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
That’s right, USForeignPerson, as depressing as it is for me to talk about, if I keep one person from going to go through what I’ve done, then it’s worth talking about. I am learning to live with my decision.
My husband takes it more in stride, saying that people lose lots of money lots of different ways – the stock market, bad real estate investments, businesses bankrupting. For me this is different though. Those things you go into knowing the risk – this is more like getting ambushed.
Thats “done”, not “decided”. I am learning to live with my decision.
“Do you know of any minnows who’ve been penalized since Streamlined was enacted?”
Sorry, I haven’t looked at the timing of when Streamlined was enacted or anything like that. I just recall reading one of the articles on this site about minnows paying 129 times the amount of tax owed. I’ve paid infinity times the amount of tax owed because my tax owed was zero, though my penalties were for illegal honesty not for Streamlined stuff.
I guess I’m lucky I don’t own a house, and my wife didn’t sell hers.
All that revenue the IRS claimed it received as a result of the OVD programs I’m pretty sure doesn’t take into account what they gave back to people who got penalty refunds after opting out or in the end not being assessed the ‘in lieu of penalty’. Gotta keep those numbers up!
@Bubbles……”Those things you go into knowing the risk – this is more like getting ambushed.”
I think its actually more than that and I say this as someone who has walked the path with Brockers and non-brockers who need brock.
The money that you spent (Calgary is in the same boat), was pure theft.
I have been robbed and I sense emotionally it is the same.
You and your husband did NOTHING wrong!!! Yet someone took your hard earned money, no different than the mafia/organized crime demanding payment for “services and protection” that you neither need nor want.
You and your family were violated by thugs, those thugs being the United States Government and the parasites/clinger ons being the compliance industry.
@George
If only for my own mental fortitude, I try to not get too carried away in being a victim – even if I’ve been one. I’ve made my own choices based on the information I had at the time, decisions that I might not have made had I had a crystal ball, but to call that “pure robbery” seems like an exaggeration based on the fact that no one had a gun to my head. I knew the consequences of the decisions I made and made the choice I felt was best for me, not for the US government or my legal representation, even though I knew fully well at the time it would benefit both.
George and bubblebustin,
I, too, made the choices and paid the $$$ I felt I had to at the time — to correct incorrectly prepared returns already in the system and have prepared properly the remaining to be able to submit my 8854, certifying my compliance. I was apalled to have learned how ignorant I was of US CBT. Surely, there is now some better awareness but fear there are many more out there as ignorant as I was before my OMG moment. Knowing what I know now, I would likely have made some better choices.
I still, of course, am left with what I feel is the injustice of my son not being able to renounce his US ONLY-deemed US citizenship and that entrapment in this maze, not able to bring closure for my family. There is for me loss of any peace of mind that when I am gone any inheritance goes to my family rather than the US IRS, a country my son has never lived in or had any benefit from. For me, that is huge.
I most assuredly would wish to make some difference for families of US taint who may have a family member also without *requisite mental capacity* to find their way out of the US CBT system. All because I feel it is so wrong for all of us.
I am here should others be able to learn from my many naïve mistakes along the way and to, hopefully, be of some use, by example, in the litigation or any other path to US RBT.
So, inch by bloody inch, onward.
Bubblebustin: Your story is one of the most powerful warnings to come out of this debacle and you can be assured that you have helped many people make their own choices about how to go forward toward their now uncertain futures. But I agree with George that any way you cut it you’ve been stolen from! Through its unethical extraterritorial tax system the United States has legalized its right to steal from people around the globe.
@MuzzledNoMore
I suppose that if the result of complying with an unethical tax system makes me either unethical or a victim, I’ll choose victim.
@Calgary411
It’s definitely most egregious for those like your son who are stuck in the system, with no choice only because they are deemed incapable of making them for themselves. Seems equally unfair that your son and those like him aren’t allowed advocates to make legal decisions on their behalf, yet when it comes to tax compliance they aren’t denied legal representation, whether it be a tax attorney or executor to their estate.
WSJ has an article tis morning. It seems to a compilation of the stories of people who have been hurt by this. If you are able to login and comment, it might be a good idea.
Keith Redmond is an active expat who is leading the charge on many fronts to help us Americans abroad. He communicates with RO regarding the FATCA law suit. He has been talking with a producer from ABC Night-line News. They want to interview people in the process of renouncing or have renounced. I think there are a few people here who have amazing stories that could change peoples minds in the USA about CBT if they got on to a major network like ABC. He can be found on the facebook page Citizenship Taxation. They WON’T do the story unless they get an interview described above. This could be huge for us.
