— Still expecting that the Constitutional-Charter trial will take place in 2017. Date however, still uncertain and will depend on how Motions are decided by the Court.
— The Government lawyers have now asked the Court, by way of a formal motion, to compel the Plaintiffs to provide certain additional documents and our lawyers will be resisting the motion.
One of our Plaintiffs, Ginny, comments on the Motion to compel more documents from Plaintiffs: “They are asking for more answers from the plaintiffs which we and our lawyers deem unnecessary and pedantic, let alone not legally relevant. For instance, here’s a little example. They really want to know my credits and debits from my chequing account? Sure, I could tell them the whole unabashed truth under oath… The debits are the usual household monthly expenses of the average family with one exception. Barclay,the greatest dog on earth eats a lot and is rather spoiled and gets more haircuts per year than I do. In the last few days of the month, we hold our breath and hope we make it to the end without going into overdraft. And so my question to them is: how is this relevant to your [Charter] section 1 argument?…Why can they not tell us whose banking account information has been turned over to the IRS via the CRA, whether over or under the >50K aggregate [see Plaintiffs’ questions and Government “responses” below in link]. We’d like that on the record, whereas I can bet the farm that the average Canadian does not care what Barclay’s food costs are.”
— See the (amended) Claims of the Plaintiffs and the now published as affidavit last response of Government to the Claims.
Note the changes (underlined) from original response on page 137 (14) in which Government denies Constitutional violations and now argues that “To determine whether any Charter rights or constitutional principles, written or unwritten, have been infringed unjustifiably by such alleged enforcement requires a factual matrix where the US has actually attempted to recover, in Canada, taxes or charges against a particular individual residing in Canada.”
Note also that Government has now DELETED on page 139 (16) its previous statement: “Furthermore, the defendants deny that there exists a principle of fundamental justice that foreign tax debts are not enforceable in Canada.”
— See the many questions asked by Plaintiffs to Government detailing the type etc. of FATCA information provided by Canada to United States and by U.S. to Canada, response of Government, and Objections raised by Government to Plaintiffs’ question.
I was particularly interested in knowing details on the bank account information that flowed from Canadian accounts in U.S. to Canada as part of the so-called “reciprocal” FATCA agreement — a key justification, in addition to promise of economic sanction for non-compliance, for Canada to “agree” to the FATCA IGA.
Government response to the request for information on the reciprocal bank data are: “On the advice of counsel. I am unable to answer” with the attached objection: “The Defendants object to Q. #4 and refuse to answer it because doing so may require disclosing sensitive information or potentially injurious information as those terms are defined in s. 38 of the Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-5.”
[Also, I wanted to know: “…how many of the persons associated with those accounts had already been reported by the United States to Canada for tax purposes…? See the answer in link to this question…]
— Still seeking Exit tax witness. Supporter suggests (and I agree) that anyone who took measures to reduce asset worth to avoid exit tax would be considered…
Yes, I did read it and agree with what you wrote. It does end rather abruptly, with no real conclusion to whatever it is he’s asserting. He does point out what a clusterfu@k FATCA is though.
Better minds than mine will draw better conclusions than I can, though.
BTW – the author (William Byrnes) is on twitter https://twitter.com/williambyrnes – he follows several of the FATCA protest accounts.
@Canadian Ginny re the government’s demands re explaining;
“…..credits and debits from my checking account”….
Sorry that you, Kazia and Gwen are having to deal with such nonsense.
Their actions do not in any way bolster any citizen’s and reasonable observer’s faith in government. The government’s actions in choosing to take up and wear and continue to defend the Harper government’s mantle rather than “…spend three minutes drafting a simple clause which exempted any Canadian permanent resident or citizen….” has steadily diminished my already qualified respect for it. The state can and does ab/use its mighty powers and its access to the country’s coffers filled with our own tax money – coercively applied to abuse its citizens in this case, but it should consider whether it would in the long run benefit more from throwing citizens and legal residents under the bus to appease banks and a foreign power, or ceasing to abuse the citizens and residents from which its legitimacy is supposed to derive.
Seeing otherwise intelligent people who took a principled stand but shortly after election twisted themselves inside out in a reversal of position once in power doesn’t engender respect – far from it.
