We already have Witnesses for our Canadian FATCA IGA lawsuit, but are now seeking a few more. If you are a Canadian who supports the major aim of the lawsuit (to return Canadian sovereignty back to Canada) and are interested, see below:
The May 31 2017 Canada Federal Court Order gives us 60 days to comply by providing additional information to Government as part of our lawsuit.
This delay may give us time to provide to the Court additional evidence, from new witnesses, of harms caused by the Canadian FATCA IGA enabling legislation. If:
— You are a Canadian resident (and possibly a U.S. person as well) who has experienced difficulty, uncertainty, or perceived risk of personal harm, in acting as an executor of the estate of a U.S. person in Canada, or you are someone who has refused to act as an executor for the estate of a U.S. person in Canada because of the risk of harm; or
— You are a Canadian citizen and resident who the U.S. deems a U.S. citizen, and you would like to renounce your U.S. citizenship and tax citizenship, but cannot because you would have to pay a U.S. “exit tax” because of the value of your assets (see link) — or you renounced and DID pay an exit tax; or
— You are a Canadian citizen and resident and a U.S. citizen who had your bank account information turned over to CRA/IRS and the U.S. IRS has now contacted you about your account.
AND you are willing to provide a written, public (your name will be disclosed) affidavit to Canada Federal Court explaining your situation,
– please contact me at Stephen.Kish.Chair@adcs-adsc.ca
Further request:
The Federal Court order asks for a list of all specific harms caused by the Canadian FATCA IGA enabling legislation, that contradict our Canadian Charter rights and nation’s sovereignty (our Claim) that have been or are certain to be experienced by our three Plaintiffs but also by “anyone else” (i.e., I interpret this to mean other Canadian residents).
We already have Witness affidavits detailing harms that cannot be disclosed publicly at the present time. But if you have experienced a harm or know that you will experience a harm related to the above legislation, that you suspect that we might not have addressed, AND ARE A CANADIAN CITIZEN AND RESIDENT WILLING TO FILE A WRITTEN AFFIDAVIT TO FEDERAL COURT THAT WILL DISCLOSE YOUR NAME, then please contact me.
From a practical point of view that I have to deal with, making suggestions is fine, but we need to provide the Court with written affidavits of harm in which your name will be disclosed. If you can’t disclose, perhaps you know someone who might. The time opportunity for this is short.
I know this is off topic and Stephen is going to get mad at me but the Attorney General just introduced legislation requiring the Department of Justice to release a Charter related explatory note accompanying all “new” future legislation but not apparently “old” legislation like the FATCA IGA even if it is being challenged in court.
http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/charter-charte/c51.html
@Tim
This does relate because the FATCA IGA may not have passed if this newest section had been law at the time. Under Harper, I recall that bill only required a 5% chance of passing constitution muster to become law.
Some Brockers will remember how former Canadian Justice Department lawyer Edgar Schmidt battled against this:
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/media-and-blog-articles-open-for-comments-part-3-of-3/comment-page-87/#comment-7649198
He posted this in his Facebook page today:
“Bill CSection 73 of new Bill C-51 essentially concedes that the current practice of concealing likely or almost certain inconsistencies with the Charter is bad policy. It proposes to amend the Department of Justice Act to add a new provision: Charter statement
4.2 (1) The Minister shall, for every Bill introduced in or presented to either House of Parliament by a minister or other representative of the Crown, cause to be tabled, in the House in which the Bill originates, a statement that sets out potential effects of the Bill on the rights and freedoms that are guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Purpose
(2) The purpose of the statement is to inform members of the Senate and the House of Commons as well as the public of those potential effects.”
This may be of interest to the ADCS legal team if Arvay could argue that excluding “old” legislation is discriminatory.
@Robert Ross:
“I believe the world of the accident American includes not just born US, but also foreign born,as well as, naturalized- US ,as children ,who moved abroad. Accidentals comprise more people than you think.”
The term “accidental American” ought to be eschewed by anyone who objects to the way America treats US citizens living outside the US.
“Accidental American” implies that a minority of USCs shouldn’t be subject to such treatment because they didn’t “choose” US citizenship. But most US citizens living outside the US didn’t “choose” US citizenship, they chose the opposite – to leave America. If the idea is that USCs shouldn’t be subject to lifelong worldwide US taxation if they never had a chance to say ‘no’ to the deal, well hooray I agree but the term “accidental American” does not describe that. And there’s not much point trying to come up with an adjective term that would describe those-of-us-who-didn’t-know-and-if-we-had-known-would-have-renounced-before-it-cost-$2350, since it wouldn’t make any difference.
The only reason US tax law allows an exit tax exemption for certain individuals is because they don’t think it would stand up in court – not even a US kangaroo tax court. It’s got nothing to do with justice.
@Robert Ross:
“isn’t the harm ,the financial hardship, self-inflicted in Canada since the US can not collect taxes from Canadian (dual US) citzens.”
Maybe not “self-inflicted”: terror is a very effective weapon. Fortunately, where the terror weapon is largely psychological (IRS threats and menaces), it loses its power to a large extent once people understand that the threats can’t be enforced.