Any possibility that there may be repercussions from this for FATCA?
https://ccla.org/no-more-safe-harbour-does-it-matter-in-canada/
No more ‘Safe Harbour’: Does it matter in Canada?
October 15, 2015
“Last week, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), Europe’s highest court, made a ruling that takes a strong, principled stand on data privacy rights, and may have repercussions for Canada. The ruling declared the Safe Harbour agreement that permitted data transfers between the EU and the US invalid.”………….
This looks like it might be helpful re the ADCS challenge and the question of whether the FATCA IGA is constitutional;
https://ccla.org/federal-court-case-challenges-governments-respect-for-charter-of-rights-and-freedoms/
“Ottawa, ON – Last week, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) intervened in the Federal Court case of Schmidt v. Attorney General of Canada, arguing that (1) the government has a responsibility to ensure that its proposed laws comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and (2) the Minister of Justice has an obligation to report serious concerns about compliance to Parliament — and, in turn, Canadians. In light of this case, and Canada being a country committed to constitutional supremacy, CCLA is calling on federal election candidates to recognize their duty to uphold the Charter and promise to ensure accountability in law-making.
The case was brought forward by Edgar Schmidt, a former Justice Department lawyer who claims that serious concerns surrounding Charter compliance had been consistently ignored by his former superiors, including the Minister, and were withheld from Parliament and the public.
In response, the government argued that reports are only necessary when there is no credible argument that can be made to support a proposed law. This loose interpretation has meant that not a single report relaying concerns about Charter non-compliance has ever been made to Parliament despite the passing of suspect laws, including many in recent years, that almost immediately were challenged in court, notably: the Anti-Terrorism Act, 2015 (Bill C-51); the Fair Elections Act; the Safe Streets and Communities Act; and the Protecting Canada’s Immigration System Act…..”……….
Read the CCLA arguments here;
https://ccla.org/cclanewsite/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2015-09-01-Factum-Schmidt.pdf
Several of the arguments made by the CCLA in their factum touch on points that have come up in parliamentary questions about the FATCA IGA from the opposition in Parliament, and the ADCS challenge.
For example, early on, MPs Hsu, Mai and Brison were stymied by the incomplete answers and redacted documents the Harper government offered up in ‘response ‘ to Parliamentary questions formally posed to them. One of the opposition questions involved whether or not the Ministry of Justice had been consulted on the FATCA IGA, and the matter of its constitutionality/legality. The Harper government countered by stating that even the question of WHETHER the MOJ had been consulted on the IGA for an opinion, and whether any such opinion or report existed re the issue of constitutionality or whether it had been raised with the MOJ, was protected under client attorney privilege.
See excerpts like this one:
“…..34. The challenges for Parliament are compounded as a result of the concentration of legal expertise in the Department of Justice and the fact that advice on Charter consistency is considered confidential and not accessible to Parliament. The Defendant’s argument that Parliament has other tools at its disposal is of little comfort, as the examination provisions explicitly require that the Minister of Justice report to Parliament. Since it is the Department of Justice that will be defending a case in the event of a constitutional challenge, it is the Minister’s opinion that may be most useful to Parliament.
35. The credible argument standard might be appropriate if the legal advice that the government receives from the Department of Justice were not shielded by privilege, because the advice itself could form the basis for discussion and debate in the House of Commons. In light of the confidential nature of such opinions, however, the examination provisions must be interpreted in a way that promotes meaningful debate and discussion in Parliament, rather than hinders it…”…..
page 13
https://ccla.org/cclanewsite/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2015-09-01-Factum-Schmidt.pdf
See also the conclusion;
“…..43. In every case where the constitutionality of legislation is challenged, the individuals bringing those challenges suffer significant financial costs and devote extraordinary amounts of time to the task. In some cases, those individuals are also facing serious criminal penalties. The process of a constitutional challenge can take several years to wind its way through our courts, with the consequences for individuals hanging in limbo. The uphill battle faced by litigants will also frequently dissuade individuals from challenging potentially unconstitutional legislation. As a result, an unconstitutional law may be left “on the books” simply because of the time and resources required to mount an effective challenge.
44. Employing the credible argument standard and leaving individuals to initiate court challenges also costs the government, who must defend against a challenge. The precious and
27 2015 SCC 34.
28 Ibid., para. 18.
16
limited time and resources of our courts are also implicated in this process. While we can reasonably expect that some constitutional challenges will occur regardless of the laws passed by Parliament or the process they employ, some cases could certainly be avoided if a more meaningful standard for reporting was in place.
