Liberty and justice for all United States persons abroad

The Isaac Brock Society

Posted on by Posted in Issues regarding US persons abroad 2,208 Comments

March 8, 2016 UPDATE: Legal fees paid — on to Federal Court for Charter trial contesting Canadian FATCA IGA legislation.

Canadians and International Supporters:

You came through once again: $594,970 for legal costs have now been donated and our outstanding legal bill is finally paid off.

Thanks especially to those who donated even though they never had any “spare” money to give, and despite this gave over and over and over again.

This last round of fundraising also shows that our Canadian lawsuit remains dependent on the kindness of our International Friends: There would be no lawsuit without their financial help.

Know that a very generous donation (today) from a supporter in the United States made it possible to pay off the remaining legal debt. Also please appreciate that there would be no lawsuit without the help of the Isaac Brock Society which has kindly let us use its website to solicit funds.

Our next step is the Constitutional-Charter trial in Federal Court.

For this we need more Canadian Witnesses, and my next post will be devoted only to a request for Witnesses willing to go public, like our Plaintiffs Ginny and Gwen.

For the future: I want a win in Federal Court — and I want the new Liberal Government not to appeal that win.

Thank you all for your support,

Stephen Kish,
for the Directors,
Alliance for the Defence of Canadian Sovereignty

2,208 thoughts on “CANADIANS AND INTERNATIONAL SUPPORTERS: Thank you for $594,970 donated and overdue legal bill paid off — Next step is Federal Court Constitutional-Charter trial”

  2. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-cabinet-hopefuls-must-pass-extensive-background-check-1.3295240

    Newly elected and returning Liberal MPs are anxiously awaiting the phone call that tells them they have been chosen to join Justin Trudeau’s new cabinet.

    But before that happens, extensive background and security checks will have been done on each, in many cases without their knowledge, looking for any liabilities or past indiscretions that would pose a security concern, an embarrassment for the government or make them vulnerable to coercion.

  3. And so they should, Calgary411. I heard on CBC radio today that Harper did ongoing security and criminal checks on his cabinet members every two years. Maybe he should have ran one on the PMO’s office 🙂

  4. @ WhiteKat Great letter. Missed you posting here. I really don’t think our politicians understand that this is not about taxation it is about draconian penalty fees invasive reporting and very high compliance costs, designed as punishment.

  5. Does the vetting include checks for “US personhood”? I wonder how Chrystia Freeland is holding up under these checks. I assume she’d ordinarily be in the running for a cabinet post.

  7. @White Kat
    Thank you for your letter which expresses exactly how I feel. Gwen and I, as plaintiffs are precluded from writing letters to the new PM or MPs, but you said what I would like to have. The fact that you spent even fewer years on US soil than Gwen and I did, points even more to how ludicrous this whole situation is.

    We are tagged, hunted and trapped merely by accident of birth place.Earlier this month, John Richardson and I accepted an invitation from the Faculty of Law/Windsor to speak to law students ( international/tax law students etc). John tailored his usual talk towards their interests and they were very interested in his presentation.
    So many came up to me afterwards and asked me: did you really only live there for five years and yet this is happening to you? They found that simple fact amazing. I assured them, as you do, as Gwen and others in our situation do, that we were Canadians at birth.

    That’s the message I want our new PM to know. I also want him to know that any Canadian, regardless of birth place is Canadian. We are not ‘old stock/new stock’- we are Canadians.

    As an aside, he may have been born on Christmas day. But I gave birth to Canada’s first Centennial baby boy on July 01, 1967 and that baby was presented with a Centennial coin and certificate from the late Minister Judy Lamarsh.

    Could I be anymore Canadian than that?

  9. @Ginny

    Gwen and I, as plaintiffs are precluded from writing letters to the new PM or MPs,

    Hmmm…this is rather disturbing to hear. Is this by law, by order of a judge in this case, by advice of Mr. Arvay, or your own considered opinion (I know you are yourself an attorney)?

    It concerns me that anything at all would trump a citizen’s democratic rights. It concerns me that a private citizen’s letter to their MP might somehow compromise their standing legally or be considered evidence in a legal case. Is this a Canadian thing? I mean, Rand Paul is a plaintiff in the US lawsuit and it obviously hasn’t stopped him from being politically active in other ways.

    Obviously this is a high profile case (or at least we like to think it is a high profile case). But lots of people have disputes with the government at different times that may not attract as much publicity. Is there somehow a conflict of interest between someone exercising their legal rights in the courts and their democratic rights in their MP’s office? Are Canadians only allowed to exercise one of these two rights at the same time? They can choose which right they have but they don’t get to have both?

  10. @ Dash1729

    Those are all good questions and points. Perhaps ‘precluded” was too strong a word. Neither of us deem it appropriate to be seen as plaintiffs trying to communicate with the Prime minister, whose government/AG we are suing. Seeing as we are plaintiffs, direct communication with the defendants is appropriately conducted by our legal counsel. We didn’t consult with our lawyer about this, because I believe, as a lawyer, I could anticipate that would be his response. So you could call it by convention, not law. Also, by convention a defendant does not directly communicate with a plaintiff who has legal representation. It’s just not done, for many reasons. For example, it could be seen as bringing the administration of justice into disrepute among other things.

