your *US Person* families’ futures, their very Rights and Freedoms under the Canadian Charter that should protect all who live here: Donate to http://adcs-adsc.ca/
@canoe
Thanks for you link to Nelsona/Serbinski. Been a long time since I’ve read anything over there. There is a difference between that comment and what I said; namely, that reference is to an individual and assumes the individual is signed on as a PayPal.com (U.S.) user. Of course, PayPal.com, registered in the US, is not a foreign account.
Paypal is also incorporated in Canada and the account used for donations is a business account, which has a balance and is not used simply to buy things. This is a completely different situation and Nelsona’s comment does not apply. I will reiterate that any John Doe summons from the U.S. would require action via the Canadian courts. There is no vehicle for the IRS simply coming in and demanding information from any Canadian corporation (including ADCS). The only way they could demand info was if ADCS was a CFC, which it is not.
Okay, here’s my next idea:
The Canadian federal elections are coming up. Sign up now to be a poll worker. It’s only for one day, and you make an oath to Her Majesty, thereby relinquishing the U.S.A. citizenship you were tricked into confirming when they tricked you into obtaining a U.S.A. passport.
Why the silence? Did everybody drop everything and dash off to town hall to sign up?
@Tom Alciere
Poll workers must be Canadian citizens. Anyone who is a naturalised Canadian citizen has already taken the citizenship oath.
@NorthernShrike
Yeah, but it can help shed the second citizenship. If you’re a Canadian citizen classified, under USA law as a USA citizen, you can relinquish the USA citizenship by taking a job with a foreign (that’s non-USA) government and making an oath to that government.
Regarding an oath, it appears that poll clerking would not be a relinquishing act.
(1) If the person is already a Canadian citizen, a oath of allegiance to Canada will not alter the person’s legal status with Canada. 7 FAM 1252(h)(4)
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/120544.pdf
(2) The poll clerk’s oath does not contain an oath of allegiance. The person just affirms that they are qualified and that they’ll do the job properly.
“I solemnly affirm that:
– I have reached voting age;
– I live in the riding of _______________ (give the name of the school);
– I will act faithfully without partiality, fear, favour or affection and in every respect according to the law;
– at the polling station, I will maintain the secrecy of the vote.”
http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?dir=yth/stu/gui&document=dx&lang=e§ion=vot#a8b
Perhaps poll clerking as a relinquishing act would be viable under Immigration and Nationalities Act, s. 349(a)(4)(A), as that sub-article does not require an oath, just employment. I don’t know anyone who’s done this and I don’t know what their definition of employment is, so I’m not sure of it, but I can see that it might work under that sub-article.
Also, unless the relinquishing act goes back to 2004 (or 2008?) it doesn’t let one off the IRS hook, so swearing an oath now won’t help. You’d still have to file the bullshit back taxes. That is, if you care that much about the bullshit rules anyway. If you don’t care, then why even bother to do any of it at all?
This interesting from Republicans Overseas — This is Activism!
“Walt Sanchez and David Shaw, Republicans Overseas has retained the best constitutional litigator Jim Bopp to defend your and 8.7 million overseas Americans’ right to privacy and constitutional protections by challenging FATCA’s constitutionality in federal court.
We also plan to ask RO country chapter leaders’ view on organizing expats to demonstrate against FATCT, FBAR, and CBT outside of U.S. Embassies around the world after the lawsuit.
If you email your contact information to solomon@fatcalegalactiion.com, we will put you in touch with our country chapter in your respective country where you reside. You can help our country chapters to organize or participate in FATCA demonstrations for liberty and freedom.”
https://www.facebook.com/republicansoverseas?fref=pb&hc_location=profile_browser
I wonder if it is possible to coordinate the Bopp lawsuit (and demonstrations) to correspond with the ADSC August 4th trial?
Food for thought anyway!
@Walt
Great idea…..will the Bopp lawsuit be filed around the Aug 4th date? (I am having a mature moment and erased my first snarky response).
This may be silly but have you thought of creating a Kickstarter? I think there are other similar sites that may be better fit for this, but just saying…
Demonstrations outside US embassies? Love the idea, but turnout will be poor. May as well hold up signs saying “Take my photo, then please audit me.”
In this suit, the defendants should be answering the quantity of US persons located who have US addresses and the quantity of US persons located with Canadian addresses.
In parallel, Freedom of Information requests should be made asking the same question.
A FOI should be made in every country which has that system asking the same question.
— Ed, the subject of kickstarting/crowdfunding etc. often comes up. Here is one already prepared response to your suggestion:
https://adcsovereignty.wordpress.com/2015/03/23/the-funding-of-the-adcsovereignty-fatca-lawsuit-explained/
We have not done too badly, raising over $420,000 from small donations. But ADCS does get anxious when we get close to paying the quarterly legal bills (next one, August 4 and we are very far away from our goal).
— Barbara, I too would predict that the turnout for a demonstration at a U.S. embassy would probably be low — even for those who have renounced — especially because of the certainty of disclosure. Also at the U.S. consulate in Toronto, for example, my understanding is that you have to stand one block away from the building.
— Charl and Walt, I hope that the Jim Bopp lawsuit is filed in about 30 days, but litigation never moves as quickly as you would like.
@GwEvil
It could provide a CLN which helps deal with banks. As for IRS, just say NO.