Perhaps they think the damage will be limited because it doesn’t have the media appeal, the popular interest and the urgency of other issues.
They abuse innocent Canadian citizen and legal resident taxpayers accused of nothing more than merely having any one of a list of ‘US indicia’ at the same time while they go so far out of their way to shelter a Canadian bank who “… failed to report 1,200 suspicious transactions
The unnamed bank, which was fined $1.15 million by Fintrac, committed a “very severe” breach of laws against money laundering by failing to report suspicious transactions..” and then shows us whose interests the government has uppermost when we see the country’s money laundering watchdog “… impose an unprecedented $1.2-million fine against a Canadian bank — and then refuse to name the bank….” even when the bank is actually guilty of money laundering – the kind of crime that laws like FATCA purport to be targeting.
So how is it that ordinary Canadians who have committed no crime are subject to the stripsearch and seizure of their personal and financial information, based on no evidence, no charges and no suspicion of any crime – and their information is automatically remitted across national borders to a foreign country whose internal laws prevent us from knowing what and how the data is treated after that – but yet;
“….A convicted felon attempted to move at least $12 million through a Canadian bank, which failed to report the transactions to authorities in a breach of anti-money-laundering law, new documents obtained by the Toronto Star and National Observer show.
For keeping the transactions secret, the bank, whose name has been removed from the documents, was fined $1.15 million — the first and only time a bank has been penalized for this kind of offence in Canada.
It committed the “very serious” offence of failing to report “a suspicious transaction related to the commission or attempted commission of a money laundering offence,” according to 109 pages of heavily censored documents obtained through an access to information request by the National Observer.
From early 2012 to the end of 2013, the unnamed bank processed 1,179 international electronic transfers of $10,000 or more from the mystery client, who used a “potential shell company” and operated out of an unnamed country associated with money laundering. It also accepted 45 cash deposits of $10,000 or more, all without ever reporting the transactions to Fintrac, Canada’s money laundering and terrorist financing enforcement agency, as required by law…..”………
And, we have a government agency trying to keep the name of the offending bank secret.
Truly one law for Banksters and another for law abiding Canadian taxpayers and accountholders.
Apparently Canada took the time and effort to have green card holders living in Canada exempt from FATCA reporting although many themselves may only be permanent residents of Canada.
“I hold a U.S. green card. How does this affect my tax residency?
If you are a green card holder (that is, a lawful permanent resident of the U.S.), the U.S. considers you to be a U.S. resident.
However, if you are a resident of Canada for tax purposes and do not hold U.S. citizenship, you should not identify yourself as a U.S. person to your Canadian financial institution.”
Outrageous that someone with a green card who may only be a permanent resident living in Canada would under the IGA have more privacy rights than a Canadian citizen resident in Canada, isn’t it?
@BB, interesting too that in contrast to the path that the Canadian CON and now gLIB governments have taken, according to this, ” .. the Caricom heads of government” are mounting a lobbying campaign against FATCA compliance for their region, and a rumour has been reported that; “…the front- runner for the lobbying contract is a firm headed by former US Attorney General Eric Holder, a democrat and black American with one immigrant parent (Barbados) who would have been part of the US apparatus for enforcement…”
‘Lobbying against FATCA on Capitol Hill’
Sunday, February 19, 2017
………”…The Caricom heads of government, through Antigua and Barbuda Prime Minister Gaston Browne, announced that the community is considering hiring a US firm to lobby the Trump Administration and Congress on FATCA…”……
“……Interestingly, the front- runner for the lobbying contract is a firm headed by former US Attorney General Eric Holder, a democrat and black American with one immigrant parent (Barbados) who would have been part of the US apparatus for enforcement. Perhaps there is some sense in that. Who better to deal with FATCA than he who enforced it?….”……
I posted this on the country specific thread, and on another one here at IBS.
That is very intriguing, Badger.
A potential two lobbyists in DC against FATCA?
“Outrageous that someone with a green card who may only be a permanent resident living in Canada would under the IGA have more privacy rights than a Canadian citizen resident in Canada, isn’t it?