  12. @bubbles
    I was quite tempted even before I saw that letter. Still, it would be inappropriate to do so. Gwen and I say we are doing this for all of you (and ourselves). Now, we thank you for being our voices. I would love to give the PM designate a few of my choice tidbits of information and advice, but will rely on the rest of you to be our representatives.

  13. I understand, Ginny. Sometimes it’s better to say less, especially when saying something has the possibility of backfiring on you. We already know that the banks don’t play nice, and we’ve yet to find out how much influence they have over our new PM.

  14. As per the collection of quotes from Liberals re FATCA;
    Refers to FATCA without naming it (hence wouldn’t come up in a search of openparliament.ca using FATCA as a keyword – and note; sometimes I see it transcribed as FACTA instead.):

    https://openparliament.ca/debates/2011/9/30/ralph-goodale-1/

    “Taxation
    Oral Questions

    September 30th, 2011 / 11:55 a.m.

    Liberal
    Ralph Goodale Wascana, SK
    Mr. Speaker, there is concern across the country among many law-abiding Canadian citizens and taxpayers about the long arm of the U.S. tax collection department. Even the Canadian Bankers Association is upset. The Americans are trying to enforce their laws beyond their borders and are threatening Canadians to that effect.

    So far, the government has offered Canadians tea and sympathy. Will the government do something a little more tangible? Will it set up an advocacy centre to actively inform and assist Canadians who are unfairly being put upon by the extraterritorial excursions of the U.S. IRS?”

  18. @ Badger “Will it set up an advocacy centre to actively inform and assist Canadians who are unfairly being put upon by the extraterritorial excursions of the U.S. IRS” This is the part I have great difficulty with. Our government has not only agreed to help the IRS, it has done so secretly. Our government is not informing people affected and helping them deal with the situation, instead they will be blindsided. The first place many are hearing about this is from their banks.

  19. “Our government has not only agreed to help the IRS, it has done so secretly. Our government is not informing people affected and helping them deal with the situation, instead they will be blindsided. The first place many are hearing about this is from their banks.”

    @heartsick and all,

    In a democracy, it is the responsibility of the MEDIA to provide the check of governments. In Canada, the media has failed abysmally on not just this, but other important issues. It’s time to hold the media’s feet to the fire, as well as gov’t.

  21. It’s hard to find much from Justin Trudeau re: FATCA. Below is a reply I got from him back in 2013. It doesn’t indicate that he rejected the notion of FATCA; only that he wanted “safeguards”.

    Dear Mrs. [xxx],

    Thank you very much for your email dated February 17th, 2013 regarding the Liberal Party`s stance on the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act and the impact it has on Canadians.

    While the prevention of tax evasion is an important objective, it is important that the government also stands up for those Canadians who are being unjustly caught up in complex, American tax rules.

    It is important that the IRS communicate clearly with Canadians affected by FATCA to help avoid the heavy penalties that come with failure to comply with the act. As the legislation is written by America for Americans, it is important that we ensure that our own legislation is not being hindered by these agreements. With regards to the taxation of deferred saving vehicles such as RESPs and RRSPs, as well as the taxation of Tax Free Savings Accounts, we must ensure that Canadians, who are using such programs legitimately, are protected accordingly. Canadians should not be punished for acting responsibly by saving for education and retirement.

    Furthermore, it is important that any sharing of personal information between Canadian banks and the IRS only take place with substantial safeguards and oversight to protect Canadians` interests.

    The Liberal Party of Canada has raised this issue in Question Period and will continue to press the Conservative government to protect Canadians.

    Sincerely,
    Justin P.J. Trudeau

  22. @WhiteKat

    Very moving letter. This demonstrates that JUST RENOUNCE does not work for everyone. I hope more people send their personalized letters as these really have an impact.

    Most MPs are likely clueless when it comes to the implications of CBT, FBARs, FINCEN, PFICs, etc. Any education in this direction will be enlightening.

  23. @ Embee

    Thank you for sharing your letter from Justin Trudeau of 2013. Agree he was speaking more about safeguards, but there is so much there to quote back to him and update him on the harm being done to us, since his party failed to stand up for us when the previous government was in power.

    If he is as astute as claimed, how can he not see and respond to the results that both FATCA and the IGA have imposed on Canadians? He has the majority now and the time has come for him to reverse the injustices imposed on all of us Canadians tainted by the yoke of being classified as US persons. Free us from southern chains. Let us live in Canada as free and equal citizens with all other Canadians.

    He can do this. We will watch and see if he does. We ARE watching, JPJT. He can be the man who doesn’t miss this golden opportunity to set things right. Justice for all.

  24. Darell Samson is the new Liberal MP for Sackville-Preston-Chezzetcook. From August 26, 2015 I found this RE: the Liberal Party position on FATCA:
    https://darrellsamson.liberal.ca/liberal-party-position-on-u-s-foreign-account-tax-compliance-act-fatca/
    It states, in part:

    We also have concerns that the agreement reached with the U.S. may not stand up to a Constitutional challenge given that it forces the banks to treat clients differently based on their national origin, something forbidden by Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

  25. @ Ginny Hillis
    Absolutely — JUSTICE FOR ALL. I replied to JT’s reply by saying, in part, “I do not think it is possible to put ‘substantial safeguards’ in place, either here or in the USA, which would totally protect the financial privacy of Canadian residents if the Canadian government allows FATCA to be implemented here.” There was no reply to my reply to his reply.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *