Canadian FATCA IGA lawsuit: February 1, 2015 legal bill will be paid on time! / Poursuite canadienne contre la FATCA et le gouvernement canadien : nos frais légaux du 1er février 2015 seront payés à temps !

UPDATE January 24, 2015: THIRD OF FIVE LEGAL BILLS PAID
On August 11, 2014, Constitutional 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 worldwide. Read Alliance’s Claims and comment on our Alliance blog.

Chers amis et donateurs,
Ensemble, nous avons atteint notre but : ramasser les fonds nécessaires pour payer la troisième des cinq factures légales de notre poursuite judiciaire.
Ramasser 300 000 $ provenant de petits dons est un exploit tout à fait extraordinaire et nous invitons notre gouvernement canadien, ainsi que tous les autres gouvernements qui ont piétiné les droits de leurs citoyens, à en prendre bonne note.
Chaque jour, nous nous rapprochons de notre but. Déjà, nous avons ramassé plus de la moitié des fonds nécessaires pour payer les frais légaux de notre poursuite contre le gouvernement canadien et l’entente FATCA.
Si nous avons parcouru un si grand bout de chemin, c’est grâce à nos deux courageuses plaignantes, Ginny et Gwen, à nos donateurs provenant du Canada et de partout dans le monde, ainsi qu’aux administrateurs des sites Internet Isaac Brock Society et Maple Sandbox. Ils permettent tous à nos voix d’être entendues.
Merci !
L’équipe de l’ADSC

———————————————————————————————–

Dear Friends and Supporters,
Together we have reached our goal of paying off the third of five retainer fees for our Canadian FATCA IGA lawsuit.
Raising $300,000 from small donations is a pretty amazing achievement and we ask the Government of Canada, and those other governments who have also tossed away rights of their citizens, to take notice.
It’s still a marathon, but we are more than half way to pay off the Federal Court legal costs.
We have come so far because of our brave Plaintiffs, Ginny and Gwen, our Canadian and International donor-supporters, and the administrators of the Isaac Brock and Maple Sandbox websites who make it possible for our voices to be heard.
Thank you all,
—The ADCS-ADSC team

61 thoughts on “Canadian FATCA IGA lawsuit: February 1, 2015 legal bill will be paid on time! / Poursuite canadienne contre la FATCA et le gouvernement canadien : nos frais légaux du 1er février 2015 seront payés à temps !

  1. The website may be about living free, but they are certainly charging for their education courses. Lofty name, but it seems to me that the site exists to make money. Just on the opposite side of the FATCA toadies.

  2. It may be a good idea, to make certain the Canadian lawsuit is funded before you spend money on a US lawyer. In addition, it is important to see if US government punishes countries and bank that do not sign IGA or agreement.

  3. There may be only a small number of active resisters but I believe there are many who are against FATCA. Most people are too frightened to come out of hiding and fear is a major weapon of the US/IRS . I hope that they (the fearful) would at least send an anonymous donation. Because we have connections through Isaac Brock, ADCS and the Maple Sandbox we do not have to feel alone in this. I am thankful for the few who stand up to this tyranny.

    1. PatCanadian,
      You say that at present there may be only a small number of active (you mean vocal on Brock or Sandbox?) resisters. This could be true.
      But my question is different. I just want to know what MOST Canadians will do when FATCA turns them over to the IRS. Will they comply, because they do not want to resist a foreign law imposed on them, or will they quietly resist?

    2. Stephen Kish,
      On a personal level, I will resist by becoming a non US person, contributing to ADCS and promoting anti-FATCA coverage in my local media. As well, closing accounts at the big banks and moving to LCB credit unions has been helpful. I have no intention of contributing even two Canadian cents to the US/IRS. FATCA and CBT are unjust and extraterritorial laws. Non-compliance is the only way to go for me.
      It will be interesting to see what MOST Canadians (you mean US person Canadians?) will do when FATCA compliant banks and credit unions turn them over to the IRS. According to fully compliant FI’s, there is currently reporting on new accounts of suspect US persons. This will extend in the near future to existing accounts. I cannot speak for these other Canadians but chances are good that they will eventually receive the dreaded IRS letters. We will see what happens then.

