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
@heartsick
Right you are- freedom for all is our preference and our right. I was merely stating my backup contingency idea ( carve out) if the government decided they needed a compromise.
Personally, sovereignty and Charter Rights have always been my highest priority. We deserve and ask for no less.
Off-topic: it needs to be made clear near the thermometer whether the $100k in donations being collected now are the last ones needed for the Charter trial, or just the first of another series of payments. Donor fatigue is setting in but clarity on that might help for the final push.
Vin-de-table,
I have revised the post with a clarification.
Gov’t silence is deafening.
You can surely bet that they have received all of our letters. Lets get one thing clear. If this was simply about sovereignty and human rights, we would all have received a favorable answer by now calling for the dismissal of the IGA and to fully restore Canadian law in Canada. The problem is that what we are dealing with is clear as can be and the main reason nobody who is newly elected even wants to make a statement to any of us. This is about MONEY pure and simple. Money and the banks are larger than our rights, larger than the whole Canadian government combined! Most wars are usually over money in one way or another. This trend of power in money wins every time. I certainly hope that someone in our newly elected government can prove me wrong.
NativeCanadian,
Yes I agree that part of the problem is money, the banks, and the threat of economic sanction.
We are asking the Government of Canada to stand up for its citizens, but at the same time go against the wishes of the (more?) powerful major banks, Canada’s entrenched civil service, and the demands and threat of economic sanction of Canada’s major trading partner. There is also little public knowledge or support for our position.
None of us could ever have expected a quick answer to the letters sent by Mr. Arvay, you, and our other supporters. I still have hope.
If readers have not yet done so, and feel that the Conservative’s FATCA IGA legislation violates the rights of ALL Canadians, please send those letters and emails.
The Attorney General will be reviewing our Claims. Here again is her email address:
Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc.ca
Thank you Stephen. This issue is just as important, if not more important as the Niqab issue. We can see how fast the new Liberal government was to address and take care of it asap. That issue did not involve money,banks, threats of sanctions etc. as the forcing of Canadians to pay to enforce US law in Canada against Canadians. We can see how the Liberal government is getting the word out on the Niqab issue to the public via the media and how they are taking bows for dealing with the human rights violation caused by the former Harper government. Lets see if we can compare how fast we get our answers and if the media blitz for our decision is as loud as the Niqab decision.
@NativeCanadian
I am forced to conclude that it is NOT precisely about money. FATCA is costing the banks a fortune. If it were about money the banks would be leading the ADCS effort and donating a fortune to ADCS.
It is about power and the egos of powerful people. Power is not as closely correlated with money as people think. They sometimes go hand in hand but not always. Powerful people usually have at least some money but they are motivated mostly by a desire to hold and extend that power. Money is just one of many tools they use to accomplish this.
@NativeCanadian
I strongly agree FATCA is as important or more as the niqab issue and should have been addressed with similar urgency.
Dash, I don’t think fatca is costing the banks much, if anything at all. The banks are passing the cost to Canadians who have no clue why all of a sudden, bank fees increased.
This is what angers me to no end. Canada is paying for American law in our own country and out government is keeping it a secret. Lets see if the Liberals want us to know everything…..
@NativeCanadian
From a hard nosed bottom line perspective the banks would come out ahead if they joined ADSC and fought FATCA.
But it feeds their egos more to pass the costs on to consumers hence they choose that course of action.
@StephenKish
@StephenKish
YOU KNOW WHAT TO SAY
(in regard to today’s request for a letter to AG Wilson-Raybould)
Actually that is the problem–I don’t know what to say. I will quote from Mr. Arvay’s letter to the three gov’t attorneys:
https://adcsovereignty.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/2015-11-09b-et-nygard-et-al_delivering-letter-of-same-date.pdf
Arvay wants to know “whether our clients can expect that legislative or executive measures will be taken to obviate the need for this litigation”.
However he doesn’t make clear precisely what legislative or executive measures might be sufficient to obviate the need for the litigation. I assume we are now in a sensitive stage of the negotiations. I would not want to undermine Mr. Arvay’s negotiating position by asking the AG for something different from what Arvay is asking for. Even if I disagreed with Arvay, I have invested a good deal in this lawsuit and would remain silent rather than expressing views to the AG at odds with what Arvay and the plaintiffs want.
I may and often do express strong viewpoints on here. But I would not want to communicate directly with the AG any views at odds with what Arvay is trying to do.