The harm done by being criminalized is real, however. Only it’s US law that criminalizes us – not our country of residence/citizenship.
But Tim,
The Canadian Government lawyers have in fact provided a detailed Charter statement on the legality of the FATCA IGA enabling legislation (after the fact of course). Here is part:
Constitution Act, 1867
“In response to paragraphs 1(c) and 80 of the amended statement of claim the impugned provisions do not forfeit Canadian sovereignty to a foreign state. The Impugned Provisions simply implement an agreement which provides for the two-way sharing of information between states. The defendants deny that the Impugned Provisions offend unwritten principles of the Constitution, as alleged or at all…”
Charter, Section 7
“In response to paragraph 82 of the amended statement of claim, the defendants deny that the Impugned Provisions expose the plaintiffs to a deprivation of liberty or security of the person.
In the alternative, if the Impugned Provisions expose the plaintiffs to any deprivation of liberty or security of the person, which is denied, such deprivation occurs in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice…”
Charter, Section 8
“In response to paragraph 84 of the amended statement of claim, the defendants say that any privacy interest in Accountholder Information that may exist is minimal…
Any infringement of a reasonable expectation of privacy that may be occasioned by the Impugned Provisions occurs pursuant to lawful authority and is reasonable in the circumstances given that:
…The Impugned Provisions implement an international agreement that lessens the burden that FATCA would impose on Canadian financial institutions and their clients…”
Charter, Section 15
“In response to paragraphs 87 – 90 of the amended statement of claim, the defendants deny that the Impugned Provisions create a distinction based on grounds enumerated in s. 15 of the Charter or analogous thereto, as alleged or atall. Further and in the alternative, if the Impugned Provisions create a distinction based on analogous or enumerated grounds, which is denied, the defendants deny that such distinction is discriminatory, as alleged or at all.”
Charter, Section 1 [This is the section that says, well, even if we contradict the Charter [which we don’t admit], it’s ok because we have a really good reason to do so.]
“In the alternative, if the Impugned Provisions infringe ss. 7, 8, or 15 of the Charter, which is denied, the Impugned Provisions are constitutional because any such infringement is justified in a free and democratic society.
The Impugned Provisions are reasonably necessary to achieve the dual goals of relieving Canadian financial institutions and their clients of the potential for crippling tax and commercial consequences of non-compliance with FATCA [as part of the FATCA extortion agreement we were forced to agree to] and furthering Canada’s international commitments to share information for the better administration and enforcement of taxation laws.”
—Still hoping that a potential Witness will respond to this post….
“The Impugned Provisions are reasonably necessary to achieve the dual goals of relieving [Country X’s] financial institutions and their clients of the potential for crippling tax and commercial consequences of non-compliance with FATCA and furthering [Country X’s] international commitments to share information for the better administration and enforcement of taxation laws.”
Seems reasonable to me.
From Tim’s link to the proposed legislation,
“Parliament may enact laws that limit Charter rights and freedoms. The Charter will be violated only where a limit is not demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society.”
Is “relieving [Country X’s] financial institutions and their clients of the potential for crippling tax and commercial consequences of non-compliance with FATCA and furthering [Country X’s] international commitments to share information for the better administration and enforcement of taxation laws” demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society?
I guess we’ll find out.
Yep.
@iota
Like Howard the Duck, we are trapped in a world we never made!
Trust the government to redefine “free” and “democratic” to mean “relief from the potential of crippling tax” and “as dictated to by the United States”.
Litigation has a way of causing all concerned to define the terms of argument in the way that best suits their objective.
To me, “democratic” implies the will of the majority.
Would the majority of Country X’s electorate want Country X to risk their economic wellbeing and Country X’s international reputation to protect USCs from US laws?
@iota
Do you imply “will of the majority” because it’s Democratic is always inherently good?
Canada has a Charter in part specifically to protect minority rights from tyranny by the majority.
You appear on the verge of saying it’s O.K for people (so long as they’re the majority, of course) to go after Blacks, Jews, gays, Aboriginals, cripples, and so on. That’s just “Democratic”.
Please clarify what you mean.
@shovel – I mean that to me the word “democratic” implies the will of the majority. And I question whether the majority in Country X would want Country X’s government to pull out of the IGA.
Only a Country X referendum could answer the question.
I said: “Only a Country X referendum could answer the question.”
Though as Bubblebustin pointed out, the outcome of the legal case will presumably make clear the court’s view.
@iota
Clumsy dodge.
@shovel – what is it you think I’m dodging?
You want to know if I think non-USC members of the electorate in Country X are entitled to have a view on a measure that could have on impact on them? You bet I do.
You want to know if I think the government of Country X should consider the welfare of the whole population when coming to a decision? You bet I do.
You want to know if I myself would vote no if my country held a referendum on the question: Should Country X pull out of the IGA? You bet your cotton socks I would.
@ iota
“You want to know if I myself would vote no if my country held a referendum on the question: Should Country X pull out of the IGA? You bet your cotton socks I would.”
Why? Is it because you don’t want Country X’s FIs to face arbitrary, outrageous sanctions by the USA? Not that there would ever be a referendum. Governments from A to Z don’t give a rat’s a$$ about what their citizens want.