I didn’t interpet that CRA statement quite the same way. I thought it meant that if you are not a US citizen (green card holders are not US citizens) and you reside in Canada then don’t tell your bank about your green card. I guess a few non-Canadian citizens residing here (e.g. an Australian with a green card and a Canadian PR card) would slip through this don’t tell window but do you think there are that many to worry about? I certainly wouldn’t describe this as specifically outrageous.
What IS outrageous is that anyone should have to tell the bank anything about their citizenship. If you live here, a bank’s ONLY obligation should be to send your T slips to the CRA each year. If you live outside of Canada then I suppose they could send your T slips to the CRA and copies to the tax agency in your country of residence. It would be up to you to render onto one or both agencies that which is their due. However, I’m not sure that an IRS employee would be able to process a Canadian T slip. Anything that didn’t look like a 1099 would confuse them and gum up their works but do I care? Nope!
@Bubblebustin – “However, if you are a resident of Canada for tax purposes and do not hold U.S. citizenship, you should not identify yourself as a U.S. person to your Canadian financial institution.”
I think this is because under the tax treaty a greencard holder can elect to be treated as a tax-resident of Canada only. The IRS even has a procedure for this – though making this election can trigger the exit tax for a long-term US permanent resident.
See this post over at citizenshipsolutions: http://www.citizenshipsolutions.ca/2016/04/03/are-green-card-holders-resident-in-canada-us-persons-under-the-fatca-iga/
Makes total sense that green card holders be exempt from FATCA reporting in the IGA. I just wanted to point out that a permanent resident of Canada living in Canada has more privacy protections than a Canadian citizen in Canada.
Minister Lebouthillier, what are you doing about FATCA reciprocity?
‘Minister Lebouthillier, what are you doing about FATCA reciprocity?’
The article answers your question:
“Audits of the highest risk taxpayers for four offshore jurisdictions are underway. The first two jurisdictions targeted were the Isle of Man and Guernsey. Two other jurisdictions of concern cannot be named at the moment, in order to avoid compromising these audits.”
The world’s biggest tax haven is surely one of the two that can’t be named.
Also in the article:
“The Canada Revenue Agency, Tax Avoidance and Tax Evasion: Recommended Actions. In doing so, Minister Lebouthilier accepted all the recommendations in the report”
Right, CRA is going to take the same action against law obeyers as against law violators. Or will the action against law obeyers be harsher?
Was reading through recent testimony by Brian Ernewein and others from the Department of Finance re; a study of the House Finance committee. Meeting of Dec. 5, 2016
‘Subject Matter of Bill S-4, An Act to implement a Convention and an Arrangement for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income and to amend an Act in respect of a similar Agreement,’ https://openparliament.ca/committees/activities/5545/ and I read various comments they made in the context of tax treaties with Israel and Taiwan. Then I wondered how what they said accorded with the enactment of the FATCA IGA and in general, the tax treaty and process with the US.
For ex. re tax residence;
General Director, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
“In point of fact, Canada doesn’t tax on the basis of citizenship. Again, I seem to be picking on the United States, but it’s the only country that actually taxes—with a possible footnote for Eritrea—on a citizenship basis. We tax on a residence basis.
It’s true that we try in our tax treaties to have a provision to make sure that in the case where two jurisdictions both claim a taxpayer as resident there are rules to resolve that, to figure out in which of the two countries or jurisdictions the person truly is resident. It’s not as though there would be tens of thousands of people in those circumstances, however, who would fall out of the tax net as a result of the treaty changes. As we said in our opening remarks and have touched on since, the tax treaty provides certainty in that respect—rules to make sure we can figure out when a person is resident and where they are resident.
In point of fact, the essential point is that for most taxpayers that answer will be clear. What the treaty does is ensure that there are limits on each country’s right to tax and that there’s an ability to get a credit, or an exemption, but in the case of shared taxation to get a credit for the tax that’s paid in the other country to eliminate double taxation.”
and then, re the process of updating tax treaties;
General Director, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
“Thank your for the question. I’ll offer a couple of observations, and then I’ll turn to my colleague to see if she wants to add any more.
There are a number of different considerations, but most of them are economic-based—that is, the level of investment between Canada and another country is probably the primary driver of whether to have a treaty or not. We seek to prioritize the countries with which we have the greatest investment, or they in us, as treaty partners or for treaty updates.