Without some direction from Arvay as to strategy the most I can do is send a brief note to the AG reminding her of the existing litigation (but I’m sure by now she knows) and asking her to give it her full attention. That and only that I will do absent clearer direction as to what Arvay is hoping to achieve during this rather delicate stage.
@ Dash1729
At first I wasn’t sure how to approach the defendants in the lawsuit so I wrote that I hoped it wasn’t inappropriate to write to them but that I really wanted them to know that FATCA is still a great concern. I then added part of the letters I had sent to the PM and various other MPs. It didn’t seem inappropriate to inform the defendants of what I had been sending to others. Since I did this before I’d seen Joseph Arvay’s letter I hope I didn’t mess anything up.
Many of us are invested in this lawsuit, Dash, and our appreciation of each any every stakeholder is equal.
Here is what I just emailed the AG. This is the most I feel I can say absent clear direction on strategy:
Minister Wilson-Raybould,
It is my understanding that Joseph Arvay, Esq, has recently contacted you through the government’s attorneys regarding the new government’s intentions with this litigation which is currently before the courts as Federal court case number T-1736-14. This is litigation which Mr. Trudeau’s government has inherited from his predecessor Mr. Harper.
This litigation challenges the implementation in Canada of a US law, the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, on various legal and constitutional grounds. This is very important litigation as it seeks to defend the rights of 1 million or more Canadian citizens in their own country who are deemed by the US government to be US persons (sometimes against the will of the Canadian citizens involved).
It is my understanding that Mr. Trudeau has advised you to seek a just resolution to litigation not in keeping with the Liberal government’s values. As Mr. Trudeau has previously expressed serious concerns about FATCA in a letter to Lynne Swanson I urge you to give this litigation your full attention and to work with Mr. Arvay and the plaintiffs to seek a just resolution.
Since I’m sure you are already familiar with this litigation I’m sure it is unnecessary but as a formality I attach copies of the letters from Mr. Arvay and Mr. Trudeau for your records.
Sincerely,
my real life name
attachment of pdf from ADCS with Arvay/Trudeau letters
@ Dash1729
Looks good to me! It’s a very respectful reminder that this issue is NOT going away.
@bubblebustin
I’m not sure exactly what you are saying but my own strategy is not so much to give equal weight to all stakeholders as to defer to Mr. Arvay. I didn’t necessarily feel this way a year ago but right now I feel that Mr. Arvay has earned the right to be considered first among equals when it comes to the many stakeholders involved. As such I prefer to defer to him and let him take the lead and not try to do his negotiating for him.
Others may have a different strategy and that is fine.
@EmBee
I’m sure it is fine to write to the defendants. My main concern is that I don’t want to ask the defendants for specifics that may be at odds with specifics that Arvay may be negotiating right now (which he likely won’t be able to tell us about for awhile). So I prefer to keep my letter at a very general level and defer to Mr. Arvay on the details.
@ EmBee @Dash @all
I understand and very much appreciate your concerns about using a cautious approach as you draft and send your letters to the AG or PM. I do not believe that whatever heartfelt letters expressing supporters’ thoughts could do any harm or be anything but helpful. Every voice and opinion counts and is very much needed so that we can demonstrate to the government the egregious harm done to Canadians, a harm they have not perhaps fully appreciated ( I am being generous here) but have inherited and now must find a way to resolve. We must keep this front and centre on their agendas; that is what these emails and letters are doing.
To those of you who have done what Gwen and I cannot, thank you so much. It is not only funds (though clearly needed) but this support and your voices that are critical. With your help, we are not going away.
I am not sure I can ever adequately express how appreciative I am to you all. Thank you just seems insufficient. What I do know, every single day is how so many of you have changed my life and made it better. I most sincerely mean it when I often say I could not do it without you.
I agree with Ginny.
This is an example of a letter just sent to the AG by the Duke of Devon. Each of us will have their own point of view. This was cross posted from Sandbox: http://maplesandbox.ca/2015/dear-justice-minister-fatca-encroaches-stop-fatca/comment-page-1/#comment-525133
The Duke said:
“Hon. J. Wilson-Raybould
Minister of Justice, Government of Canada
I was thrilled about the Liberal victory in the recent election and with the Cabinet’s makeup. Congratulations.
In July 2014 Canada signed an agreement with the U.S.A. to implement an American law in Canada.
