Monthly Archives: April 2016

Judge Rose dismisses @FATCALawsuit: rules that “case is hereby TERMINATED” – Any harm NOT caused by USG but by foreign banks!

cross-posted from ADCSovereignty blog

Chronology of events …

On July 14, 2015, a post at the Isaac Brock Society, detailed the pleadings in the @FATCALawsuit. In late summer, @FATCALawsuit brought a motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the effects of FATCA on Americans abroad. The Obama administration defended the “injunction application” (in part) on the basis that any harm to Americans abroad was the result of “self-inflicted wounds“. The application was brought before Judge Thomas Rose of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, at Dayton. On September 30, 2015 Judge Rose denied the plaintiffs application for an injunction. On April 25, 2016, Judge Thomas Rose terminated the @FATCALawsuit brought by Jim Bopp and organized by Republicans Overseas.

The complete decision may be read here:


An early response is here:

Screen shot 2016-04-27 at 7.05.36 AM
Continue reading

Hello Kate Young: Be a “Strong Voice”

Here is an e-mail I just sent to my Liberal MP for London West.

She has refused to meet with me since being elected.

Hello Kate.

I am again asking for a meeting to discuss FATCA with you. I again ask you to be a “strong voice” in Parliament for me and other Canadians impacted by this foreign bully law.

I am asking you to provide me with an update on whether you have asked Scott Brison or another Liberal MP to reintroduce the amendment I worked with Mr. Brison’s staff on and that he put forward.

When we spoke, you claimed you had not heard anyone say the Liberals had reversed their previous resistance on FATCA. I then forwarded you articles regarding the Liberal reversal and Garneau and Brison’s endorsement.

If you had any question about your party’s hypocritical reversal, you can find the exact position in testimony of the Minister of National Revenue. Diane LeBouthillier now falsely claims previous strong Liberal objection related to the process and lack of transparency.

You can read her weasel words in the transcript of the April 14 meeting of the Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics Committee.

Or you can watch the Minister’s betrayal of one million Canadians on ParlVu.

Not one of the comments Liberals previously made (attached again) relates to process, transparency or any of the other false claims the Minister made. I don’t know how Brison, Dubourg, Garneau, Trudeau, LeBouthillier and others live with themselves.

Oh wait. I do. Because Liberals clearly believe “A Canadian isn’t a Canadian isn’t a Canadian” when that patriotic Canadian was born in the U.S.

Will you look me in the eye and personally explain this hypocrisy to me? Will you tell me what you did or will do to be a “strong voice” for me?

Or will you just be another Liberal Hypocrite is a Hypocrite is a Hypocrite?

Lynne Swanson

Hello Sukanya Pillay: Will CCLA Work With Us?

I’m not sure why I continue to try to get CCLA in the FATCA Fight. But more than a month ago (March 14), I sent the following to CCLA’s Executive Director, Sukanya Pillay:

Hello Sukanya. It has been six months since you advised you had “commissioned a research memo from a major law firm. When we receive that, when we have assessed their research, and when we are ready, we will respond.” Are you able to provide any update to this?

I am aware CCLA included FATCA in your submission to the UN. I appreciate this submission even though there were some errors and omissions in the submission. When do you expect a response?

It is disappointing CCLA did not include FATCA in your “real change” letter to Prime Minister Trudeau.

It is disappointing that CCLA has not included FATCA in the #CharterFirst campaign. .

It is disappointing CCLA has not issued a statement about FATCA for more than three years.

It is disappointing that CCLA has been mainly silent for two years on the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA).

It is disappointing CCLA has not objected to the passage of a law that overrides all Canadian laws on the demands of a foreign government.

It is disappointing CCLA has not acknowledged or supported the lawsuit against FATCA that is being funded with almost $600,000 raised to date from small donors across Canada and around the globe.

It is disappointing that CCLA seems to believe that Canadian citizens born in the U.S. are second class Canadian citizens with fewer rights than all other Canadians.

I am at a loss to understand why CCLA is not taking an active stance against FATCA with the Canadian government. The involvement of CCLA could help to make a difference for the fundamental rights of one million Canadians and their families.

I hope CCLA will try to help uphold the rights of Canadians born in the United States by:

1. Making a pubic statement about FATCA.
2. Writing to Prime Minister Trudeau, Finance Minister Bill Morneau, Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould and Revenue Minister Dianne LeBouthillier about FATCA.
3. Supporting the FATCA lawsuit by: (a) Making a public statement in support of the lawsuit (b) Applying for intervenor status and (c) Providing resources to the lawsuit.
Will CCLA work with us to uphold the rights of one million Canadians?

When Ms. Pillay … totally ignored that e-mail, I followed up on April 18 by forwarding the above e-mail again with this message:

I’m following up on my follow up of more than a month ago.

Will you respond? Or will you and CCLA continue to ignore the betrayal and violation of fundamental rights of one million Canadians?

There has been no response or even acknowledgement. I think we have the answer. Schubert was right.

“We should have wined and dined the CRA”

Baby Elle’s Nana e-mailed me

“Maybe instead of raising money for a court challenge we should have used the money to wine and dine the CRA.”

Then she gave me the link to CRA execs treated to soirees at private club amid KPMG Probe.

As a retired Human Resources Manager in the public sector, I can tell you this is a very clear conflict of interest and a violation of employment standards and policies.

Even though my experience was in provincial public service, I know ther are very similar standards in the federal public service.

It seems CRA knew about it and simply justified it by saying the employees who attended were not connected to the KPMG case,

As the co-founder of Democracy Watch pointed out, that is irrelevant.

Yet, employees were not only invited–they were REQUIRED to attend. WHAT?!?

That may mean the employees who attended will not be disciplined. But whoever required them to attend should face serious consequences. Why do I suspect they won’t

These are the same folks who think it’s just fine and dandy to FATCA us.