Have the slightest US taint? “The U.S. Government OWNS you.” @ADCSovereignty #FATCA lawsuit aims to free you!

The above tweet references a Financial Post article by @JamieGolembek. In a world where FBAR is the new symbol of U.S. citizenship and Americans abroad live in a fiscal prison, you will find the comments are far more interesting. See for example this comment by David Zimmerly. This comment should be circulated far and wide!

It is time to quit tinkering with the symptoms and deal with the disease! It’s called Citizenship-Based Taxation (CBT) and it is America’s utterly immoral system of financial slavery that it imposes on ANYONE with the slightest American taint, no matter where they live in the world. Born in the U.S. and moved to Canada as a baby or young child? Born in Canada and have one parent who was born in the U.S.? Ever stick an expired Green Card in a drawer and forget about it? Well guess what – the U.S. Government OWNS you, and hasn’t forgotten. You’ve been very naughty since you ran away from the plantation, so now you must be found and punished, along with your spouse and children. Yes, it is exactly like that.

FATCA, the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, is the enforcement and sanctions tool for CBT and it is an abomination that the Government of Canada signed-up for in 2014 under the Conservatives and which the new Liberal government supports. Under FATCA, Canada’s privacy laws and Charter of Rights and Freedoms have been completely subverted to force Canadian financial institutions and the CRA to become unpaid bounty hunters for the IRS. They are now searching high and low for CANADIAN CITIZENS whose only “crime” is to have had the misfortune of an American connection. In the process, they are incurring hundreds of millions of dollars in costs which they are now stealthily passing-on to ALL Canadians in the form of higher banking fees.

We keep hearing ad nauseum from this new Liberal government how “A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian”, yet they have sided with the former Conservative government in branding us as “American citizens abiding in Canada”. We have become second-class citizens in our own country with the stroke of a pen. If only other Canadians understood just how painful it was for us to watch Justin Trudeau’s and Barack Obama’s hollow platitudes of mutual admiration and respect last week, knowing that at least one-million Canadians have been bartered between their respective governments. It is astonishing that the Liberals have advocated so forcefully for the rights of other immigrants to retain the protections of their precious Canadian citizenship, yet they are not only allowing the United States to now claim us as their chattel but are actively aiding and abetting their efforts to hunt us down.

Our only possible recourse is to continue our Charter challenge in the Federal and Supreme Courts, for we are clearly being discriminated against on the basis of our national origin. We have raised over half a million dollars in an international grassroots campaign to fight for the restitution of our basic Charter and human rights, and we will ultimately prevail. Please visit adcs-adsc.ca and isaacbrocksociety.ca for more information.

In the meantime, I have no idea how members of the rapidly-metastasizing FATCA compliance industry, like the author of this article, can possibly sleep at night. They do nothing to advocate for the repeal of these indefensible laws, but they gladly profit from them. They should hang their heads in shame.

Advertisements
Tagged with: , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized

Why the S. 877A(g)(1)(B) “dual citizen exemption” encourages dual citizens from birth to remain US citizens and others (except @SenTedCruz) to renounce

cross-posted from citizenshipsolutions.ca

Ted Cruz was born in 1971 in Canada. He was therefore born a Canadian citizen. He claims to have been born to a U.S. citizen mother and was therefore a U.S. citizen by birth. (Whether he qualifies as a “
natural born citizen
” is a different question.) As a Canadian citizen he had the right (prior to renouncing Canadian citizenship) to live in Canada. Had Mr. Cruz, moved back to Canada, he could have avoided the U.S. S. 877A Exit Tax. Incredible but true. It will be interesting to see whether Mr. Cruz regrets renouncing his Canadian citizenship. As you will see, by renouncing Canadian citizenship, Mr. Cruz surrendered his right to avoid the United States S. 877A Exit Tax.

Here is why …

The S. 877A Exit Tax rules in the Internal Revenue Code, are the most punitive in relation to U.S. citizens living outside the United States (AKA Americans abroad). To put it simply, with respect to Americans abroad, the S. 877A Exit Tax rules:

– operate to confiscate assets that are located in other nations; and

– operate to confiscate assets that were acquired by U.S. citizens after they moved from the United States.

There is not and has never been an “Exit Tax” anywhere else that operates in this way. The application of the S. 877A Exit Tax to assets located in other nations, is both an example of “American Exceptionalism” at its finest and a strong deterrent to exercising the right of expatriation granted in the “Expatriation Act of 1868“.