Oh yes. If you sign up to be a poll worker, and if that counts as accepting employment with a foreign (Canadian) government, and you thereby shed the U.S.A. citizenship you were tricked into confirming when you were tricked into obtaining a U.S.A. passport, this also means you do not infect your children with the disease of U.S.A. citizenship.
@QUOTE OF THE DAY: “Frankly, I’m outraged by the Supreme Court” says Canadian Government Minister upon hearing 7-0 ruling that cannabis can be provided for medical purposes [e.g. for drug resistant epilepsy in children] in preparations other than dried marijuana.
I’m dumbfounded that the gov’t minister–in effect–is forcing a lot of patients who ingest marijuana for medical purposes to have to SMOKE it. That’s the worst way to take it, given the harm to the lungs (5 times worse than a tobacco cig). Obviously, given that medical marijuana is LEGAL, it should be accessible to patients, especially the children and the bedridden, through other forms such as teas or brownies. Didn’t the gov’t minister bother to listen to any of the patients (or the parents) involved? Full disclosure, I’ve never taken marijuana, but if I HAD to for serious health reasons, I’d want to use the tea or brownies, wouldn’t you?
The next election can’t come up soon enough . . . the Harper majority gov’t has got to go.
@Jan, re: “Full disclosure, I’ve never taken marijuana, but if I HAD to for serious health reasons, I’d want to use the tea or brownies, wouldn’t you? ”
Yup, brownies are better. Cookies are good too. 🙂
Le Dain Commission of Inquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Commission of Inquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs, often referred to as the Le Dain Commission after its chair Dean Gerald Le Dain, was a Canadian government commission that was begun in 1969 and completed its work in 1972.
The recommendations of Gerald Le Dain, Heinz Lehmann and J. Peter Stein included the repeal of the prohibition against the simple possession of cannabis and cultivation for personal use.[1] Marie-Andree Bertrand, writing for a minority view, recommended a policy of legal distribution of cannabis, that cannabis be removed from the Narcotic Control Act (since replaced by the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act) and that the provinces implement controls on possession and cultivation, similar to those governing the use of alcohol.[2]
The report also recommended that the federal government conduct further research to monitor and evaluate changes in the extent and patterns of the use of cannabis and other drugs, and to explore possible consequences to health, and personal and social behaviour, resulting from the controlled legal distribution of cannabis.
A total of 365 submissions were presented at the hearings and an additional 50 were forwarded to the Commission’s office. About 12,000 people attended and participated in these hearings, which included testimony from a number of prominent individuals including John Lennon on 22 December 1969 in Montreal.[3]
Although the report was widely praised for its thoroughness and thoughtfulness, its conclusions were largely ignored by the federal government.[citation needed]
References[edit]
Jump up ^ Canadian Government Commission of Inquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs. “Conclusions and Recommendations of Gerald Le Dain, Heinz Lehmann, J. Peter Stein”. Information Canada. Retrieved 24 April 2012.
Jump up ^ Canadian Government Commission of Inquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs. “Conclusions and Recommendations of Marie-Andree Bertrand”. Information Canada. Retrieved 24 April 2012.
Jump up ^ The Le Dain Commission of Inquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs — The Private Hearing of John Lennon”, December 22, 1969, in Montreal
External links[edit]
The Report of the Canadian Government Commission of Inquiry into the Non-Medical Use of Drugs – 1972 – Le Dain Commission Report
Categories: Cannabis legal reform in CanadaCanadian commissions and inquiries1972 disestablishments
@WhiteKat, Yes, the cookies pictured here in this related article look good:
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/ambrose-outraged-by-scc-s-marijuana-ruling-1.2417118
Here’s a clip from the article:
The decision is also significant for doctors who worried about how to prescribe smoking marijuana, Roycroft added.
“When we start creating edibles, there is the possibility and there is the mechanism to standardize the dose, which is exactly what physicians want,” he said.
Under the changed definition, marijuana can also be offered in the form of capsules, tinctures and ointments.
This begs the question: WHY was the gov’t spending OUR tax dollars to fight this up to the Supreme Court? Who do they think they are representing? Not the physicians prescribing medical marijuana and not their patients. Who else is relevant?
The latest loss for the Harper gov’t in the Supreme Court is nice but I like this one too:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/internet-users-privacy-upheld-by-canada-s-top-court-1.2673823
To be clear, I don’t like the plaintiff but I like what the ruling does to strike down the practice of warrantless searches.
@EmBee – every time I hear of another supreme court loss for the Cons I jump for joy because it just shows us how much they are on the wrong side of every decision. Which means more power to us! This also gives me more hope that not only will our side win on the FATCA IGA, but C-51 will also be struck down as unconstitutional.
@GwEvil, add bill C-24 (‘strengthening’ Canadian citizenship) to that list; between it, FATCA and bill C-51(anti-terrorist) before you know it, non-compliant Canadians owned by the USA, will have their Canadian citizenship revoked (as per bill C-24) because they are ‘US tax cheats’ making a big stink over not paying their ‘fair share’ to the master, and thus a threat to Canadian national security (bill C-51).
Yeah, maybe I am exaggerating just a bit(or not!?), but point is Canadian’s owned by the USA are now officially second class citizens of Canada, not just because of FATCA, but also because of bill C-24(only duals or someone with a potential claim to dual citizenship can have their Canadian citizenship revoked).