@Embee – it’s because of the likely or possible – who knows which – effects on the economy, and because without the IGA I seriously doubt I’d have an account at all.
The IGA lets banks feel safe enough to keep customers with US indicia, as long as they get documentation of status. Without the IGA why would they risk it.
I agree that there’ll never be a referendum. I was merely hypothesizing.
@ iota
Fair enough, you’re looking out for Number 1. So are you against the Charter Challenge then? I just wish this had not come up on this particular thread is all. It’s pretty obvious I’m all for the Charter Challenge and I hope Stephen gets the additional affidavits that the legal team is asking for. Meanwhile my thoughts these days are mostly with Lynne (our amazing Blaze) — wishing her peace, comfort and love.
@Embee – “Fair enough, you’re looking out for Number 1. So are you against the Charter Challenge then?”
In answer to your question: I don’t think pulling out of the IGA would be in the interests of Brits (with or without US citizenship). I can’t see how it would benefit Canadians (with or without US citizenship) either.
“I just wish this had not come up on this particular thread is all.”
Fair enough, I’ll say no more.
@iota
” You want to know if I think non-USC members of the electorate in Country X are entitled to have a view on a measure that could have on impact on them? You bet I do.
Putting it bluntly, would straight laced Canadians accept financial penalties for the sake of American citzens (dual or otherwise) ? Once,you mention financial, doubtful, whether in Parliament or in a referendum.IMHO.
” In answer to your question: I don’t think pulling out of the IGA would be in the interests of Brits (with or without US citizenship). I can’t see how it would benefit Canadians (with or without US citizenship) either.”
How can you get rid of it at this point ? The Europeans are handling it by avoiding US citzens and Canada by restricting enforcement on US citzens.
If you can’t kill the beast, avoid it by any means possible.
To protect Canadians ,you need a strong judicial system and it needs to be tested.
A Charter Challenge is definitely necessary here especially when a foreign power forces such a intrusive agreement under duress . One thing is certain, they will always try to find another way to stick to you ,and for that , we have to keep our courts on guard at all times.
Democracy does mean the will of the majority. As someone pointed out in some thread here a while back, gang rape is democratic: 10 people vote yes and 1 votes no.
That is why democracy is ideally tempered by some amount of human rights.
Even when the US pays lip service to democracy, it doesn’t always pay that lip service. For example US coins say Liberty not Democracy.
It would be more valuable now to observe that the US has stopped paying lip service to human rights except when talking about non-US countries. Maybe countries that really do care about human rights should prohibit investing in the US. An extra benefit would be that the US wouldn’t be able to seize 30% of the value of investments. An extra benefit would be that civilized countries could thumb their noses at FATCA.
@Robert Ross, re;
“…A Charter Challenge is definitely necessary here especially when a foreign power forces such a intrusive agreement under duress . One thing is certain, they will always try to find another way to stick to you ,and for that , we have to keep our courts on guard at all times.”
Exactly.
We must cut off the grasping US hand where it is wielded by its Canadian enablers before it further robs (with our federal government’s IGA and DOJ collusion) Canadians of their personal and financial data, and attempts to subvert and sidestep our Charter and constitutional rights – with the end goal of extracting Canadian made, Canadian sited and Canadian owned assets and further asserting an extraterritorially imposed serfdom on Canadian citizens and residents.
And for me, the waste of our local taxpayer revenues to defend collusion with a foreign extortionist is also a clear and present harm. I don’t want my Canadian tax money to continue to be abused and misused to support the CRA’s FATCAnized role as the northern branch plant of the IRS in perpetuity.
The US does not consult or alert Canada when it enacts or makes changes to extraterritorial tax and citizenship laws that stake claim to Canadian persons and their Canadian assets. It will not be consulting or alerting Canada when it makes changes to FATCA and builds on it. Canadians are just presented with US demands and the bill for the ongoing funds to make it so – forever and forever.
The FATCA and US extraterritorial citizenship/birthplace/parentage-based taxation system is more likely to become MORE oppressive.
Better to do whatever we can to chop off the groping fingers as they penetrate Canada now rather than wait for any more of the rest of the arm to follow.
“Parliament may enact laws that limit Charter rights and freedoms. The Charter will be violated only where a limit isnot demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society.”
Enacting measures to CHANGE existing LAWS regarding privacy of the individual, removing the particular protection for individuals by the need for law enforcement to justify the intrusion of privacy by presenting before a Judge the request for a warrant and the reasons why IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE in a ‘free and democratic society’ …
To enact such unjustifiable assaults on freedom of the individual and use as the excuse that it is done according to ‘treaty arrangements’ is much more than a misstatement of the facts. IT IS A LIE.
Just as the idea that the IGA is a treaty is a lie. The IGA is not legal nor is it recognized by the US in it’s entirety.
“Government’s first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.”
“Individual liberty depends upon keeping government under control.”
“My belief has always been… that wherever in this land any individual’s constitutional rights are being unjustly denied, it is the obligation of the federal government-at point of bayonet if necessary-to restore that individual’s constitutional rights”
Ronald Reagan