There are many things about this agreement which make it bad policy.
-It overrides Canadian sovereignty
-It discriminates against dual Canadian citizens and ‘accidental Americans’ on the basis of national origin
-It overrides privacy rights.
-The cost to the Government of Canada and the private sector far out way any possible benefit. The
Bank of Nova Scotia estimated their cost at $100 million! Benefit to Canada –nil.
There are many myths surrounding the adoption of the IGA.
‘Canada negotiated a better deal’. In fact the wording of the IGA is the same word for word as all other countries. The wording was dictated by the U.S.
‘There will be reciprocity’. In fact there won’t be reciprocity. The U.S. has committed to try their best. We turn over the names of American persons resident in Canada. They will try to turn over the names of Canadians resident in Canada. There is no conceivable way for the U.S. to reciprocate with 100 different countries.
‘We have no choice; our banks will not be able to business in the U.S.’. The idea that the US can withhold 30% of capital transferred to non-compliant banks is a giant bluff.
I could go on. There is a wonderful exposition of the FATCA follies at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Account_Tax_Compliance_Act?
There is a lawsuit underway opposing the IGA on the basis of Charter violations. (Hillis et. al. v. AGC et. al. ) We ask your officials to end the defense of the lawsuit and to repeal the IGA or amend it to exclude permanent residents of Canada.
Sincerely,
Duke”
It seems that my letter has a tougher message to our new PM and Minister of Justice. I will not publish it on here, however, I was very clear in my letter to let them know my future actions if ANY of my information leaves Canada. They were both told, in clear terms, that if any of my personal information leaves Canada and is given to the IRS, I would be taking my case to Aboriginal court and this would be escalated and treated as a breach of my rights as an Aboriginal. The Aboriginal courts are very tough on governments when they breach Aboriginal people’s rights. We will see where this goes.
@NativeCanadian
Just curious–have you been able to find out for sure (one way or the other) whether any of your data has already been turned over (in the first round of data supposedly transmitted around Sept 30)? If so I guess you will be pursuing that matter ASAP in Aboriginal court and I wish you the best in that–it sounds like you do indeed have a really strong case.
I just got some Jeb Bush campaign literature from Right to Rise USA. Job Bush is a candidate for President. The literature was sent independently of his official campaign and is not endorsed by the candidate.
The literature criticizes the Democrats:
“President Obama and Hillary Clinton abandoned America’s international leadership, helping give rise to ISIS and emboldening Iran and Russia.
“Governor Jeb Bush has a plan to restore America’s greatness around the world, protect our economic and national security interests, and help protect our allies.
“Jeb Bush believes that though we cannot be the world’s policeman, we must be the world’s leader.”
“protect our economic and national security interests”
In other words, keep FATCA and continue collecting penalties.
“and help protect our allies”
In other words, repeal FATCA.
No wait.
America doesn’t have allies. America leads by hypocrisy.
@Tom Alciere, I know you didn’t express particular support for Jeb Bush, but since you brought him up, I have to say Jeb Bush is a pot calling the kettle black. He defends what his brother did post-9/11. Arguably, the USA had grounds to go into Afghanistan and fight Al Qaeda and hunt down Osama Bin Laden. But G.W. Bush had no right to start a war in Iraq before letting the diplomacy finish its course and to unleash mass destruction on the Iraqis without proof that they had any (illegal) weapons to retaliate. A German journalist, the only one who spent 10 days with ISIS to interview them, and who has been in the region pre-ISIS, says:
“Bush and Obama both are terrorists when killing innocents. War is the terrorism of the rich; terrorism is the war of the poor . . . . ISIS has been created by the West. It has been founded as a reaction to George W. Bush’s illegal and unjust bomb war against the people in Iraq. Those who are now fighting ISIS with bombs haven’t learned anything from history. Bombs don’t destroy terrorism – they are its breeding ground.”
http://juergentodenhoefer.de/terrorism-has-much-to-do-with-islam/?lang=en
See also:
http://juergentodenhoefer.de/the-6-reasons-why-it-is-hgh-time-that-bush-be-brought-to-court/?lang=en
http://juergentodenhoefer.de/our-wars-are-breeding-ground-for-terrorism/?lang=en
Unfortunately, Obama’s policies didn’t turn things around.
http://juergentodenhoefer.de/obama-the-impotent-president/?lang=en