But, the “Exit Tax” applies ONLY to “Covered Expatriates” and “dual citizens from birth” can avoid being “Covered Expatriates”

As has been previously discussed, the Exit Tax applies ONLY to “ covered expatriates“. There are two statutory defenses to becoming a “covered expatriate”. This post is to discuss the “dual citizen from birth” defense to being treated as a “covered expatriate”. I have discovered that this defense is NOT as well known or understood as it should be.

The statute granting the “dual citizen from birth” defense to “Covered Expatriate” status reads as follows:

Read more ›

Posted in Uncategorized

Because, Not All “Accidental Americans” Are The Same! Important for @ADCSovereignty #FATCA lawsuit

It’s unjust, it’s inhumane, I didn’t choose where I was born!

We are in year five of the Obama administration’s attempt to drag the citizens and residents of other countries into the U.S. tax net. To put it simply through FATCA (“exciting new changes in Canadian law”), a Media blitz  (“Are you a U.S. Citizen, it’s time to check”), and the compliance industry (“Welcome to the U.S. Tax System”), millions of people with a “U.S. place of birth” are worried.  Why are they worried?

Facts are stubborn things – The simple FATCA of the matter is:

1.     Those born in the United States begin life as U.S. citizens.

2.     All U.S. citizens are subject to the provisions of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code which has the practical effect of taxing people based on “place of birth”.

3.     We live in a world where people have multiple citizenships and commonly change their residence from one country to another. This includes moving from their country of birth.

4.     Because the United States employs “place of birth” taxation, the United States has the ability to impose direct taxation on the citizens and residents of other nations (who happen to have been born in the United States).

5.     By imposing “place of birth” taxation on the citizens and residents of other nations, the United States is perfecting the art of transferring the capital of other nations to the United States Treasury.

6.     The cumulative effect of this state of affairs is that  U.S. “place of birth” taxation coupled with FATCA has developed into a severe interference with the sovereignty of Canada and other nations.

7.     Sooner or later (probably later) the world will understand that U.S. “place of birth taxation”, is being used to extend the U.S. tax base into other nations. Should those nations object, the United States would refer to the “savings clause” in the Tax Treaty, which guarantees the right of the United States to impose taxation on those “residents and citizens” of other nations who were “Born In The USA”.

8.     In other words, over time, the effect of U.S. “place of birth” taxation enforced by FATCA could be to allow the U.S. to “colonize the world”.
Read more ›

Tagged with: , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized

John Richardson on CTV “Power Play” with Don Martin today

UPDATE:  The full interview segment with John is now available on the Isaac Brock Society YouTube channel  

 

 

 
John Richardson will be interviewed today by Don Martin on CTV’s Power Play.The show airs from 5:00 – 6:00 pm EDT. We expect his segment to be somewhere around the 5:30 pm mark. Please pass the word, particularly to those who may not appreciate the reality of this situation.

 
PODCAST (audio only)

View the video online need a Bell Media account
 

With thanks to our resident expert Deckard1138 for capturing, editing and posting this!

 

Posted in Uncategorized

Discussion at @Canada2020 on Canada Foreign Policy of interest in @ADCSovereignty #FATCA lawsuit

On January 28, 29/16 I attended the Canada 2020 “Building A Foreign Policy For Canada’s Future” forum. It was enormously interesting (apparently you will be able to view the sessions online – “Full Conference Video Coming Shortly”). I would recommend it.

Read more ›

Tagged with: , ,
Posted in Uncategorized

John Richardson – CBC Interview on #FATCA – January 19, 2016

This is also discussed on the Isaac Brock Society. Stephen Kish included the following on his “ADCS Funding update post“:

 

LISTEN TO THE EIGHT MINUTE LONG CBC RADIO INTERVIEW WITH ADCS LEGAL COUNSEL JOHN RICHARDSON:

JUNE 25, 2015: Liberal Party Leader Justin Trudeau sends pre-election letter to a Canadian citizen Ms. Lynne Swanson, saying: “The Government of Canada has the responsibility to stand up for its citizens when foreign governments are encroaching on its rights. We believe that the [FATCA] deal reached between Canada and the U.S. is insufficient to protect the affected Canadians.”