D) Conclusion
45. If the statutory examination provisions are approached from the perspective of the Canadian public, a more robust standard and approach to interpretation is clearly called for. The credible argument standard is not in keeping with Canada’s unwritten constitutional principles, it is out of step with our existing constitutional structures, and it denies Parliament meaningful opportunities for engagement with rights considerations before legislation is passed.
46. Moreover, by focusing almost exclusively on the courts as the site of engagement on rights issues, the credible argument standard burdens Canadians – often those who are already in conflict with the law – with costly and time-consuming litigation.
47. The credible argument standard does not serve Parliament, it does not serve the government, and it does not serve the public interest.
17
PART IV: ORDER SOUGHT
48. The CCLA asks that this Honourable Court interpret the examination provisions in line with the principles articulated above and declare that the existing approach does not comply with the law.
All of which is respectfully submitted,
September 3, 2015”
https://ccla.org/cclanewsite/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2015-09-01-Factum-Schmidt.pdf
@Badger: You can read e-mails I sent to CCLA’s Executive Director and her replies to me at Maple Sandbox. It is now very clear to me that Schubert was right months ago that CCLA has no interest in us.
They seem to share Con views that we are second class Canadians (or “Americans abiding here in Canada.”)
http://maplesandbox.ca/2015/update-from-ccla-on-fatca-lawsuit/#comment-486138
@Blaze, thank you for keeping up with them and keeping them aware that we are still waiting to hear what their position is and what action they will take – and when. In the meantime, ordinary Canadians and those from outside Canada are doing all the heavy lifting.
What is the problem? Is it acceptable for Canada to not only cede sovereignty and autonomy to a predatory foreign power, but to insult and trample on the Charter and Constitution as well? Don’t we deserve some kind of actual and meaningful response in a timely way? Is prejudice against Canadians okay when the US demands it? Aren’t Canadians of US birthplace or parentage equally deserving of Charter and Constitutional protection? Or do they buy the argument that the US can do anything it wants as long as it involves taxation?
The more I read of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association submission above, the less I can accept or fathom their lack of action on the FATCA IGA and the ADCS lawsuit. Just exactly how can they be quiescent on FATCA when so much of what they just said in their factum https://ccla.org/cclanewsite/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/2015-09-01-Factum-Schmidt.pdf fits so well with what we have seen the Harper government’s machinations re the secrecy of the IGA negotiations, the abuse of Parliament by hiding the IGA in an Omnibus bill (C-31), the refusal to even state/confirm whether they had an opinion from Justice on the constitutionality of the IGA and enabling legislation, forcing ordinary Canadians to take the federal government to court to force it to uphold our Charter and constitutional rights, and the abuse of our Canadian taxpayer funds to wield the entire Justice dept and apparatus of the federal government to refuse us our rights.
They are entirely aware of the privacy and other issues re FATCA, as per their co-sponsored event at which Arthur Cockfield presented and spoke about FATCA – at the Privacy Symposium https://ccla.org/pathways2privacy/ in Toronto August 12, 2015
Cockfield’s presentation is here:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/60r4kgrxxtjd84g/24%20panel%204%20speaker%203%20Arthur%20Cockfield.mp3?dl=1&token_hash=AAEq-FGCh2XKKlaQeihquw8wyLnJO5OH2zPcfOHG6pyTYQ
http://ccla.org/oldsite/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/FATCA-and-the-Erosion-of-Taxpayer-Privacy-U-of-T-2014.pptx
http://www.priv.gc.ca/resource/cp/2013-2014/cp_bg_e.asp
The CCLA may not have enough funding to actively assist in the ADCS challenge, but they appear to have chosen to be mum in public up to this point, and to let ordinary Canadians fight the IGA alone – without even helping to raise and publicize the issues.
The banks will likely not answer any of your questions. This whole movement is not big enough to get the people of Canada’s attention. I have been to all 4 debates here locally and have shamed my past MP and the Conservative Candidate in public. I have told Canada’s prime minister to his face to get FATCA out of Canada. How many others are getting out there and doing this in public at election time? The banks will win and the government is laughing at us as we are simply not big enough. The entire country must learn and stand by their fellow Canadians when they are threatened. At this point, we are making headway, but not enough. For me and my situation, I will NEVER pay any money to another country as a Canadian for foreign tax period. If this government tries to force me, they will then be fighting every single aboriginal in Canada to so it. I say again, we need to get out there and get support!
