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.
@ Bubblebustin
So he’s the man then. I’ve already found his decision on George Galloway’s denied entrance into Canada (he upheld the CBSA position). Not happy ’bout that one. Luckily another judge ruled later that the original ban was politically motivated and George Galloway was finally allowed entry into Canada.
@ Bubblebustin
Pain is gone but the itching still flares up now and then. Can’t blame it for my mistyping but it was a bad, bad wasp and it’s still out there in my giant weed pile. 🙁
Yes, they can be nasty (judges and wasps alike) Be careful out there.
A plantain leaf compress is suppose to work on the sting, although I’ve never tried it myself.
Hi PatCanadian-
Thanks for providing this updated court information for us all. Getting excited and I hope more will attend.
With 60 seats, there should be plenty of room for some journalists; I hope that this is being arranged.
And here is another encouraging recent Justice Martineau ruling:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/quebec-gun-registry-data-handed-over-to-federal-court-1.3124171
For our EmBEE, Try honey, pure or any kind.
In case there are more:
…sometimes a crew will set up shop in a compost pile or bin. Wait for a very cool evening, when they’ll all be deep inside and moving slow. Then quickly drape a sheet of thick plastic or a tarp overtop and weight the edges down really well—seal it up as tight as you can. If the pile is in the sun, they should all be dead within a few days.
@ calgary411
Thanks for the tips. I initially used baking soda and then tumeric (both helped) but guess it’s obvious from my handle that I like your honey idea too. I get wonderful raw wildflower honey from a lovely young lady beekeeper in BC. Ozonol ointment is now calming the itching. I sure hope it’s a lone wasp … not liking the thought that there might be a whole crew in there.
But to heck with that wasp … how about that nice load of donation mail Stephen got today!!! 🙂
@PatCanadian
Thank you for the courtroom and judge info and looking forward to meeting you and everyone else who will attend in approximately 3 weeks! I believe you have my private email contact info should you wish to reach out to attendees in advance for any reason.
Continued donations to http://www.adcs-adsc.ca/
=
taking the sting out of the collateral damage of US CBT!
Another ruling by Justice Luc Martineau which went to appeals:
http://www.timminspress.com/2010/11/24/court-hears-appeal-in-conservative-spending-case-16
While searching I happened across a former Conservative who I have to say I like and not just because I knew him as a young boy. He refused to take part in the Conservative’s “in-and-out” spending scam.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inky_Mark
@Dash1729
Yes, I kept contact info for any attendees who gave this to me. I am really looking forward to Vancouver court event and meeting everyone as well.
@Bubblebustin and EmBee
The court only gave me the last name of the Justice. However, the only one I can find is Luc Martineau so I believe he is the judge for our summary trial.
Does anyone know anything about journalist contacts in relation to attending the court dates or reporting about this case either prior to or after the court date ?
Congratulations and thanks to today’s donors and all others who brought the amount needed under half. Can we pull together for another Hail Mary?
@Embee, tried to live up to your kind characterizations and the way of the badger, but arrived late to the conversation. Found these results too (though better probably to read his decisions firsthand rather than media reports):
http://globalnews.ca/news/2070199/government-hands-quebec-gun-data-over-to-court/
http://www.cmac-cacm.ca/bios/martineau-eng.shtml
http://montrealinnews.com/western-chorus-frogs-in-la-prairie-at-the-heart-of-a-legal-battle/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/in-and-out-is-in/
http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=d8db70b0-3e82-4aee-b317-5e4367412428
http://www.ipick.ca/winnipeg/a-closed-mind-on-the-bench
http://www.fasken.com/en/federal-court-of-canada-rules-that-bell-helicopter-infringed-a-eurocopter-patent/
http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/portal/page/portal/fc_cf_en/Speeches/speech-discours_9jan2013
http://www.nelligan.ca/e/thefederalcourtrejectscbcradiocanadasposition.cfm
http://lawofwork.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Canada-Post-Decision1.pdf
http://www.thewhig.com/2010/07/13/inmates-must-butt-out-again
I don’t have access to the types of Canadian law journals and databases that those on a university campus would ( and under some conditions, members of the public might have some temporary guest access in person only (rather than remotely) to some of the resources (databases might be restricted ? ) http://library.law.utoronto.ca/services/services-visitors/members-public and some here http://www.canlii.org/en/index.html#search/sort=citationCount&all=%22luc%20martineau%22 ) – so those results above aren’t necessarily representative, just came up in an internet search. Not sure what it tells us.
Good digging @badger. Thank you. The main thing is that Ginny and Gwen have a good lawyer, Joseph Arvay, and hopefully we can pay him IN FULL on August 4th. Nice to know a little bit about the judge though and to keep in mind that no matter what his ruling is this could well end up in appeals … I think. John Richardson is better equiped to assess that than me. I have trouble understanding some of the issuances from the court so I rely on legalese interpreters.
I can see the white flag blowin’ in the wind. It’s the last lap and we’re done. 50G’s left to go.
We’re doin’ it. Let the game begin!
Folks may care to comment at http://jamaica-gleaner.com/article/commentary/20150716/editorial-europes-black-list-and-fatca
I am hearing the Canadian Government hired some law professor from NYU to refute the arguments being made by ADCS and the Arvay/Gruber legal team. Is their any news on this front?