  4. Our lawsuit had a brief mention in a Daily Mail article in the UK:

    In Canada, where there are many people with dual US-Canadian nationality, the Alliance for the Defence of Canadian Sovereignty accused Ottawa of infringing on their rights by signing a FATCA accord with Washington.

  5. Is Ginny willing to submit her advice to Boris Johnson to Robert Wood at Forbes or to another journalist who is reporting on this?
    Is it possible to make a PDF of Ginny’s letter and post it here and at Brock in a separate thread so it does not get buried as you update this thread?
    That would allow us to Tweet it and distribute it without being concerned that the link will connect to each update rather than to Ginny’s letter.

  6. Am unable to connect to isaacbrocksociety.ca since early this morning ….maybe even since last night. Wondering what is going on. Any ideas?

    1. nervousinvestor and anyone else re Brock site,
      I’ve sent an email to Petros to see if I can determine. Will let you know if / when I hear back.

  7. If anyone has any question about how our government will treat us in court, read Lawsuit Against Government “biggest battle” of Canadian veteran’s life.
    After 33 years in the military, losing both his legs and a testicle and shattering an eardrum in his final tour in Afghanistan, a Canadian veteran is now fighting his own government in court. (The government is appealing a lower court ruling in favour of the veterans).

    “I come home and I find that, honestly, the biggest battle I’ve ever faced in my entire life is here at home against my very own government.”

    Remember, that veteran represents a group the Cons purport to love. We are merely “American citizens abiding here in Canada.” (Secretary of State for Finance)
    Our battle will be long, brutal and costly. Fight back with your donations.

  8. The funniest thing about the U.S. deeming all descendents of U.S. citizens to be American, is that eventually the whole world will be. Consider the picture I have attached just for Canada. If 1 million accidental Americans exist in Canada today out of a population of 35 million, then within 5 generations most Canadians will be deemed Americans, and within 8 generations all Canadians will also be deemed to be American (excluding new immigrants).

    1. This is actually prevented by a residency requirement. A child born outside the US is a US citizen if one parent is a US citizen AND has lived a certain period of time in the US before the birth of the child. (The formula is a bit complicated.) Hence, a US citizen born outside the US cannot pass on US citizenship to his/her own child without having lived a period of time in the US itself.

  9. I don’t know if the latest Supreme Court judge will be on our side or not. Suzanne Cote tried to claim over $200,000 in clothing expenses.
    The Cons seem to be trying to stack the courts with like minds. Tories appoint two conservative law professors as judges in Ontario.
    This statement is alarming:

    A senior judicial source, who also did not wish to be named, was also critical. “If you were trying to identify the leading constitutional scholars of the far right, you’d probably have Grant Huscroft at the top of the list,” the source said, calling him “anti-Charter [of Rights] and basically, anti-equality rights.”

  10. It would have been useful to quote from the rest of Mr. Berg’s article, whose whole point is that this lawsuit may result in a Pyrrhic victory. Without the IGA, FATCA will still be there but banks will have to deal directly with the IRS. This may result in much worse conditions for Americans in Canada, such as 30% withholdings and account closures. I admire the courage of Ginny and Gwen, but I think this lawsuit is a great mistake.

    1. This government nor any other government will not in a million years invoke the notwithstanding clause on this or any other issue. If you think otherwise you are dreaming.
      On the subject of a constitutional amendment. I don’t know what to say all I can do is laugh.

  11. Richard: First, we are NOT “Americans in Canada.” We are Canadians. Why is that so hard to understand?
    Second, if our lawsuit succeeds, Canadian banks would be violating Canadian laws by identifying Canadians based on a foreign place of birth and reporting their private legal accounts to a foreign government.
    What do you think is the answer to ensure Canadians born in the U.S. have the same rights as all other Canadians?

