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.
Also, to whomever is complaining about “lack of results” or “where is the money going”, maybe do some reading to find you answers. Court cases in Canada routinely take YEARS to play out. As for results, we have one of the best lawyers in Canada working on our behalf. We have a summary trial taking place in August. What more you want/need to know? What is taking place and by whom is awesome.
I’m still waiting for someone, ANYONE, to argue that attacking CBT from within the USA is an act of defending Canadian sovereignty. Anyone?
Dreamer, what’s your point/problem?
Phil. Wow. LOL. Seriously?!
Phil, no offence but you don’t know the difference between IBS and ADCS. How the hell am I ever going to ever be able to get “my point” across to you?
Dreamer, I believe it would be defending Canadian sovereignty. It would be defending the sovereignty of Canadian citizens who are also American citizens, accidentals and all, from CBT.
However, even if you disagree with that, lets assume that attacking CBT inside the USA does nothing to defend sovereignty in Canada, who cares? Why do you feel that we can only do things if it defends Canadian sovereignty? What is wrong with a CBT lawsuit by Americans living outside the USA? We are being mistreated as the only people in the world subjected to CBT.
I’m not Canadian, never lived there, so let me put in my 2 renminbi. I confess, it took me a while to overlook the overwhelming Canadian focus of this site and to understand the potential positive repercussions of a win in the ADCS very-Canadian-oriented lawsuit before I decided to contribute. Of course, now I get it. But I’ve had to do a lot of explaining to get one other person, also not Canadian, to donate.
That said, I am 1000% behind this lawsuit. But I agree that any anti-CBT legal action is better off not being associated with Canadian sovereignty issues, and should not be forthcoming from ADCS.
I am absolutely baffled about the Bopp so-called lawsuit. There is zero news about it. There is a website calling for donations, with absolutely no explanation of what the donations are for, or what they’re doing. I’d be surprised if they’d raised a dime.
Then there was talk of a Republicans Abroad legal action, with a decorated veteran in Prague as plaintiff. Again, not a breath of what is happening there. Is that the Bopp action? I have no idea! There is no explanation anywhere that isn’t over a year old.
I would contribute to a court challenge to CBT or FBARs or FATCA in general, but I don’t see any action on those fronts.
It seems that only ADCS has put up a well-organized action and fundraising effort, and I applaud and shower gratitude upon those involved. But from the talk above, and the lack of any news or movement elsewhere, I’m not hopeful about any action other than the possible defeat of the IRS-Canada IGA, which may or may not have impact elsewhere.
Phil, re: “It would be defending the sovereignty of Canadian citizens who are also American citizens, accidentals and all, from CBT. ”
IMO, we don’t defend Canadian sovereignty by trying to change laws in OTHER countries. We defend Canadian sovereignty by strengthening our borders (physical, financial, economic, etc) to resist attacks from other countries (CBT attacks or whatever else). The laws that other countries make and enforce within their own borders are for the most part, their business. If you don’t like CBT and fear the consequences of not obeying ANOTHER country’s laws, don’t go to the USA, renounce US citizenship if you insist on crossing the US border and fear the consequences of non-compliance, do vote in the USA if you consider yourself an American, do attempt to make changes from within the US legal jurisdiction if that pleases you, but do NOT confuse changing American laws with defending Canadian sovereignty.
CBT has no muscle as long as you stay within the sovereign nation of Canada, PRESUMING the Canadian government does its job by refusing to enforce FATCA on Canadian soil , and by refusing to allow Canadian banks to break Canadian law by sending Canadians’ private Canadian financial information to a foreign country.
Barbara,
I am curious why it matters to you that the ADSC might open a CBT suit. Why would it matter who does it? I am on all the websites and facebook pages that pertain to our issues. The mention the other day for a possible ADSC CBT law suit is the ONLY substantial talk of a CBT law suit anywhere. As I have mentioned before, ending CBT ends FATCA for Americans abroad. Ending FATCA doesn’t end CBT. I can’t understand why anyone would not support a CBT law suit no matter who launches it? If the ADSC doesn’t file a CBT suit, we will all be dead before anyone else considers it.
Dreamer,
If only life was that simple. “Just don’t go to the States”. Did it ever occur to you that some of us may have family there? Might want to go to weddings or funerals?
You also seem to find it strange that some of us would want to change an unjust law in the USA. That happens all the time. New laws are created all the time. Other laws are struck down by courts all the time as well when they are ruled unconstitutional. I am not sure where you live, but in North America, someone suing their government because they believe a law is unconstitutional happens all the time and is very normal. We are Americans so it would be trying to change OUR laws, not “another country”. We have every right to sue our American government no matter where we live.
Phil re: “…lets assume that attacking CBT inside the USA does nothing to defend sovereignty in Canada, who cares? Why do you feel that we can only do things if it defends Canadian sovereignty? What is wrong with a CBT lawsuit by Americans living outside the USA? ”
Nothing is wrong with a CBT lawsuit launched against the US government by Americans living outside the USA (or within the USA). I woulds applaud such efforts.
However, I believe that an organization should tackle issues that are true examples of its stated purpose. To state that an organization’s purpose is to defend Canadian sovereignty, and then to specifically attack a foreign nations laws, rather than to focus on strengthening and defending one’s own borders from foreign attack – regarding CBT this means to kill the FATCA IGA, but as Schubert point out in an earlier comment there are other worthy sovereignty issues – takes away from the legitimacy of the organization.
I’m still waiting for someone to explain to me how an attack on USA’s CBT law meshes with ADCS’s purpose. Maybe I just do not see it due to my Canadian centric viewpoint as someone who does not identify as American at all. Someone please explain or I will have to go back to my original premise which is that, ‘no one cares, as long as CBT is killed’.
Phil. You make me want to bank my head against the nearest wall.
Phil, re: “We are Americans so it would be trying to change OUR laws, not “another country”. We have every right to sue our American government no matter where we live. ”
Well, maybe YOU are American, but not all of us consider ourselves as such. Regardless, I agree with the rest of your statement. Go ahead and change the laws that you say are “OUR laws”. They are NOT Canadian laws.
Okay, I finally get you. Because a CBT law suit might stray a bit from the stated goal of a group, we must forbid it. Even if it can help millions of people be freed from oppression. A little anal/OCD you think? Totally bizarre. I am finished discussing this with you. I think your a democrats abroad (DA) troll or something similar.
@Phil,
Me, a DA troll? Yeah right….I barely knew the difference between a Democrat and a Republican before hearing about FATCA and CBT a couple years ago.
I am a Canadian who has been living in Canada since before I can remember. As such, please excuse my somewhat tainted Canadian centric viewpoint as to what constitutes ‘Canadian sovereignty’.
Phil, re: ” Because a CBT law suit might stray a bit from the stated goal of a group, we must forbid it. Even if it can help millions of people be freed from oppression ”
Why do we have to stuff a round peg into a square hole? Is that the only way we can help those millions of people be freed from oppression?
Does compromising the integrity of a group’s purpose mean anything? And if you agree that it does mean something, why not REVISE that stated purpose and maybe RENAME the group to be more representative of its true goals?
Why are these questions I am asking being dismissed as OCD/ANAL?
@Dreamer. Have you read the ADCS claim in its entirety? The whole case against CBT comes out. This legal action will greatly assist a future case against CBT and potentially a future case against the Canada-US Tax treaty, which also allows infringement of Canadian Sovereignty by not generally refuting CBT, which flows over the border with the consent of Canada by not having clauses stating otherwise.
ADCS needs $100,000.
The government stalls, claiming it has to review 100,000 documents for the lawsuit.
For people who like to feel quick results, imagine every dollar you donate to ADCS hauling one more government document into court.
This uncharacteristically acrimonious and unconstructive discussion will give comfort only to those who are hoping for the failure of the ADCS campaign.
@Barbara – I too am a non-Canadian. I also support this campaign because it is the best – indeed the only credible – game in town (or on the planet). Thank you for your 2 renmibi.
