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”

  1. @The Mom

    So sorry to hear… been in that situation many times before… things will work out… even if u can not donate this round… keep posting… we all so different… but we all share one goal… to stop the spread of this disease…

  3. Read it again. Show us where IRS head Koskinen actually says they sent information from the U.S. to another country. AFAIK he doesn’t actually say that. Smoke and mirrors and BS.

  6. From the above article:

    “…In a statement, Schrems said: “I very much welcome the judgement of the Court, which will hopefully be a milestone when it comes to online privacy. This judgement draws a clear line. It clarifies that mass surveillance violates our fundamental rights. Reasonable legal redress must be possible … This decision is a major blow for US global surveillance that heavily relies on private partners. The judgement makes it clear that US businesses cannot simply aid US espionage efforts in violation of European fundamental rights.”

    The court ruling obliquely touches upon US spying, saying that “legislation permitting the public authorities to have access on a generalised basis to the content of electronic communications must be regarded as compromising the essence of the fundamental right to respect for private life.””

  8. nervousinvestor: I think the US would find a way to define FATCA information as “United States information”, not “European”….. just like the US judge in the Bopp case was able to transfer his country’s own guilt onto the third parties it coerced into compliance!

  10. Again this comes down to citizenship. If an EU citizen opens a bank account (whether US born or not) is the data American? I’m living within the EU as an EU citizen. Otherwise US taint overrides my EU citizenship within EU borders. It needs to be looked at.

    Also for UK ex-pats, the new series of The Apprentice starts soon.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/profiles/CSdWrMxgJfg4wfl9PKPTXx/vana-koutsomitis

    This candidate, Vana Koutsomitis, with an American accent and her profile says she lived in NYC at age seven and probably US born.

    My question – If she wins, is Lord Sugar going to be happy that Vana will be subject to FATCA and at risk that their joint venture will be FATCA reportable?

    The poor girl that get on with her life abroad without Uncle Sam sticking his nose in her business.

  11. One other consequence of the EoJ’s ruling is how does this effect British banks changing their T&C’s to ‘pass data to any tax authority’?

    Now in the UK they currently have the IGA, but if that was struck down, would today’s ruling mean that EU based banks can’t transmit data to the US because they’re not trustworthy even if they’ve changed their terms and conditions?

    The plot thickens.

  12. @ Don
    Yes she was born in the USA.
    http://vanakoutsomitis.com/p/about-vana-koutsomitis

    Vana Koutsomitis was born and raised in Manhattan, New York. From a young age, Vana has loved connecting people. She moved to London in 2009 to pursue a career in financial services. Born to a Colombian mother, from Cali, and a Greek father, from Kalamata, Vana grew up in a multicultural environment.

    Lord Sugar would not be amused if he and his enterprise got FATCA’d.

  13. @EmBee – Yup just found her website. She’s definitely been FATCA’d.

    Lord Sugar better get his accountants used to IRS forms providing she wins. However his US birth status may sway his decision and Vana may be subject to discrimination and walk away not knowing. Perhaps someone should inform her.

    I sent an email to Violet Cakes in London outline FATCA to another American entrepreneur and never received a reply. She probably thinks I’m some crackpot who’s gone crazy about taxes and should be avoided – you probably know the feeling.

    An EU IBS style website and lawsuit needs to get in front of the European Court of Justice.

    I’m a firm believer that European Courts may be more sympathic to the plight of EU citizens with US taint residing in the EU.

  15. A recent Tweet reads:

    Watch movie “Woman In Gold” starring Helen Mirren & understand laws like #FATCA & #CRS r unjust. “Justice is Priceless”. @ADCSovereignty

    The period depicted in the movie was one of horror. Imagine how much worse it would have been if there had been laws like FATCA and CRS in force at the time.

    Imagine how Iraqi or Syrian or other folk like the Christians will doubtless suffer when FATCA or CRS informs their Governments of any family accounts or businesses or insurance policies or other interests held outside their countries. These people may well be forced to “repatriate” their escape nest eggs and be even more firmly trapped.

