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

2,208 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. nervousinvestor,

   Perhaps we should be communicating with this UN Privacy Head instead of the Human Rights Committee who we get no replies from on our UN Human Rights Complaint. Thank you!

2. @calgary411 – might also be relevant to Canada’s Bill that Harper introduced to extend the snooping powers of the Intelligence agencies …. was it C-51 ?

3. One of many
   OpenMedia: Bill C-51, New spy powers will undermine privacy of Canadians, and fails to address inadequate control and accountability of spy agencies

   With complement
   Bill C-24, justified by my old Con MP

   What is the definition of *terrorism* which appears not as #1? Consider the other definitions: http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=6932136&Col=1&File=4

   Definitions
   2. The following definitions apply in this Act.
   “activity that undermines the security of Canada”
   « activité portant atteinte à la sécurité du Canada »
   “activity that undermines the security of Canada” means any activity, including any of the following activities, if it undermines the sovereignty, security or territorial integrity of Canada or the lives or the security of the people of Canada:
   (a) interference with the capability of the Government of Canada in relation to intelligence, defence, border operations, public safety, the administration of justice, diplomatic or consular relations, or the economic or financial stability of Canada;
   (b) changing or unduly influencing a government in Canada by force or unlawful means;
   (c) espionage, sabotage or covert foreign-influenced activities;
   (d) terrorism;
   (e) proliferation of nuclear, chemical, radiological or biological weapons;
   (f) interference with critical infrastructure;
   (g) interference with the global information infrastructure, as defined in section 273.61 of the National Defence Act;
   (h) an activity that causes serious harm to a person or their property because of that person’s association with Canada; and
   (i) an activity that takes place in Canada and undermines the security of another state.
   For greater certainty, it does not include lawful advocacy, protest, dissent and artistic expression.

   https://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2015/06/12/its-official-second-class-citizenship-goes-into-effect/comment-page-2/#comment-6245902

4. @ Stephen Kish re: today’s update
   I was not appealing to Obama when I wrote my letters. I was asking our Canadian PM and MPs to repeal or at the very least amend the FATCA implementing legislation (Part 5 of Bill C-31), just as was suggested at the Finance Committee hearings and summarily rejected by the Conservatives sitting there that day. My entire sentence was this …

   FATCA is one such concern and it will continue to be until its implementing legislation is either completely repealed or at the very least amended to exempt all FATCA-affected Canadian citizens and permanent residents who are living in Canada.

   The implementing legislation is Canadian legislation so why would we need to ask Obama for approval to repeal or amend it? You are completely right about this whole FATCA affair — it’s an outright and outrageous asset grab.

5. http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/mulcair-announces-shadow-cabinet-and-vows-to-make-sure-liberal-government-fulfills-its-promises-for-change

   Guy Caron — Finance
   Nathan Cullen — Environment
   Murray Rankin — Justice
   Pierre-Luc Dusseault — National Revenue

   I like Murray Rankin in Justice. I’m not familiar with Pierre-Luc Dusseault in Finance (would have preferred it was Nathan Cullen). Let’s hope Mulcair and his Shadow Cabinet will keep the 368 Liberals’ feet to the fire — especially regarding Part 5 of Bill C-31.

   “Our shadow cabinet is ready to get results for Canadians and ensure the new government fulfills its promises for change,” Mulcair said in a statement. “This is a strong NDP team that’s ready to move forward with hope and optimism.”

6. Oops I messed that up. It should be …
   I’m not familiar with Pierre-Luc Dusseault in National Revenue and I would have preferred Nathan Cullen in Finance.

7. EmBee,

   I agree that Murray Rankin (one of my heroes) in Justice is good news.

   It might be helpful if Mr. Rankin expressed his known views on the FATCA IGA enabling legislation to his Liberal counterpart — who we are suing.

8. @ Stephen Kish
   No harm asking Murray Rankin to have a word with the new defendants. If it isn’t feasible he’ll know. Maybe it can only be in the form of a question brought up on the floor of the HofC. The great thing about Murray Rankin is that you don’t have to explain FATCA to him because he really understands it.