    1. Do you really think that if the IGA falls, Canadian banks will just refuse to comply with FATCA and we’ll all live happily after? That’s not going to happen—the banks do way too much US business, and Canada’s economy is too intertwined with that of the US. If the IGA is found to violate Canadian law, the government will change the law. If the IGA violates the Charter, the government will invoke the notwithstanding clause, or even propose a constitutional amendment. There’s just too much money at stake. One way or another we’ll end up with the same conditions as the IGA, or worse. The only real hope is that the Republicans will repeal this FATCA nonsense.
      There is a lot of (quite justified) anger on this website, but virtually no thought about what would happen the morning after the lawsuit succeeds.

  12. @Richard: I love those words: “The morning after the lawsuit succeeds.”
    Constitutional amendment? Remember Meech Lake?

    1. Lynne, you are avoiding an answer to my main points. The US wields overwhelming financial power, and when faced with such power, you make the least bad deal you can get. That’s what Flaherty did–no account closures, no personal 30% withholding, all registered plans exempt. If the lawsuit succeeds, the likely alternatives to this are worse. That was the point of the Berg article, from which Sandbox cherry-picked one tiny quote. The IGA is the lesser evil.

  13. @richard
    i for one certainly hope the lawsuit succeeds. it will send a strong message to the gov’t and the banks that they have no right to treat me as a second class citizen and discriminate based on where i was born.
    if the lawsuit suceeds it will start the ball rolling down the hill and bring down the iga in canada and with any luck all around the world and FATCA can then kiss my a@@!!! once and for all.

  14. Richard,
    You seem to think that this is only an issue of money. Have you considered how difficult administering these IGAs will be? How the US may react when it realizes it simply is not going to get enough to make it worth it? How about what changes other nations may contemplate should someone achieve even a partial victory against this gross extractive measure of the U.S.? How about what may happen should the appeal of the Florida and Texas bankers succeed? How about the reaction of other nations when they see the US will not reciprocate (as limited as such a response would be anyway). How SCOTUS ruling that FATCA is unconstitutional? Other nations begin trading in other currencies than the USD? How about if we actually come up with a solution that is better suited than what we have now? There are many, many situations that may arise between now and the many years it may take before this is over.
    The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not something to just throw by the wayside because it doesn’t suit the Americans or the Canadian banking industry. It is also noted that those who stand to make a great deal of money, such as tax lawyers, would not spend any energy whatsoever, to help come up with a solution that respects what Canada is and is meant to be. Peter Hogg certainly felt signing the IGA was wrong for Canada. If an issue ends up in the Supreme Court of Canada, your advice would be to just ignore what is behind that?
    There is nothing particularly special in the “concessions” Canada “received.” Take a look at what other countries got:
    http://www.groom.com/media/publication/1224_Cumulative_List_of_Non-US_Pension_Funds_Exempted_by_FATCA_Intergovernmental_Agreements__IGAs__April_30_2014.pdf
    Like Mr. Berg, you seem to think nothing can change in the interim and that US law automatically will win the day. That is to be expected from someone who has not been in Canada long enough to appreciate that we are not simply some appendage to the U.S. Perhaps somewhere down the road, should Mr. Berg become Canadian, he may come to appreciate why we do not accept his point of view, nor yours.
    One does not just give in and back down from a challenge because one’s enemy is a thug. Some of us are from families who fought back when the British tried to force their policies down our throats when we left in the 1680’s. It is only right that we should fight back now. You can count on the fact that we will.

  15. @Richard: As law professor Arthur Cockfield said “We’re a democracy, a sovereign country.” He also suggested Canada “either could have or still can do a better job of protecting Canadian interests.”
    There are many things Canada and other countries could have done but didn’t. Instead, they all chose to sacrifice their own citizens and legal residents to a foreign bully.
    As Chief Jingo of Canada, I demand that my government stand up for Canadian laws, rights, constitution, citizens, residents and sovereignty.
    Are you a patriotic Canadian citizen?