January 20, 2016: Mr Trudeau now heads Government of Canada. We were waiting a long time for the press to take notice, but CBC finally compares the pre-election statements of Mr. Trudeau with his post-election FATCA behaviour. Interviewer asks our Legal Counsel: “Were you encouraged with what the Liberals were saying?” John responds: “Yes, certainly grounds for optimism…” and then he reads (like reading scripture) the Prime Minister’s June 25 statement that the FATCA IGA does not protect Canadian citizens.

January 21, 2016: Conservatives, Liberals, our lawsuit continues. Listen again to the radio interview.

John Richardson

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tagged with: , ,
Posted in Uncategorized

How the government will argue Charter S. 1 against the @ADCSovereignty Charter lawsuit

Many years ago I became familiar with the story of William Sampson who was a Canadian born engineer who, worked in Saudi Arabia, was tortured in a Saudi Arabian prison, eventually was released and died at very young age. I had the privilege of briefly meeting him. He was actually considering attending law school (and I know that he was accepted by at least one Canadian law school). I highly recommend his book – “Confessions Of An Innocent Man“. To learn more see this documentary.

At the very least …

you will appreciate the importance of rule of law (somehow I don’t think the ADCS Charter challenge would be an option in Saudi Arabia and many other countries.) By the way, I do know that FATCA and U.S. citizenship taxation are causing problems for many Saudi citizens (who by the way are allowed only one citizenship). Many Saudi citizens fear that the imposition of U.S. citizenship will cause problems with both the U.S. Government and the Saudi Government.

This morning I received an email linking me to this article which detailed some of the recent “Saudi human rights abuses”.

Okay, so …

The above references an interesting article that appeared in today’s Globe and Mail. The article was written by Michael Bell who is a Carleton Professor and apparently an adviser to the Trudeau Liberals.

For the record, I am in NO WAY equating the treatment of Canadian citizens  under FATCA with the human rights violations that are alleged to have been committed by the Saudi Government. What I found interesting was the willingness of the writer to tolerate those individual human rights abuses because it was in the common good to do so. What I find particularly interesting (and I hope that I am not being unfair to him) is that he seems to assume that “collective rights” (society) take precedence over “individual rights” (Charter rights). Interesting question. I had always understood that the whole point of a Charter of Rights was to give individually protected Charter rights a priority over group rights (within reason and that’s why S. 1 of the Charter exists).  As I think about the article I wonder whether Mr. Bell would apply the same reasoning to a a gross violation (and NO CANADIAN is subject to the kinds of violations that occur in some other parts of the world) to the rights of Canadian citizens in Canada.

As a reminder, Charter S. 1 provides the template for when the violation of individual rights should be justified. S. 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms reads as follows:

Rights and freedoms in Canada

 The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Those of you who are interested in what this is interpreted to mean should read the Oakes decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. Wikipedia comes to the rescue (maybe) here.

I recommend Mr. Bell’s article (it is quite short) and urge you to read the comments.

I am referring specifically to the following excerpt from  his article:

 

If the Saudi royal family were to fall, it would result in a massive destabilization of the Arabian Peninsula. Does this mean we should write them off in a world when hardball is the only game, where no regional standards meet ours? Are we to write off the interest displayed by the smaller Gulf States – Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates – in acquiring LAVs because of their alleged human rights violations (which are less spectacularly evident in the international media)?

To do so would mean single-issue politics, in this case human rights, should invariably trump all other considerations, including international and regional stability, security and our own economic well-being. If so, we should immediately consider the future of our relationship with other noteworthy human rights violators, perhaps beginning with China.

Unfortunately, we live in a highly imperfect world where it is beyond our capacity to change the primordial behaviour of other states within their own borders, no matter the legitimacy of our concerns. As members of the international community we live in a web of immensely complicated contending interests where to be effective we must be realists.

We have to ask ourselves whether a rough balance of power in the Middle East, as shambolic as it is, better suits Canadian interests than the fall of the Saudi dynasty, which would further destabilize an entire region. These LAVs may just maintain a semblance of equilibrium. Nor can we ignore that this latest deal (we have been selling LAVs to the Saudis for decades) affects 3,000 jobs over 15 years, and is worth $15-billion to the Canadian economy. Hefty penalties would apply were we to renege.

What do you think? Should the Trudeau government sell arms to Saudi Arabia?

Thank you for your continued support. As Stephen continues to report – we do need generous funding to continue.

John Richardson

Tagged with: , ,
Posted in Uncategorized