The age or vintage of our treaty is also a factor, so in the case of Israel, it’s a 41-year-old treaty. As a consequence, it’s not surprising it’s a little bit out of date with respect to current Canadian treaty policy and presumably in relation to Israel as well. That is a factor in identifying our priorities.
The other consideration, of course, is a shared interest. We may be very interested in having a negotiation with another country, but it might not be interested in having one with us, or vice versa. There needs to be that mutual desire for treaty negotiations to get those launched.”
Steven MacKinnon Gatineau, QC;
“Please tell us a bit about the negotiation process. How is it initiated? Is it when a party expresses an interest to another party?”
Stephanie Smith Senior Chief, Tax Legislation Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance;
“In general with the negotiation process, as Brian has described, we do develop our own priorities in terms of which treaties we would like to update and whether there are new treaties, as with Taiwan. Typically, the engagement can start in two different ways. It can be at a meeting at the officials level on international issues, where we speak informally with colleagues in the other jurisdictions to gauge their level of interest and also their availability of resources in terms of taking forward negotiations. Sometimes those negotiations commence at a more senior or political level, where there have been discussions or approaches at, for example, bilateral meetings on the sidelines of a G20 or a G7 meeting. The direction would come down to officials that this was seen as a priority and that an approach was made.
Once it’s determined that, yes, we will go forward with negotiations, the first stage is to exchange model treaties, or the treaty that we would ideally be looking for. The other jurisdiction does the same with us. We typically would then have some back and forth, at which time there would be a date set for a face-to-face meeting to commence those negotiations. Typically, at the start of one of those face-to-face meetings, we would have an exchange and a general discussion on our respective tax systems so that we ensure that the research we have internally done is correct about the other jurisdiction and vice versa.
Typically, we would proceed through the text of the agreement on an article-by-article basis, leaving open provisions for which agreement could not be obtained on the first go-round. While rare, it is possible to conclude in only one round. It is more typical that there would be a second round, which would take place after some bilateral contact by email, further refining the outstanding issues. There would then be a second face-to-face, at which time negotiations at the negotiators level are concluded. We would domestically move through processes, with a “legal scrub” by Foreign Affairs. That’s done on both sides to ensure that the treaties themselves respect legal standards in Canada and the other jurisdiction.
Then we would go through the process of obtaining cabinet approval for signature. There would be a signature. Then we would have, as we have before us today, an implementing bill with respect to the particular treaty, which would allow us to implement it into domestic law and to resolve any conflicts of law that might otherwise occur.””
Stephanie Smith Senior Chief, Tax Legislation Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
So my question is, re; “…We would domestically move through processes, with a “legal scrub” by Foreign Affairs. That’s done on both sides to ensure that the treaties themselves respect legal standards in Canada and the other jurisdiction.” We know that the FATCA IGAs were not intended and enacted by the US Congress, and FATCA was not written or enacted as a mutually agreed treaty. Canada’s federal government in defending against the ADCS lawsuit says the IGA is merely an outgrowth of the pre-existing Canada US tax treaty. So, what of the claim to a; ““legal scrub” by Foreign Affairs. That’s done on both sides to ensure that the treaties themselves respect legal standards in Canada and the other jurisdiction.”?
If that is routinely done, and the Canadian federal government, the Finance Dept. and Foreign Affairs are satsified that the IGA also “…. respect legal standards in Canada and the other jurisdiction” then why do they insist that all that information is covered by attorney client privilege and won’t even answer IF Justice was consulted and what the outcome and comments were or if any report exists? Why did NDP MP Mai, Liberal MP Hsu and (before his post-election conversion to a FATCA defender) MP Scott Brison have to submit questions in Parliament to attempt to obtain information – which in the end was mostly redacted non-answers?