  16. A couple of points, Richard:
    1. That 30% withholding is a hollow threat with respect to Canada; it would likely never happen. Why? Canada is one of the US’ most steadfast allies and applying economic sanctions more suitable to dealing with Russia would seriously harm that relationship. The US knows that Canada is no tax haven and they know FATCA will not result in any significant new tax revenue. Destroying the Canada/US relationship for absolutely no gain is simply not worth it to the US. In the unlikely event withholding did happen, Canada would immediately retaliate with some countervailing 30% withholding of it’s own. Neither government wants to go down that road.
    2. 30% of what? For those whose assets are entirely in Canada the US can’t withhold anything. Those who do have US source income are already subject to withholding, usually at the treaty rate of 15%. The FATCA 30% rate may violate the tax treaty. And what happens when the government makes a mistake and hands over info on someone they shouldn’t? They’ll lose that lawsuit as well.
    3. The withholding is arguably illegal under NAFTA and could be challenged under the dispute resolution provisions in that agreement.
    4. Information exchange is already covered under the existing US/Canada tax treaty. If the IRS needs information there is a well established system already in place so FATCA provides nothing new in that regard.
    5. Whether the FATCA IGA stands in Canada or not, violating our own laws to enforce some foreign country’s extra-territorial laws is simply a very bad precedent. What’s next? Handing over Canadians to Syria? (Already happened and we know how that one worked out…the government lost big time.) It’s not that hard a concept. These people are Canadian citizens entitled to the same rights as every other Canadian. Period. I hope the lawsuit succeeds but even if it doesn’t it will certainly shine the light of day on a very bad law.
    6. I like “the morning after the lawsuit succeeds” as well. Do you know something the rest of us don’t?

    1. maz57: You’ve written an interesting and thoughtful reply. I’m not yet persuaded, but it’s good to read a well-reasoned argument for the lawsuit. You may be right about the 30% withholding—I hope so. And your point 5 is a good explanation of the moral underpinnings of the lawsuit, without descending into questioning people’s patriotism as some other posters do. I wrote my remarks partly out of frustration that many postings on Sandbox are long on emotion and short on reasoning; your reply is very welcome.

  17. @Richard says, “The US wields overwhelming financial power, and when faced with such power, you make the least bad deal you can get.”
    I’m supporting the ADCS lawsuit because I refuse to surrender Canadian sovereignty to US bully tactics. Defeating the FATCA IGA will call their bluff on their threat to enforce FATCA with a 30% withholding tax on Canadian financial institutions. If the Canadian Supreme Court rules that the IGA violates Canadian law, the US would reveal blatant economic imperialism by enforcing its FATCA law on us, their largest trading partner, anyway. I dare them to do that!