@ Tim You are correct
“Litigation Updates” below ADCS link on this page on the right has details. Volume one, (July 13, 2015 update) confirms defence is using John P Steines, professor from NYU.
@ Tim
From NYU? That’s so typical of the Harper mindset isn’t it. Can’t ask a Canadian law professor because only an American will do. Remember John Weston proudly dragged in an American tax attorney (Mark Matthews) to “educate” the Con caucus prior to the FATCA IGA being signed.
https://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2014/03/06/a-letter-from-john-weston-regarding-the-iga-we-need-to-educate-the-mps/
Thanks, heartsick and Tim.
Here’s a bit about John P. Steines, Jr. — http://blogs.law.nyu.edu/magazine/2012/a-scholar-with-big-pages-to-fill/ and http://www.cooley.com/jsteines.
Maybe the Harper cons tried to get a Canadian constitutional lawyer to defend them but couldn’t find one willing to twist the meaning of the Charter to allow the US and international banks to have sovereignty over Canadian people who fit a discriminatory profile.
Published work seems to be more about corporate taxation than about that imposed on individuals;
http://www.cooley.com/jsteines
See also though, appearances as expert witness – some in Canada;
from Curriculum Vitae at end of this document:
http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/download/?id=0a8110f0-0a75-4eaf-9f72-531f23100359
starting at page 27,
” Expert Witness
Deutsche Finance New Zealand Limited v. Commissioner of Inland Revenue (on behalf of taxpayer
before High Court of New Zealand, 2007).
4145356 Canada Limited v. Her Majesty the Queen (on behalf of government of Canada before Tax Court of
Canada, 2009 – 2011).
TD Securities (USA) LLC v. Her Majesty the Queen (on behalf of taxpayer before Tax Court of Canada,
2009 – 10).
GE Capital Finance Australasia Pty Ltd v. Commissioner of Taxation (on behalf of government of
Australia, 2010).
Centocor Ortho Biotech Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corporation (on behalf of Centocor in arbitration,
2010).
Mars Australia Property Ltd. v. Commissioner of Taxation (on behalf of government of Australia, 2011).
Citibank Overseas Investment Corporation v. Holmann (on behalf of Citibank in arbitration, 2011).
Tidewater Inc. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (on behalf of Venezuela in arbitration, 2011 – 12).
Heritage Oil and Gas Ltd. v. Uganda Revenue Authority (on behalf of government of Uganda, 2012-13)
Stop and Shop Supermarket Company v. Massachusetts Dep’t of Revenue (on behalf of Mass. DOR,
2012-13)
In the Matter of AMCI Investments Pty Ltd (on behalf of Australia Taxation Office, 2012 – 13)
United States v. Alavi Foundation (on behalf of Alavi Foundation in U.S. District Court, 2013 “
FWIW, Steines was also cited in footnote 116 ( [FN116]. John P. Steines, Jr., Commentary, Income Tax Implications of Free Trade, 49 Tax L.
Rev. 675, 689 (1994 ) in this paper by Prof. Arthur Cockfield:
Arthur Cockfield, “Tax Integration Under NAFTA: Resolving the Conflict Between Economic
and Sovereignty Interests” (1998) 34 Stan. J. Int’l L. 39-73 http://post.queensu.ca/~ac24/StanJIntlLawArticle.pdf
and for those with access to Lexis Nexis for fulltext, see;
‘Colloquium on NAFTA and Tradition: COMMENTARY: Income Tax Implications of Free Trade
Summer, 1994
49 Tax L. Rev. 675
Author
JOHN P. STEINES, JR.
Abstract can be read here;
https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&doctype=cite&docid=49+Tax+L.+Rev.+675&key=dc1a419b591138c4e70d96ad5438f9ec
See also Steines quoted in Chapter 5 ‘The Non-discrimination principle’ page 84 of
‘Fundamentals of European Union Direct Tax’
By Felix Lessambo
The issue at question seems to be that of discrimination based on nationality. Read past page 85 to see critique of Steines and non-EU International Tax authors, and discussion of issue of discrimination between residents and non-residents.
See for instance;
“..The principle of non-discrimination for instance, has evolved from discrimination based upon nationality (A) to encompass the equal treatment of residents and nonresidents (B); equal treatment between permanent establishments and subsidiaries (C); equal treatment of tax credit regimes (D); equal treatment of losses (E).
Links to quotes above re Steines and criticism of, see pages 84-86;
https://books.google.ca/books?id=VChOs-dLUigC&lpg=PA219&ots=NS7kaCufrM&dq=John%20P.%20Steines%2C%20Jr&pg=PA84#v=onepage&q=steines&f=false
https://books.google.ca/books?id=VChOs-dLUigC&lpg=PA219&ots=NS7kaCufrM&dq=John%20P.%20Steines%2C%20Jr&pg=PA85#v=onepage&q=steines&f=false
https://books.google.ca/books?id=VChOs-dLUigC&lpg=PA219&ots=NS7kaCufrM&dq=John%20P.%20Steines%2C%20Jr&pg=PA86#v=onepage&q=steines&f=false
Perhaps it is this aspect of the issues that he might be called on to defend?