9. Not to go off topic but I have been contacted privately by several longtime Brockers who are absolutely out of this world angry about the contents of some of the other recent threads on the site as am I quite frankly.

   As I have made clear for many years I tend to distrust all politicians of all nationalities and political stripes. As a famous movie line about Politicians says all politicians are liars and cheats and when they aren’t kissing babies they are stealing their lolly pops(Yes even Murray Rankin and Tom Mulcair). For those reasons I have always been a huge believer in the ADCS lawsuit from beginning and the need to carry through with such lawsuit until the very end no matter who and what parties in office.

   There is a difference though between one strongly protecting their rights and freedoms and just mindless vile and angry vitriol.

10. @Tim. I’m with you. Enough already!

11. @Stephen Kish

    I sent Mr Arvay’s letter to my MP, Pam Goldsmith-Jones (Lib), and she got back to me right away saying she’ll “make some enquiries”.

12. I am trying to send the following to Professor Joe Cannataci at the UN …. unfortuneatly his email submission page does not want to work for me. If anyone else can find a different email address for the Professor then please let me know OR feel free to submit the comment yourself.
    ___________________________

    Dear Professor,

    Thank you for your recent comments on the British Charter for Snoopers. I ask you also to look at various Canadian laws also abusing Privacy Rights including:

    Bill C-51, New spy powers will undermine privacy of Canadians, and fails to address inadequate control and accountability of spy agencies

    Bill C-24

    Bill C-31 which inter alia introduced FATCA into Canadian Law

    I recommend the discussions and Blog Posts on https://isaacbrocksociety.ca/ for your scrutiny as well as the efforts being made to overturn FATCA by The Alliance for the Defense of Canadian Sovereignty at http://www.adcs-adsc.ca/

    Apart from a Court Challenge of the Constitutionality of FATCA in Canada, a Human Rights complaint has been filed with the UN Human Rights Council that you may care to review. Some discussion of this may be seen at https://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2014/07/28/human-rights-complaint-on-behalf-of-all-u-s-persons-abroad-has-now-been-submitted/

    Although all the foregoing refer to the Canadian situation, the same or very similar circumstances are being pushed onto the entire world.

    Personally, I view these invasions of Privacy as intolerable and set the parameters to facilitate massive abuses of ordinary people in years to come.

    I ask your assistance in helping to end such abuse.

    Your Faithfully

13. It has come to my attention that Professor Cannataci has a different email address :
    jcannataci@sec.research.um.edu.mt …….. and an email similar to the wording above has been sent to that address.

14. Bubblebustin,

    Thanks for sending the letter to your MP.

    I looked at Ms. Goldsmith-Jones’ bio, did not see much of direct relevance to our issues, but she did say: “I’m passionate about open, accessible and fair decision making that includes us all…”

    Hoping that “all” includes us too.

    —NervousInvestor reminds us that a Human Rights Complaint has been made to the UN on FATCA/CBT. Perhaps this should also be mentioned in the letters.

15. …and perhaps we should / could send the UN Human Rights Complaint to Professor Cannataci / email address :
    jcannataci@sec.research.um.edu.mt

    [Note: previously discussed: https://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2014/07/28/human-rights-complaint-on-behalf-of-all-u-s-persons-abroad-has-now-been-submitted/comment-page-10/#comment-6273116%5D

    https://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2015/09/20/we-need-69521-by-january-1-2016-to-pay-the-canadian-fatca-lawsuit-legal-bills-and-keep-our-litigation-moving-forward-il-nous-reste-69-521-a-ramasser-pour-notre-poursuite-judiciaire/comment-page-22/#comment-6831814

    https://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2015/09/20/we-need-69521-by-january-1-2016-to-pay-the-canadian-fatca-lawsuit-legal-bills-and-keep-our-litigation-moving-forward-il-nous-reste-69-521-a-ramasser-pour-notre-poursuite-judiciaire/comment-page-23/#comment-6840481

    https://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2015/09/20/we-need-69521-by-january-1-2016-to-pay-the-canadian-fatca-lawsuit-legal-bills-and-keep-our-litigation-moving-forward-il-nous-reste-69-521-a-ramasser-pour-notre-poursuite-judiciaire/comment-page-23/#comment-6840515

