UPDATE August 3 2015: ONE DAY TO MAKE $29,310 OF THE $100,000 AUGUST 4 LEGAL FEE PAYMENT
TOMORROW, BECAUSE OF YOUR GENEROUS SUPPORT, WE WILL BE IN FEDERAL COURT — AT LEAST FOR A MOTIONS HEARING, AND HOPEFULLY FOR THE SUMMARY TRIAL ITSELF. GWEN AND HER SON WILL BE THERE.
WE STILL NEED MORE DONATIONS TO PAY THE AUGUST LEGAL FEES BILL.
— NativeCanadian SAYS: “…I will send in an emergency donation, but I must say, come on people!…My wife is another Ginny or Gwen. She is in the exact position they are in. I will fight this for her and for everyone involved. Please donate and be part of history!”
AUGUST 4-5 TRIAL UPDATE: There will be a HEARING TO CONSIDER MOTIONS at Federal Court, 701 West Georgia Street, Vancouver, British Columbia, on August 4, 2015 at 9:30 a.m. for a maximum of two days. Depending on the outcome of the motions the motions hearing will immediately evolve (we very much hope) into the Summary Trial on August 4 and 5, or the Summary Trial will be postponed to a later date.
READ GINNY AND GWEN’S JULY 30 2015 REPLY ARGUMENT TO GOVERNMENT — brief, brilliant arguments that can easily be understood. IN PART IT SAYS:
“…Though the defendants [the Government] assume the plaintiffs are citizens of the US who therefore owe compliance obligations under the domestic laws of the US, the plaintiffs themselves do not consider the fact of their birth in the US subjects them to the laws of a foreign state, whose citizenship they have never accepted or acknowledged. On its face, there is no legitimate reason for Canada to help a foreign state identify and punish them for failing to file forms they do not believe the foreign state had any right to demand of them, particularly where, as here, there is no reason whatsoever to believe they are engaged in tax avoidance or evasion…”
“…The defendants’ say in answer that deemed tax residence of US Persons under US tax law and the consequences that flow therefrom is a domestic policy choice that is beyond this Court’s role to evaluate. But construction of Article XXVII is a matter of international law. And international law does not give the US any presumptive right to impose its domestic tax reporting regime within Canadian territory. As noted by one international law scholar:
‘… For there is clearly no general rule of international law granting all states extraterritorial
rights in other states. If among any particular states extraterritorial rights exist, they either
stem from a treaty or from special customary practice that amounts to consent on the part of the territorial state….’”
“… the defendant’s position relies on seeking to locate the IGA within an emerging “international consensus” on automatic information exchange, from which it actually radically departs. In all other examples of this emerging consensus, information is only automatically exchanged where the individual maintains an Fl account in the disclosing jurisdiction and there is an indication of actual residence in the receiving jurisdiction. This is the same basis upon which information has been automatically exchanged between Canada and the US for decades prior to the IGA. In this situation, the taxpayer is doing something international, by banking or investing in a foreign jurisdiction. By contrast, the plaintiffs are banking and investing at home. While one might legitimately believe there is a heightened risk of avoidance or evasion where a taxpayer maintains foreign FI accounts, there is no such indicia of increased risk to justify the disclosure of Canadian FI information of Canadian residents…”
“…The defendants’ attempt to paint the IGA itself as extrinsic evidence of a broader intention of the parties in agreeing to Article XXVII is without evidentiary foundation. In fact, as set out in the Supplemental Report of Allison Christians, the IGA is not an agreement between the same “parties” to the Convention since, on the US side, it has not been submitted for ratification to the US Senate, which was a party to the Convention. Indeed, the constitutional validity of the IGA in the US is dubious, and that validity is a matter currently being litigated there…”
— Almost one year ago, on August 11, 2014, Litigator Joseph Arvay filed a FATCA IGA lawsuit in Canada Federal Court on behalf of Plaintiffs Ginny and Gwen, the Alliance for the Defence of Canadian Sovereignty (en français), and all peoples. See Alliance’s Claims, our Alliance blog, and AUGUST 4-5 SUMMARY TRIAL FILINGS in LITIGATION UPDATES.
YOU ALREADY DONATED $465,000 FOR LEGAL FEES BUT WE NEED $29,310 MORE TO MAKE THE $100,000 AUGUST 4 PAYMENT FOR GINNY AND GWEN’S FATCA IGA LAWSUIT.
You can SEND DONATIONS by cheque, cash, PayPal, and transfers. Vos dons de $ 25 sont utiles.
Nous poursuivons le gouvernement du Canada car il refuse de protéger ses propres citoyens contre des préjudices causés par un gouvernement étranger. NE LAISSONS PAS NOTRE ADVERSAIRE GAGNER.