@Phil – I will continue actively to support the entire ADCS (and IBS) team because they have more than amply earned our respect. I trust their honesty and sincerity and wisdom. I am very grateful to them for the untold benefits so many of us have already received from their work. I will continue to support them, in the hope of more future benefits for us all.
@Dreamer – In my humble opinion, any effective legal attack on the US CBT needs to be made at (possibly within?) the US rather than independently within the borders of ~200 countries. This would be simply 200x more efficient, can be conducted in English by those with existing expertise, and supports the 150+ countries in the world where few people could mount any effective such challenge. A disease needs curing at its root cause, not at its disseminated symptoms.
To all those who work so hard at ADCS and IBS to give any hope at all to so many millions of us (mostly unwitting) potential beneficiaries: i wish mainly to say thank you.
Yes, I feel full of thanks too. Everybody here is doing a wonderful job.
We are up against a 100000 ton gorilla. No easy feat. I think people are giving their all- and personally, I also have to hope for common sense to kick in within the government and courts. I hope nations will not be ruled by purely mercenary considerations, and that the judges will want to uphold the constitution and charter upon which these countries were founded, because otherwise- what would the meaning of their whole lives be? What is a “judge” who does not uphold the constitution or charter, and right from wrong?
I am also surprised at this silly acrimony, as well as a premature discussion as though this case against the IGA were already settled.
In any case, I hope to see a case against CBT at some point, made by Americans as Americans, not as Canadians or anything else. It’s all a matter of perception. We already get enough resistance from “pay your fair share” homelanders. How much more skeptical (and obnoxious) will they be if an organization purporting to defend Canadian sovereignty takes action against a purely US law which, unlike the IGA or even FATCA, does not entangle itself with Canadian law. This is why I am so curious about the phantom Bopp lawsuit. Or perhaps one day an organization can form–Americans for Representative Taxation (ART; a play on “No Taxation Without Representation”) or something of the sort–to build a lawsuit based on patriotic American notions of fairness, residency and common sense, not to mention the Constitution.
But still, all this talk is premature and needlessly vituperative. Let’s get back on track and raise the needed funds to finish the job of defeating the IGA and setting a worldwide precedent. I wish to again renew my offer to collaborate with someone to produce an e-book guide for US citizens having their OMG moment, as a fundraiser. We now have time to do so.
@Phil I concur with your assessment. Dreamer style very similar to Jasper_In_Boston in the recent Bloomberg View article comments. Could be the same. Just out to twist and confuse and could stay at it for days.
JC, Did you read the part about where I said I have been a Canadian living in Canada since before I could remember? Just because I see an issue with making the killing of a US law a cause for an organization called the Alliance for the Defence of CANADIAN sovereignty does NOT mean I am cool with CBT. I hate it as much as you do!
JC, I guess you also missed all the comments I made when we were down to our last 20K or so encouraging people to donate? Does that sound like something a JasperFromBoston would do?
JC re: “@Dreamer. Have you read the ADCS claim in its entirety? The whole case against CBT comes out. This legal action will greatly assist a future case against CBT and potentially a future case against the Canada-US Tax treaty, which also allows infringement of Canadian Sovereignty by not generally refuting CBT, which flows over the border with the consent of Canada by not having clauses stating otherwise. ”
Yes, I read the claim. I think it is WONDERFUL if the legal action can greatly assist a future case against CBT. But what does this have to do with debating whether or not an attack on US law through US courts meshes with the purpose of a Canadian organization called the Alliance for the Defence of Canadian Sovereignty. Honestly, I WOULD really like to get it, and am not doing this just to for laughs and giggles. As a Canadian the phrase ‘Canadian sovereignty’ means just that. USA laws are US laws. Americans should fight against US laws, not Canadians. Canadian fight Canadian laws – the FATCA IGA, the US-Canada treaty also, but NOT US LAWS. This of course is just my opinion, and I would love to think otherwise because I also HATE CBT and want it gone. Sorry, if I do not see how this fits within the ADCS mandate!