  18. Morning Fred……

    Something will happen in the EU, its just a matter when and I would guess when it happens we will both say that we did not “see that one coming.”

    One thing those of that are EU citizens can do is joining a mainstream political party, paying dues and attending meetings. Why? So few do it so you automatically get a louder voice!!

    Next, we need to jump in the water and run for political office, any political office, large or small. And in the process denounce our former country expressing our loyalty to _______ .

    But do not despair, something will happen in the EU. The USA is a folding former empire just as we were once in Europe. Except in Europe we collapsed our former colonial empires with a whimper versus the USA is going out loudly.

  19. Note

    “The reason Humpty can’t be [fixed easily] – and this is vital to understanding the story – is the United States’ view of territoriality. Crudely put, the US doesn’t recognise an “abroad” – and fears that if it starts to do so, it will open a Pandora’s Box of criminal evasion. This is being fought in Europe, where Microsoft is challenging a US Court order to access emails stored in Ireland. The DoJ fears that a future Enron would store its data offshore, and claim data protection.”

    And

    “”Safe Harbour has been broken for years – but it’s only now visible. But really it’s broken since 9-11. American legislation created so many back doors that there’s no due diligence or scrutiny of law enforcement – so any one can walk in. Safe Harbour was just a political sticking plaster. As a result there’s no US entity in the world that can credibly guarantee the privacy of your information. It’s legally impossible.”

    from:

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/06/silicon_valley_after_max_schrems_safe_harbour_facebook_google_analysis/

  20. @KingOfTheRoad

    Thank you for the link. Another key extract:

    “Continental Europe and the USA treat privacy and data protection differently, often regarding each other’s cultural norms to data protection through blinking incomprehension. Just five years after the GDR’s MfS, its Ministerium für Staatssicherheit, better known as the Stasi, was dismantled, the EU made data protection a fundamental right – a sign of how profoundly the subject is regarded.”

  21. Crudely put, the US doesn’t recognise an “abroad” – and fears that if it starts to do so, it will open a Pandora’s Box of criminal evasion.

    This is also the exact argument trotted out against changing to RBT.

  22. @foo – Thank you for the emphasis ! True thing ! The US seem to think that THEIR Government and THEIR Law supersede all else on the planet.

  23. @foo – except when it seems to suit the US to make that argument as in “Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act” in which case they seek to push their noses into everyone else’s affairs.

  24. From the top of the thread:

    “Our FOCUS now is on the Constitutional-Charter trial which will take place sometime in 2016.

    WE HAVE TWO BRAVE PLAINTIFFS BUT WE NOW NEED CANADIAN WITNESSES who span different (vs. the plaintiffs) types of situations and harms to best make our case.”

    Does this case hinge on finding individuals who have been specifically targeted and harmed by FATCA? What if we can’t find individuals that have been targeted and harmed? Can it be argued successfully based on the IGA and sections 7, 8, and 15 of the Charter?

  25. If you have suggestions for characteristics of Witnesses, because of your background for example, you can post your thoughts on this post or send to me on the ADCS site.

    IMHO for both the ADCS-ADSC and Bopp efforts you need witnesses–and ideally additional plaintiffs if it is possible to add plaintiffs–who are Canadian citizens but who spend enough time in the US to be considered US tax residents aka ‘US persons’. There seems to be a tendency to focus on people who are completely free of the ‘US taint’ but I think you are narrowing your focus too much in doing that. Canada is a next door neighbour of the USA. There are many Canadian citizens who have legitimate reasons to spend varying amounts of time in the USA but who have no intention of giving up their Canadian passports. These people are also potentially being hurt by FATCA and there is no reason for them to be thrown under the bus. There is a large demographic here that is being ignored by these legal efforts and you are needlessly limiting your supporter base as a result.

    Of course if the lawsuit were specifically challenging CBT you probably wouldn’t want US residents as plaintiffs/witnesses since you’d want people who would have no kind of obligations at all if the US practiced RBT like most countries. I understand that another lawsuit challenging CBT is in the works but I think for the existing lawsuits focusing a bit more on US tax residents with Canadian passports and strong Canadian ties would help a lot.

Leave a comment

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