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.
@Calgary411, Bubblebustin and all:
RE:Why don’t we all write to Justin Trudeau and our local Liberal candidate and pose this question. After all, “a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.”
I’ve sent the question to Justin Trudeau and the Liberal candidate, Joy Davies, in my BC riding.
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/canadian-election-19-oct-2015/comment-page-1/#comment-6445561
@Calgary….I posted elsewhere for our Aussie brockers……
In the next phase of ADCS, I think you guys need to start developing an argument along the following;
1. Canada passed a law of which the USA defines the terms.
2. Said Canada Law creates a second class Canadian.
3. In order for Second Class Canadian to become a First Class Canadian again, they need to enter a labrynth to get rid of Clinging US Nationality. (Side note, suggestion that all future litigation material refer to Clinging Nationality and NOT Dual Citizenship, also the media needs to be corrected each and every time.)
4. Because Canada passed this law, they are responsible for paying COMPENSATION to those harmed. Lets not argue if the so called “compensation culture” is right or wrong, it is what it is.
5. Canada now needs to PAY all fees for second class Canadians to ditch their clinging US Nationality!!!
Cost? 1,000,000 times ($2,350 plus $10,000 streamlined professional fees, plus $1,000 average travel expense)
$10,335,000,000 USD
So the Government of Canada needs to face a Ten Billion Dollar renunciation problem.
The alternative is they make a deal with the US, maybe streamlined renouncing!!!!
@Calgray, you can also use the above and ask each political party of they will not support the repeal of the IGA how will they handle compensation to those affected.
The better deal should be if you’re a resident Canadian citizen, for tax reporting purposes, you’re exempt from FATCA – full stop. Nothing less.
Shame on the Governments of the world throwing fellow citizens under the FATCA bus because they won’t stand up to the US and say NO. These Governments are just cowards.
Don: I agree. Full exemption for Canadian-resident Canadian citizens – full stop. Roy Berg wants us to supply an alternative to the current IGA? Well, that’s it, and many of us wrote hundreds of pages of letters to the Commons and Senate (Canadian) Finance Committees to tell them that. They didn’t listen and now we’re waiting for a judge’s decision. That is apparently how governance is now done in this country.
Thanks from Canadians, Australians — and all other countries for your many good points, George.
Government of Canada and a ten billion dollar US renunciation compensation plan — makes sense to me to have our government pay for its irresponsibility!
Lets not forget the damages to Canadians because of the Canadian government’s decision to make sacrifices out of them. My wife has taken time off work because of the stress of this. This has cost the taxpayer as she works for the government and has paid sick days. At this point, her immune system is getting worse and it has a lot to do with the stress both mental and physical. This whole mess has cost my family a lot of pain and suffering and we deserve to be reimbursed for this country’s outright failure to protect it’s citizens. Might be a good idea to talk to Merchant Law as Tony is one of the best for seeking damages from the Canadian government class action style. Once people are no longer afraid to come out, like me, we can sue!
Thanks, NativeCandian. You are ABSOLUTELY correct on the cost of the stress and health issues stemming from this! Absolutely!
” What do you expect Ginny and Gwen want done with the IGAs and FATCA?”
Thats priceless, but Moody and Berg want ideas?
Option 1: Ginny and Gwen are treated in accordance with the Master Nationality Rule and they are Canadian Citizens in Canada, full stop. They are treated EQUAL in ALL regards to all other Canadian Citizens and either no information is handed over OR all information is handed over on all Canadians.
Option 2: The US Secretary of the Treasury exercises his powers under the original FBAR guidelines and exempts Canada from all FBAR/FINCEN nonsense because Canada is not a tax haven and further exempts Canada from the FATCA nonsense
Option 3, The USA scraps FATCA and signs up with the OECD CRS lets tax residents regime.
Option 4, Canada and the USA enter into a Streamlined Renunciation IGA (SRIGA).
This would allow all Canadian Citizens resident in Canada to include legal guardians to renounce at no cost, through the post and the only tax certification is that you are a resident taxpayer for the last six years in Canada and that you are current on your filing obligations under Canadian Law.
Option 5, Canada comes up with its own extraterritorial law and allows under the jurisdiction of Canadian Courts, for Canadian Citizens to renounce US Citizenship for all legal purposes in Canada. I call that the Goose and Gander remedy.
Hmm one of my ideas is not so far fetched
If the Usa can extraterritorilly impose its citizenship on Canadians in Canada then it is in fact equally valid for the govt or courts to create a system under Canadian law to renounce your us citizenship under Canadian law.
This should be valid as the Usa is not a party to the 1930 treaty
Cant you just hear Kim and Roy whispering. But Congress has spoken.
@calgary
Blaze just posted a ndp response at the sandbox that sounded pretty good
May want to cross post
Thanks, George.
I have just cross-posted and will continue to work on that post: http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2015/08/31/how-will-us-deemed-us-persons-in-canada-vote-on-october-19th-there-is-now-an-adcs-adsc-reply-from-the-ndp-party-to-compare-to-the-reply-from-the-liberal-party/
I received the CD of the trial today. Unfortunately, it begins with Day 2. I don’t know where Day 1 is.
I just called Federal Court. They will send me another CD.
This is only approved for personal use. I cannot post it on line. If I want to post information from the CD or write an article about it, I must send a letter and receive consent. I cannot e-mail the letter.
I’m not sure what happened to the concept of making our justice system more open and accessible.
What, you can’t paraphrase from the recording, or even provide a synopsis, Blaze? I suppose that someone who heard it firsthand could though. How would anyone know that they aren’t going from memory?
@bubblebustin Yes that was what I was told when I spoke to the Federal Court employee. I was stunned at the response but I do not want to do anything that might compromise the case or be found to be in contempt of court.
I am now having technical issues listening to the CD. It keeps pausing just a few minutes into the hearing and I can’t get it to unpause.
I have tried listening to it several times and the same thing happens each time at the same place on the CD, making me wonder if the CD is defective or if there is a problem with my computer.
This is very frustrating.
Je comprends, Blaze.
@Blaze
Do you have another CD player you can try it on?
We are frustrated with you, Blaze — on many counts!
@ Blaze
That’s disappointing but I hope they’ll send you a working CD of BOTH days soon. Wouldn’t the two legal teams have the CD or even a copy of the transcript which Judge Martineau appears to have been given? I didn’t realize that public trials were so guarded. Maybe it’s because a decision has not been made yet and the judge doesn’t want discussions arising until afterwards. However, I would have thought that it would be in the interest of justice that information disseminated about a trial come from an accurate source and not be limited by an attendee’s memory. And the waiting continues …
@Blaze
That is ludicrous. Were any of these restrictions made clear on the application form for the CD?
The snailmail submission demand regarding articles based on the CD not only slows down communication, it also implies a chilling threat of dis/approval of whatever you might write. This inevitably would constrain what might be written. By what power?
Is there any reason why you could not publish whatever you like without anybody’s say-so, based on interview material with a person who had attended the hearings and happened to have an excellent memory/excellent shorthand skills but chose to remain anonymous?
@King of the Road
I made a similar suggestion, but I understand Blaze’s concern.
It seems a Roy Berg – who attended the trial – might just have that kind of recollection of events you speak of:
http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=423740&email_access=on
@Bubblebustin
IGA=CRS
This guy is like a dog with a bone.
Citizenship vs residency. End of story. Piss off Roy Berg. It’s NOT the same.
Once again….we’re threatened with the might is right argument in the form of the US might have to “intervene” in our affairs. What jerks!