    1. Dear Richard.
      I, too, am emotional about this issue. I have an adult son who is ENTRAPPED into a US-defined US citizenship. I say my Canadian-born son (to two US citizen parents) is ONLY Canadian. He has never lived in the US. He has never had any benefit from the US. I am told by the Calgary US Consulate and the Department of State, Legal and a immigration/nationality lawyer in Washington, DC that he cannot renounce that (never claimed US-defined US citizenship. Makes no difference, it is, says the US, automatic). A parent, a guardian or a trustee of such a person without ‘requisite mental capacity’ does not have the right to renounce on behalf of such a person, even with a court order. Thus, some very vulnerable Canadians are entrapped into very, very expensive US tax law and accounting professional help to be able to comply with very complex US tax and reporting requirements. My son as other *US Persons* in Canada will be searched out by our local CANADIAN “foreign financial institutions” that have become arms of the IRS, to turn over private financial information to the CRA to in turn be sent to the IRS. This makes my son and all other US-defined “US Persons in Canada” second class to any other Canadians, no matter their national origin or the national origin of their parents or grandparents.
      “Accidental Americans” who were born in the US to OTHER-COUNTRY parents but who left the US with their parents to their parents’ own country when they were infants or MINOR children OR children born to US parent(s) IN OTHER COUNTRIES, again MINOR children with no say in where or to whom they were born, are unwitting victims of unfair US tax law. If there is a law with all the consequences of such, including expense of actual compliance or draconian penalties for erring with the complexity of citizenship-based taxation of the US, it should never come with such absurd and unfair ramifications to these “Accidental Americans”.
      Those who are “Accidental Americans” don’t have / didn’t have the choices that I had and I made by becoming a Canadian citizen in 1975 (and being told at that time that I would be losing my US citizenship in doing so) and then in 2012 having to formally renounce my US citizenship to finally obtain a Certificate of Loss of Nationality to prove to my local Canadian “foreign financial institution” (as the policy of the US changed but was not effectively communicated) that I am only a Canadian.
      I maintain that with US citizenship-based taxation law, all “Accidental Americans” should absolutely have a choice — a claim. Until *CLAIMED* as an adult with ‘requisite mental capacity’, it should be THE SAME AS NOTHING! To entrap “Accidental Americans” into having to comply with US CBT law (and entrap even more deeply those without the mental capacity, unable to renounce their US-defined US citizenship and all the ongoing consequences of that fact) is not something any country should be proud of. If there is such a thing as citizenship-based taxation (when the rest of the world, save Eritrea) practices residence-based taxation, then that US law should not be such that it would entrap one such person into a US-defined US citizenship. The US needs to get in step with the countries of the rest of the world who practice residence-based taxation.
      Something is very wrong with such consequences.
      From the U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7: Consular Affairs:
      “It is a generally recognized rule, often REGARDED AS A RULE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, that when a person who is a dual national is residing in either of the countries of nationality, the person owes paramount allegiance to that country, and that country has the right to assert its claim without interference from the other country.”
      US hypocrisy is staggering. There is becoming more awareness of the absurdity for “Accidental Americans” in the same position as now a *wealthy* and famous mayor of a major city of this world.
      I have no representation in the US, just in Canada. I am very emotional about Canada treating some of its most vulnerable citizens in the manner of my son for whom any small inheritance could end up being paid to the US IRS. Note: Canadian registered accounts ARE NOT *exempt* as stated by the Conservative government. I have already paid the IRS US$3,661 for the Canadian Registered Disability Savings Plan that I hold for my son. Over and above that (my only owed US tax), it cost me over $42,000 to US tax law, accounting and immigration / nationality professionals to erase my connection to the US (which I was warned in 1975 I would lose by becoming a Canadian citizen). Yes, I am very emotional about this.

  18. Emotional? Yeah, I am. That’s what happens when my very identity is called into question. I have identified with being a Canadian – only – for over 35 years. In fact, I’ve felt Canadian pretty much since I came to Canada as a 6 year old. To now have what I consider a foreign government try to yank that from me, to be told I am an ‘American living in Canada’, simply because I was born in the U.S. is an affront to who I am.
    I truly don’t know what will happen once we win the lawsuit. I am not particularly politically savvy, nor am I a financial whiz. However, what I hope for is that our government realizes just how wrong it is to treat certain Canadians differently based upon their place of birth (or from having other ties to another country). I hope that our government officials go back to the negotiating table, and using those close financial and political ties with the U.S., strike a new deal that gives ALL Canadian citizens the same rights and protections, and going forward, protects Canadian citizens from any country that might come knocking on our door.
    I simply can’t divorce my emotions from this issue. I support the lawsuit because I feel so very strongly that what our government has agreed to is just wrong. I have nothing to do with the U.S., no investment income, no property, no nothing, so I’m not supporting the lawsuit out of personal financial reasons, but because, sadly, I feel that someone has to show our elected government officials that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is meaningful.
    I believed, and still believe, in it. I just wish our government did.

  19. The current IGA is not “the least bad deal you can get” as @Richard said. The Canadian government could and should have insisted that the financial accounts of Canadian citizens and permanent residents be exempted from FATCA reporting. For whatever reasons (I can only speculate. Was it the Keystone pipeline perhaps?), the Harper government simply surrendered an important part of Canadian sovereignty and tried to hide what it was doing.