Stephen: Badger has brought up some very compelling information today. Has ADCS (or our lawyers?)written to the CCLA? Blaze has written as an individual without success but perhaps we need some (more?) correspondence from the group bringing the Charter Challenge. Truly, as Badger said, the CCLA’s own writings place our issue right in the middle of everything that they have argued. Why, then, have they shown such reticence in supporting our case? Perhaps writing to them from ADCS’s position with all the information Badger has provided here would finally get them on side. How can they not see that everything they have decried in the document Badger found is happening to us?
Muzzled,
Thanks for the suggestion.
I have spoken in the past to CCLA about being the legal team or part of our legal team in the litigation; however, CCLA did not have the resources to do this. Our trial is very complicated and requires lots of time (expense) from the lawyers and their staff.
It might be reasonable for CCLA to act as an intervenor for us in the Charter trial or to act in some other capacity. I will suggest this as a possibility to our legal team who could then have a lawyer to lawyer chat with CCLA.
@Badger: All of your points, as usual, are excellent. I encourage you to submit them directly to Sukanya Pillay, the Executive Director of CCLA. Her e-mail address is pillay@ccla.org
Others may also want to contact her directly. I think she must think I am the only person in Canada concerned about FATCA. Laura Berger, Abby Deshman’s replacement (Abby is on maternity leave) has not even given me the courtesy of a reply to my many telephone calls and e-mails to her.
@Stephen: Abby Deshman was in direct contact with Joe Arvay in the early stages. Her replacement has shown absolutely no interest in FATCA issues. You may want to encourage someone on the legal team to speak lawyer to lawyer with Sukanya Pillay.
While I realize CCLA may not have the resources to represent us, I think it is deplorable they could not even be bothered to send in a submission when Finance Canada made their call for input. It probably would not have made a difference, but their public silence since .December of 2012 is deplorable.
I suspect if Canadian citizens born in China, Russia, Iran, India, Mexico or Eritrea were being subjected to being reported to those foreign governments, CCLA would be much more involved. Like the Cons, we seem to be simply “American citizens abiding here in Canada” to CCLA,
BCCLA seems more open than its parent? CCLA…
calgary411
on July 9, 2015 at 3:06 pm said:
I received this email message from BCCLA yesterday:
Hello Carol,
Thanks for taking the time to send us your views. We definitely share your concerns about FATCA and Bill C-51. As a small organization we have to make many difficult decisions about where to focus our limited resources, and Bill C-24 is taking up the bulk of our focus at the moment. Joe Arvay is a fantastic lawyer, and we’ve worked with him many times in the past. He does great work on civil liberties cases such as these, so I’m glad to hear of his involvement in challenging FATCA.
Thanks again for your email.
Warmly,
Catherine Hart
Donor Relations and Digital Strategy Coordinator
BC Civil Liberties Association
Email: catherine@bccla.org | Tel: 604-630-9757
********************
Catherine’s response was in reply to my email to BCCLA:
Subject: Re: Support equal citizenship this Canada Day!
It would be fantastic if BC Civil Liberties Association also recognizes the first group of second-class Canadian citizens as of July 1, 2014. Here is a write-up I did about the relationship between Bills C-31 (2014), C-24 and C-51:
Alex Neve, Secretary General, Amnesty International Canada spoke about C-51 and ‘the Insecurity of Human Rights’ on June 24, 2015 at Calgary Public Library, Central branch. What a great presentation (and turn-out for the short notice). Wish there had been more time, including more time for discussion. I was able to get Mr. Neve’s business card and gave him this page that I put together to hand him:
Bills C-31 (2014), C-51 (2015) and C-24 (2015) — their connecting relationship and new Two-Tiered Canadian Citizenship
It’s been an interesting progression for three of the Conservative laws rammed through the Canadian Parliament without full due consideration of what legal and other experts had to say. (Neither the Information Commissioner nor the Privacy Commissioner testified to committees considering Bill C-24.)