Read the whole minutes over and see if you think that it is fishy what they say about the “usual process” in light of the reversal of the initial position of Flaherty as Finance Minister for the Harper Cons against FATCA, the reversal and subsequent rush to push through the IGA in 2014 despite the submissions from Canadians against it , the expert testimony in front of Parliament ex. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2407264 , and the letter from Constitutional law scholar Peter Hogg http://elizabethmaymp.ca/wp-content/uploads/peter_hogg_fatca.pdf . Despite all our efforts, the Cons and then the Flibs not only implemented FATCA in Canada, they continue to abuse our own tax revenues to pay for it, and to defend it (and of course, in contrast to what we saw with Trinidad in 2017, delaying the enactment of a FATCA IGA didn’t make the sky fall). They ALSO HAVE NOT DONE ANYTHING regarding the serious and obvious TAX GAPS and double taxation that the current Canada US tax treaty is riddled with. Ernewein knows about the serious problems that US citizenship-based extraterritorial taxation causes for the fellow Canadian citizens and residents he is sworn to serve and yet nothing at all has been done to assist fellow Canadian citizens and residents in Canada with fending off the US predations across our national sovereign boundaries by negotiating better terms and protections – only for the Canadian Banksters. If I understand correctly, the Canada US tax treaty https://www.fin.gc.ca/treaties-conventions/USA_-eng.asp hadn’t been updated since July 29, 1997?
Well worth reading that whole transcript with the FATCA IGA and gaping Canada US tax treaty gaps in mind.
Also FATCA comes up a few times, including here;
John Weston ( now International Lawyer, McMillan LLP who formerly “…served as the MP for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country for eight years, between 2008 and 2015,”);
“……..Eight, it discourages good Canadians—those of Taiwan background—from renouncing their citizenship. In my experience, Canadians who hold dual U.S. citizenship are renouncing their U.S. citizenship in increasing numbers due to arbitrary and capricious practices by the IRS and the U.S. Treasury Department……”
That Weston who above notes that; “Canadians who hold dual U.S. citizenship are renouncing their U.S. citizenship in increasing numbers arbitrary and capricious practices by the IRS and the U.S. Treasury Department” in his remarks to the Finance committee, is also the same that wrote to his concerned constituents that he was; “…..thrilled to report that on February 5, 2014, Canada and the
United States signed an inter-governmental agreement under the longstanding
Canada-U.S. Tax Convention. This agreement brings a series of lengthy
negotiations to a conclusion which, I believe, will be of great benefit to
dual citizens and Americans living in Canada……”
We’ve come so far that some of the past info we amassed had become a bit fuzzy. I forgot that former MP Weston’s bio says he” .initiated the Canadian Constitution Foundation, a charitable foundation which promotes individual rights..” ;
The Canadian Constitution Foundation ‘About Us’ page says;
“We envision a Canada where:
1. “Every Canadian is equal before the law, and is treated equally by governments.”
5″Governments are held accountable to our Constitution in making and applying laws, regulations and policies.”
Through education and litigation, the CCF supports:
Individual freedom – the “fundamental freedoms” in section 2 of the Charter:
freedom of association;
freedom of peaceful assembly;
freedom of conscience and religion;
freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression.
Economic liberty: the right to earn a living and to own and enjoy property.
Equality before the law: Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees equal rights and equal opportunities for all Canadians.”
I’m having trouble reconciling his actions in voicing support for the FATCA IGA and his participation in his party/government’s defense of it, with his recent (Dec. 2016) comments referencing Canadians suffering the; “… arbitrary and capricious practices by the IRS and the U.S. Treasury Department”
( https://openparliament.ca/committees/finance/42-1/64/john-weston-3/ ) and his Canadian Constitution Foundation’s professed defence of our Constitutional rights, background/experience in constitutional and international law, and international experience (“..a graduate of Harvard University, with a degree in Government, specializing in International Relations. He also completed the internationally renowned Owner/President Management Program at Harvard Business School after obtaining his law degree from Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto. He is a member of the Bars of British Columbia and New York and the Law Society of England and Wales.
Having studied in six countries and having worked in Asia and Canada, John has a decidedly broad international perspective. Multilingual, he speaks English, Mandarin, and French and has studied German, Spanish, Polish, and Latin. He practised law in Taiwan with Baker & McKenzie and Bennett Jones Verchere Weston and in Canada with Russell DuMoulin before co-founding Access Law Group in Vancouver. While in Taiwan, he helped establish the Canadian Trade Office.