  20. @Richard: The question about your citizenship arose from your reference to “Americans in Canada.’
    Perhaps you are an “American in Canada.”
    Many (most!) of us here are not. We are Canadians. We believe in fundamental Canadian rights and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We believe Canada should protect its citizens and residents from draconian foreign demands.
    I make no apologies for being passionate about it.
    It is that “emotion” in many that has helped to raise the money we need to defend ourselves and support Ginny and Gwen in representing us.

  21. @Richard…I agree with Lynne. We make no apologies for being passionate about this. This is an emotional issue. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms needs to be respected.
    And I agree with Outraged Canadian. There is no need to divorce our emotions from this issue. We need to be in touch with those emotions.
    As a suspect “US Person” by the IRS, I considered myself “simply Canadian”. I tried to establish my relinquishment with the US Consulate. They did not accept it because I had mistakenly travelled a few times on a US passport after becoming a Canadian Citizen, not realizing the implications. And the State Department wants to collect their extortionist fee. So shortly before Christmas, I renounced…at last a free person.
    We all need to stand up to unjust extraterritorial laws infringing on Canadian Sovereignty and that of many other countries. The United States is not just a financial and military giant. It is especially dangerous because the US has lost its moral compass.
    I support the lawsuit which fights this injustice. I think we all would like to live in a free Canada as well.

  22. Murray MacLauchlan’s “Let the Good Guys Win” has been my favourite New Year’s song (one of my favourite songs, period) since it came out in the 80s … and it comes to my mind in this context as well.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vwSiBxstEc
    “Ring the old year out,
    Ring the new year in,
    Bring us all good luck,
    Let the good guys win!”
    Better yet, this year MAKE the good guys win! – CONTRIBUTE to ADCS-ADSC!
    Happy new year and freedom to all!

  23. Wow. It’s great to see that thermometer take a red hot jump and the amount needed to take a huge plunge today.
    Thank you everyone who has donated to make this happen.
    We still need more. If you have not already donated, please do so now. February 1 is only 18 days away and we still need over $24,000 for that payment.

  24. These stories of donors continue to amaze me everyday.
    A struggling single mother donating $25 three times, a retiree in Poland forced to return to work donating to our cause, a native Canadian father donating from his family’s planned Disney vacation fund and more.
    Through it all, it’s the Little People who are doing it while those with Deep Pockets ignore us. Mind boggling.
    Many thanks to all the Little People around the world. Together we will do this.

  25. Forgive me if someone has already connected these dots, but I am very heartened by today’s news that Canada’s Supreme Court has ruled that the Mounties have the right to form a union if they wish, and that the legislation banning the Mounties from doing so (dating back to the 1960s) violates the Charter guarantees of freedom of association.
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rcmp-officers-have-right-to-collective-bargaining-supreme-court-rules-1.2912340
    The decision was 6-1, and of the 7 sitting justices, three (yes 3) are Harper appointees. Even his own appointees are putting the Charter rights of Canadians ahead of political ideology and/or expediency.
    The court was particularly not impressed by the government arguments about national security and safety requiring restriction on the Mounties’ bargaining and association rights. I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to extend that argument to the claims that the government had no choice on the IGA because the banks have over-exposed themselves to investment in and bullying by the US.
    There has been a string of Supreme Court decisions recently which, on Charter matters, have decisively rebuffed the current federal government and legislation that contravenes Charter protections.
    That encourages me to believe that if the FATCA/IGA Charter challenge gets to the Supreme Court, if not before, there is an excellent chance that Harper, Finance, Justice and the CBA may very well have the IGA rug yanked out from under their feet.
    Donate to the Charter challenge fund (ADCS fund) to help make this happen. We can do it, folks!