    There are very specific instructions about not sharing the UN Human Rights Complaint. We have not heard back from resubmissions, additional submission and queries about our submission. MuzzledNoMore and others may want to decide on that course of action.
    http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/ComplaintProcedure/Pages/HRCComplaintProcedureIndex.aspx

    http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/TBPetitions/Pages/HRTBPetitions.aspx

    Discussion of confidentiality here: http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/iez/global/09680.pdf

    3.3 HRC Complaint Mechanism
    The confidential Complaint Mechanism21 remains mainly behind closed doors. The Working Group on Communications, a group of five experts from the Advisory Committee,22 receives a large number of complaints addressing human rights violations each month and selects those that can be identified as severe and systematic. This working group is entitled to communicate with the concerned government in order to verify the facts. Once the working group concludes that the complaint meets the requested characteristics, it forwards the case to the Working Group on Situations, a group of five diplomats representing member States of the HRC of each of the regional groups. If the Working Group on Situations also come to the conclusion that the complaint is admissible, the Council will deliberate on the case together with the government concerned behind closed doors. The entire procedure up to this stage normally takes three years.

    In a next step the HRC discusses with the relevant government ways of ending the violation. Some governments engage constructively and seek a normative solution. Some do not, or even deny the violation. The HRC then decides whether to proceed with the complaint in public or to conclude the case. Decisions are taken by vote and sometimes follow a bloc orientation. The President of the HRC makes publicly available information on the proceedings and the decisions taken.

    In June 2012, the Council decided, for the first time, to transfer the confidential complaint against the government of Eritrea to a public procedure and to establish the mandate of a Special Rapporteur to follow up, although the government of Eritrea denied any such need (A/HRC/RES/20/20). The High Commissioner was instead alarmed by the intimidation of human rights defenders and journalists, as well as by the restrictive way of registering civil society groups. It was interesting to note that the country mandate was introduced by three main sponsors from Africa: Djibouti, Nigeria and Somalia. This was the first time in the history of the HRC that the African Group had called for a country mandate even though the concerned government did not agree. Interestingly, Cuba, China and the Russian Federation did not insist in a vote, whereas they normally, on principle, asked for a vote in such cases. The country mandate was therefore adopted without a vote, although China, Cuba and the Russian Federation delivered statements to the protocol saying they would dissociate themselves from the consensus.

    Despite this particular success story the large number of complaints sent to the Working Group of Communication compared to the small number of cases finally dealt with, casts doubt on the efficacy of the mechanism, in particular from the viewpoint of the people affected. As the procedure is mainly confidential, it is also hard to estimate how far the mechanism may contribute to establishing indicators with regard to the question of when a human rights violation is identified as systematic and severe. Another open question is the final end of the unattended complaints and how far NGOs might be in a position to be involved and to organise political pressure.

16. @Calgary 411

    I have received the following in respect of the suggested email from Prof Joe Cannataci:
    ___________________________________________________________

    Dear XXXXXXXX

    Thank you very much for your e-mail below the contents of which I have duly noted and which I will follow up in due course as and when may be appropriate.

    best regards

    Joe
    _______________________________________________

    Whilst I note the language ” …. will follow up in due course as and when may be appropriate.” I note that the Prof did in fact respond to the email to him very promptly. We shall see what might transpire.

17. Hazy posted the mandate letter of our new Attorney General over at the Sandbox. I’ll simply link to that comment.
    http://maplesandbox.ca/2015/joe-arvay-writes-to-ministry-of-justice/comment-page-1/#comment-524047

18. EmBee,

    I like the direction to the AG, but you should also read part of the mandate letter to the new Minister of National Revenue, who we are also suing.