· Bill C-31* (2014), the first Canadian legislation to make approximately one million Canadians who are deemed US Citizens (plus their Canadian spouses, plus their Canadian-born children, plus their Canadian business partners who will be US taxable because they have a US business partner taint — all deemed *US Persons*), SECOND-CLASS Canadian citizens. They have been defined by the Conservative government *US citizens who happen to reside in Canada* (whether also Canadian citizens, even those born in Canada who have never lived or received any benefit from the US)…
*The Government of Canada has signed a ‘FATCA IGA’ (Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act Intergovernmental Agreement) with the United States to help that foreign country acquire assets of those Canadians it alone deems to be ‘U.S. persons’. FATCA is the enforcement tool for the imposition of that peculiar and punitive U.S. style ‘place of birth’ taxation on the world. …the Canadian legislation that implements the FATCA IGA said to violate the Canadian Constitution, Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the principles of Canadian sovereignty and democracy and the fundamental rights of all Canadians. Nathan Cullen (NDP), Official Opposition Critic for Finance, was not heeded when he said about Bill C-31 / implementation of the US FATCA IGA …
“Why the government wouldn’t vote to clarify that the Charter of Rights, the Bill of Rights, the Human Rights Act, the Privacy Act, the Official Languages Act, and the Access to Information Act will supersede anything we sign in this tax treaty is beyond me. If it’s redundant, then so be it. Let’s have a redundant aspect of a legislative bill. I’m stunned that something so obvious can’t be accepted into law.”
· to Bill C-51 (2015) which could deem any of us who dare speak out or gather in protest in this country a threat to Canada. One example — if a Canadian citizen, who is also deemed a US citizen (see above) with the secondary US citizenship one the US deems superior to their Canadian, should now oppose Canada protecting its banks before protection of its own citizens and residents, could that person be perceived a threat to Canada and the Canadian economy by speaking out and opposing the actions of Canadian financial institutions (deemed by the US *foreign financial institutions*)? A threat to local Canadian financial institutions who will be sanctioned by the US if they do not comply in collecting and turning over Canadian private financial information on specific *US Persons* to Canada Revenue Agency who will in turn send on to the US IRS? A bonus, with this Bill, Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) has been given permission to share our income tax filings with 13 additional government agencies – and, because of FATCA, CRA will have far more information about *U.S. Persons* than they will about other Canadians.
· and now Bill C-24, adding the remainder of those from many countries around the world who chose to become Canadian citizens by naturalization, as well as their children who were born in Canada – to those *US Persons* whose Canadian citizenship is now CONDITIONAL and SECOND-CLASS. It paves a road where under some circumstances (like invoking some of Bill C-51, Canadians with another nationality (and those who are eligible to obtain another nationality) *could have* their Canadian citizenship revoked . Their Canadian citizenships are not the same as any others’ Canadian citizenships. They are now not afforded the same due-process and rights provided by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to any other Canadian citizen. This new law *could have the effect and power* of silencing some voices of *dual citizens* or persons who could claim a second nationality. Now a segment of this country’s citizens may exist in the shadow of other Canadians. Is this what we want for Canada – a second-class of Canadian citizenship?
Constitutional lawyer, Rocco Galati, has reported he is preparing a court challenge for Bill C-24 and is interested in heading a court challenge for Bill C-51 (http://pressfortruth.ca/top-stories/rocco-galati-preparing-court-challenge-against-bill-c-24/ ).
On August 4th, a summary trial will be heard at Federal Court in Vancouver for the FATCA IGA lawsuit filed on behalf of two *Accidental American / non-meaningful American* Canadian plaintiffs (born on US soil to Canadian parents but who returned with their parents as young children to live in Canada). They come forward for all those deemed *US Persons in Canada*. Litigator, Joseph Arvay, another Canadian constitutional lawyer, leads this expensive effort against legislation passed with omnibus Bill C-31(2014) (http://www.adcs-adsc.ca/ ).
Remember, Stephen Harper said “You won’t recognize Canada when I’m through.”
We could be stronger if we worked together. What has Canada become?
‘Why should anyone trust what the US government says on cybersecurity when they can’t secure the systems they have full control over?’ http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/24/irs-employees-password-no-wonder-we-get-hacked
..”..The agency that has been singled out for some of the worst criticism in recent years is the Department of Homeland Security, the agency that is supposedly in charge of securing all other government systems. The New York Times reported this weekend that the IRS’s systems still allow users to set their passwords to “password,” along with other hilariously terrible mistakes. .”..
Also donate to the ADCS challenge http://www.adcs-adsc.ca/DonateADCS.html and help prevent a sovereign government from turning over the information of a million or more Canadians to an extraterritorial aggressor – the USA! Help draw this line in the sand to put Canada and other governments on notice that depriving their own citizens and resident taxpayers and accountholders to satisfy the US is NOT lawful or just and WILL NOT be borne. WE HAVE LEGAL RIGHTS and with YOUR HELP WE ARE PUSHING BACK against FATCA.
Say NO TO FATCA and US data extortion!!!
Carol Tapanila
Calgary, AB, Canada
Catchy tune, Sid. Thanks!