  26. Thanks Schubert. That decision may not seem to be directly related to us, but Joe Arvay took a matter to the Supreme Court involving collective bargaining rights and won. In 2007, he convinced them to reverse their own decision from 20years earlier.
    In Civil Warror article, Walrus Magazine said:

    Arvay has a habit of proving the Supreme Court of Canada wrong when it comes to its dealings with the Charter. Most dramatically, he did this in 2007, when he convinced the court to overturn a trilogy of cases that denied unions the right to collective bargaining.

    in that same article, another prominent constitutional expert, Peter Hogg, said this about Joe:

    “I was astonished when that case came out. I doubt that anyone but Joe could have persuaded the court that they had been getting it consistently wrong for twenty years.”

    So, Joe may very well have laid the foundation for the RCMP decision. He takes on tough cases. He has an impressive record before the Supreme Court.
    Peter Hogg also said this about Joe:

    “If Joe loses a case, which must happen from time to time, I think everyone will assume that there was just no way to win it.”

    I think many people agree Joe Arvay is the best. That is why he is so expensive. That is why we need money to pay him.
    It is great to see the amount needed before February 1 has fallen below $20,000. Please keep those donations coming!

  27. Mercury Rising on that Sovereignty thermometer. Thanks everyone and please keep those donations coming–especially if you have not donated yet. We need everyone in this battle.

  28. Mercury soaring today!
    Too bad that British nobleperson wasn’t Boris
    Johnson.
    In also hope to win the lottery to help Ginny and Gwen help all of us.

  29. I buy lottery tickets when I can, but it’s a toss up – save that $3 to put toward the FATCA fight fund, or spend it in the hopes of winning the lottery and footing the whole bill for the fight! I have donated again this month what I can. I hope everyone else does as well.

  30. Thanks, Stephen, for your update and the close of this successful chapter of our fundraising for justice for Gwen and Ginny — and all others. And, for all of your work keeping us focused on the deadline. I suppose that thermometer is now bursting — or we are ready to start the next visual of our efforts.
    My / our next donations will now be for the upcoming (continuing) march to getting the Canadian case before a court of Canadian law.
    It is with my grateful heart that I, too, thank everyone here, from ALL OVER THE WORLD, for your show of confidence and your role in our shared achievement.

  31. The mercury soared over the top!
    Thanks everyone for your support and efforts. A very special thanks to Stephen for all his hard work.
    Together we will do this! On to the next step.

  32. I am sad to see that Boris has paid his IRS bill. I filed and had nothing to pay, but if I owed, there is no way I would pay. I would gladly refrain from setting foot on US soil.

    1. I am not convinced he paid much if anything.  The headlines scream he paid.  His spokesperson says simply “The matter has been dealt with.”

      i I suspect he cut a sweetheart deal. He has probably been told by lawyers and accountants to shut his mouth.

      There is still the issue of FATCA.  Will his UK bank FATCA Boris?  What about accounts for the City of London over which he has signing authority?

      We need Boris and other Deep Pockets to help in this fight.

  33. I truly hope our gov’t officials are taking notice! This is an amazing feat that we have done. I realize it’s not over, but really, that we regular folks have been able to raise the money to keep this going should put our govt on notice that we’re fighting mad, and we”re not backing down.
    Harper! Pay attention! People are watching what you do and you can’t just wave aside Canadian rights to satisfy your cronies.

  34. @ Lynne
    I have never heard of the IRS backing off on what they think is owed to them. My information is that even bankruptcy does not get you off the hook, as it eventually will with Revenue Canada. I suspect that Boris wrote a cheque to hush things up. He does have higher political ambitions.
    He is also a writer, which means he depends on royalties. Any of those royalty transactions that may be routed through the states would be garnisheed.
    But you may be right. He supported Obama in 2008. Obama treats his supporters nicely, even if they owe taxes. Al Sharpton owes $4.5 million and still has been invited to the White House about 60 times.
    Interesting that there was talk of arresting Boris if he showed up in the States. I have never heard talk of plans to arrest Sharpton.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.