    The MNR is instructed to: “Invest additional resources to help the CRA crack down on tax evaders and work with international partners to adopt strategies to combat tax avoidance.”

    http://pm.gc.ca/eng/minister-national-revenue-mandate-letter

19. @ Stephen Kish
    Oh oh! 🙁

20. Amazing that you have gotten a considerate and prompt reply for your email to Professor Joe Cannataci — so much more than we have gotten by following all the procedures for submitting our UN Human Rights Complaint.

    (of course, subject to *in due course and when may be appropriate*)

    Thanks, nervousinvestor!

21. @EmBee @Stephen, ” to combat tax avoidance.”

    There is NO tax avoidance by Canadian Citizens resident in Canada who are deemed USC by said foreign government.

    A Canadian Citizen resident in the USA who has large accounts in Canada might be avoiding US tax, so make FATCA resident based.

22. George, notice the choice of the phrase ‘tax avoidance’ by the Minister of Revenue with regard to international taxpayers (which USA claims we are) versus ‘tax evasion’ with regard to Canadian taxpayers.

    This is interesting because ‘tax avoidance’ unlike ‘tax evasion’ is not illegal. For example, using RRSPs to reduce your tax burden is ‘tax avoidance.’ From the CRA website: http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/gncy/lrt/vvw-eng.html

    So with regard to US persons living in Canada, who by rights really owe USA nothing, they are in fact doing nothing illegal by CANADIAN standards (i.e. are more like tax avoiders, not tax evaders).

23. Thanks to Lynne for sending today the following letter to NDP Murray Rankin, and thanks to EmBee for alerting us that Mr. Rankin is the NDP counterpart of the Liberal attorney general (who we are suing) “Cross-posted from Maple Sandbox: http://maplesandbox.ca/2015/joe-arvay-writes-to-ministry-of-justice/comment-page-1/#comment-524077

    “Congratulations on your reelection. Although I am sad the NDP lost so many seats and so many MPs, I am delighted you, Nathan Cullen, Charlie Angus and others were reelected.

    I am also happy Mr. Mulcair has promised to “hold this new government to account and fight for your priorities every day.” Your appointment as Justice Critic is a welcome one. I’m sure you will use this opportunity to stand up for Canadians on numerous issues.

    Thank you for your strong and tenacious efforts on FATCA in the past. You are aware of the Alliance for the Defence of Canadian Sovereignty lawsuit.

    Given your new role as Justice Critic and your excellent knowledge and understanding of FATCA, I ask you to contact the Minister of Justice and Minister of National Revenue and request that they:

    1 End the government defence of ADCS lawsuit
    2 Repeal or amend the enabling legislation
    3 Ensure Canadians born in the U.S. have the same rights as all other Canadians

    Attached is a letter from Joe Arvay to government lawyers. This letter contains numerous statements of Liberal MPs. As Mr. Arvay points out, “Many of the concerns they have raised are the same or consistent with the issues the plaintiffs have identified in this litigation.”

    In addition, based on Mr. Trudeau’s June 25 letter to me (also attached), Mr. Arvay said “Our view is that this statement clearly reflects an intention to repeal or amend the relevant legislation so that it does sufficiently protect affected Canadians and the sovereignty of Canada.”

    Finally, Mr. Arvay asked the government lawyers to forward his letter to the Ministers of Justice and National Revenue and advise “whether your instructions have changed in respect of the defence of the litigation, and/or whether our clients can expect that legislative or executive measures will be taken to obviate the need for this litigation.”

    I am asking you “to hold this new government to account and fight for” the rights of Canadians. Please contact the Ministers and/or raise this issue in the House of Commons and request they take swift and urgent action to end the government defence of this lawsuit and to implement legislative or executive measures to protect the rights of Canadian citizens and residents.

    I may be reached at Phone Number) or (E-mail) if you have any questions.

    Please advise me of what action you will take.

    Lynne Swanson, Chair
    Legal Challenge Committee
    Alliance for the Defence of Canadian Sovereignty”

24. Excellent, excellent, Lynne and EmBee. Thanks, Stephen.

25. Lynne, EmBee, Stephen, Calgary and all the others fighting so hard (of special note in this regard is NativeCanadian) …. Thank you all for keeping the pressure on.