In his student years, he had a front-row seat in patriation of Canada’s Constitution, working in Constitutional Affairs for BC’s Deputy Minister of Constitutional Affairs in the summers of 1979, 1980, and 1981, and in 1982 for the Government of Quebec. He also initiated the Canadian Constitution Foundation, a charitable foundation which promotes individual rights….” http://www.johnweston.ca/bio?page_id=604).
But the US came for us, and the Canadian Constitution Foundation, and our Conservative and now Liberal Canadian MPs in Parliament didn’t defend us – instead, the parties in power found it more expedient to sell us south, and continue to abuse our own Canadian taxpayer revenues to defend the betrayal.
Too bad the former MP was previously insufficiently concerned about those “good Canadians” forced to renounce by the US – and the Con enactment of the enforcement of FATCA in Canada via the IGA they forced through while ignoring our submissions against it and the harm it represented to Canadians citizens and residents.
Not too late to make amends though – he could direct his Canadian Constitution Foundation to help take up the defence of the ADCS lawsuit against the now Liberal defenders of the Con FATCA IGA right?
As far as I can see, it looks to me as if the CCF group that Weston “initiated” ( http://www.johnweston.ca/bio?page_id=604 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Weston_(politician) ) posted and wrote articles against FATCA at the same time in which the Conservatives were in power and passed the IGA, and the same time in which MP Weston defended it in his letter (aprox. March 2014) to constituents http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2014/03/06/a-letter-from-john-weston-regarding-the-iga-we-need-to-educate-the-mps/ – after originally having criticized FATCA in or about June 2012 http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2012/06/26/a-response-from-john-weston-mp-on-fatca/ ).
Aug 14 2014 https://theccf.ca/ottawa-is-violating-our-constitutional-rights-in-order-to-help-the-u-s-collect-taxes/
and then after the Conservatives lost to the Liberals ; this appeared Mar 30 2016 https://theccf.ca/government-flip-flops-privacy-rights/
The CCF posted (and wrote?) articles against FATCA, but didn’t take up an actual active legal or political defence of the constitiutional principles as far as I can tell. I also couldn’t find anything about FATCA at all from the Fraser Institute when I’ve looked before – which shares some connections with the CCF (ex. a board member of the CCF is described as a Senior Fellow of the Fraser Institute https://theccf.ca/board/# ).
Its a funny old world. The FATCA story just gets more and more tangled.
Mr Weston is now in private practice here,
@Bubblebustin, read the whole transcript from openparliament.ca where Weston appears. Currently he is concerned about the citizenshipS and travails of “…….good Canadians – those of Taiwan background….” as related to the “arrangement” the bill under discussion supports (not an actual tax treaty because of political considerations re China). He raises their plight NOW. Perhaps because it relates directly to his current employment role; “….He is a member of the firm’s government and public policy practice group, where he has a regulatory practice focused on Asian clientele. ” ( http://www.lexpert.ca/article/john-weston-joins-mcmillan/?p=15%7C120 ).
Has he said or done anything recently to help those Canadians who he voted to impose FATCA on? Does he support the ADCS lawsuit? How is he helping to make amends for letting the US predator in the door and voted to mandate that Canadian financial institutions collect and transmit to the CRA the personal and financial data of Canadians – subjecting them to the; “..arbitrary and capricious practices by the IRS and the U.S. Treasury Department”
As an MP he was elected and drawing his taxpayer funded salary theoretically to represent the best interests of all Canadians – without regard to their dual status, their US birthplace or parentage, etc.
Yes, he did finally write that letter to Findlay the Revenue Minister, dated Sept 22nd, 2015 – to encourage a delay in transmitting the FATCA data, but prior to that he was present and voted *’Yea’ on June 12, 2014 for the legislation to implement the IGA and elevate US extraterritorial extortion over our own Canadian Charter and constitution – and collect and transmit Canadian owned data, which brought us to where we are now. *See Vote No. 207, 41st Parliament, 2nd Session, Sitting No. 102 – Thursday, June 12, 2014 http://www.parl.gc.ca/HouseChamberBusiness/ChamberVoteDetail.aspx?Language=e&Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=2&FltrParl=41&FltrSes=2&Vote=207
Then he and other Cons were defeated in the election on October 19, 2015.
I wrote directly to the Revenue Minister. I had to pester her, but she eventually responded – personally.