#Tax Service Providers in Canada

[seadeepspaceontheside]

I have seen little to no support for the strike from fellow Canadians about the current Canadian Postal workers who are out there protesting for better work conditions. Canadian Postal workers =/= Canada post. Currently workers are striking for pay that has been stagnated as well as benefits being halted. Some of the things I want to debunk with all anti-worker talk about the strike. 1) "Our tax dollars pay for them! They should just go back to work! They are losing money!" False! They aren't GOVERNMENT JOBS they are a CROWN CORPORATION, they are still structured and operated as a legal corporation. The head people are still CEOS who get paid millions in bonuses as the corporation fails or makes bad decisions such as buying new vehicles that make workers feel unsafe, can't fit in urban areas, cost so much more! 2) "They don't provide a useful service its only flyers" "what about my cheque!" It can't be both, you can't claim Canada Post workers are useless for spam mail while also touting small businesses are failing, people needing their pay, and delivering where other courier services wont! Currently Canadian Postal workers will deliver benefit checks and child support on volunteer. 3)"Why are they striking now when its busiest??" They are striking now because it will affect you to care, its moot point to strike when there is little to no leverage against. THATS THE POINT OF ANY PROTEST! Show solidarity with the workers, if you have issues and want the strike to end complain to the company to work with the union (who have been asking for a resolution for years before wanting to strike) RAISE AWARENESS FOR IT.

[dontforgetukraine]

A memorial service was held in Lviv for 7-year-old Emilia, 18-year-old Daria, 21-year-old Yaryna, and their mother Yevhenia, all killed in the Russian strike on September 4.

Meanwhile, Russian propaganda was at a film festival in Venice. The film "Russians at War" had funding from Canadian tax dollars. Unless something changes, it will also be shown at a film festival in Toronto on September 10th. It received $340,000 from the Canada Media Fund, which receives funding from the Government of Canada (Source). It also had support from France’s Centre National de Cinéma.

This is some of what the Ukrainian Canadian Congress had to say about it. You can find more of their statements on their website. They encourage everyone to contact the Canada Media Fund to share views on the funding and that the screening of the film should be cancelled. Contact information is in the link.

The Canadian Government says it is very concerned about the influence of Russian propaganda. Then why is the Canada Media Fund using taxpayer money to fund: —A movie – Russians at War – made by a filmmaker whose previous movies used to be broadcast by Russia Today, a Russian propaganda outlet sanctioned by the Government of Canada? —A filmmaker who entered sovereign Ukrainian territory together with invading Russian armies, thus violating Ukrainian law, Ukrainian sovereignty and possibly breaching Canadian sanctions? —Why did this film receive $340,000 from the Canada Media Fund, which is funded by the Government of Canada? —Why is the Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF) screening a movie that seeks to explain away Russia’s genocidal war of aggression against Ukraine? Why is TIFF showcasing a film which blames “propaganda” or “the fog of war” for the Russian armies who invaded Ukraine and who rape, torture, murder and dehumanize Ukrainians?

The TVO (Ontario's public educational media organization) had this to say on the matter of the film.

Russians at War is at its core an anti-war film. It is unauthorized by Russian officials and was made at great personal risk to the filmmaker, who was under constant threat of arrest and incarceration for trying to tell an unofficial story. This film shows the increasing disillusionment of Russian soldiers as their experience at the front doesn’t jive with the media lies their families are being told at home. The film was produced by an Academy Award nominee with the support of cultural agencies in France and Canada because it is a documentary made in the tradition of independent war correspondence. We encourage people to see the documentary for themselves when it is available. It will be screening at the Toronto International Film Festival next week and will be airing on TVO in the coming months. TVO is an education and public affairs-focused organization. Our priority is to provide our viewers with important stories from across Ontario and around the world. TVO remains firmly committed to delivering high-quality and ethical content. We value transparency and integrity in our work and continue to uphold these principles in all our operations.” – TVO Media Education Group

This is naivety at best. No matter what, it's being complicit to white washing Russian war crimes.

Anastasia Trofimova, the documentary's filmmaker, has at least 11 films funded by RT. And as the DOJ in America has shown us recently, RT has direct ties to the Kremlin. To think she could get access and just film anything without the approval of the FSB is laughable. Nothing happens without their approval, and at the very least it would be a breach of OpSec.

And what she says gets even worse.

Trofimova was asked at the Venice press conference on whether it was “ethical” to humanize Russian soldiers, in light of war crimes committed by Russia’s army during its ongoing invasion of Ukraine.   “I find it a little bit of a strange question, if we can humanize or not humanize someone. So, are there lists of people who we can humanize and people who we can’t? Of course, we have to humanize everyone. This is a huge tragedy for our region, first of all, and for the entire world,” replied Trofimova.  “If we don’t see each other as people…  these black and white stereotypes about each other, this will only make the war continue. This will only make the hatred grow… unfortunately, that’s sort of the route taken by politicians, but I don’t think that this is the route that regular people should take.”

Of course she frames it as a great tragedy for Russia. "Russia is always the victim and should never be held accountable" is the common narrative and attitude. She didn't mention Bucha, or Irpin, or any of the other cities that have been wiped off the map. She doesn't acknowledge the ethnic cleansing being done by her country or why Russians are being regarded as something other than human due to their actions and behavior. She keeps talking about seeing people as people, but doesn't acknowledge the perverse racism and dehumanization her fellow Russians do to Ukrainians and the ethnic minorities within Russia. The soldiers in the Russian army carry this attitude to the battlefield. It's not hard to find this behavior in all the videos on Telegram.

To that point and in answer to a second question by the same journalist on whether she had seen the Ukrainian films in Venice, Trofimova voiced her disquiet at the ending of Olha Zhurba’s documentary Songs of Slow Burning Earth which is also playing Out of Competition. The audiovisual diary captures the impact on Ukrainian people and society in the first two years of the ongoing Russian invasion, which began in February 2022. “I found it to be really good, especially the first 15, 20 minutes… when people just started to find out that the war is beginning… I found it to be really strong,” said Trofimova. “The ending, though, I wasn’t that much of a fan of because it sort of contrasted Ukrainian kids and Russian kids, with Ukrainian kids thinking about what they can do to build a better Ukraine for the future, and Russian kids were just shown as marching and singing war songs. “I found this to be playing into that whole narrative that Russians, by definition, are these aggressive and awful people… you know that it’s in their blood to be to be this way."

Look, if she has a problem with how Russian children are being portrayed in the ending of that other film, then maybe she should look around and wonder why the portrayal is there. Ukrainians aren't the ones filling Russian children's heads with propaganda and revanchism. Your fellow Russians are sending their kids to school with backpacks with the fucking Z on them, or making them wear tank costumes in parades. I've read articles of Russians sending their kids to some form of military camp. It's Russian society that creates and reinforces standards to be awful people, not Ukrainians. Examine your damn society first. Look at the war crimes Russian soldiers willingly commit and record to post on Telegram. Listen to what your fellow Russians say about Ukrainians. It's not hard.

This is all grotesque manipulation and propaganda.

If you want to read this article these excerpts are from, here. I'm so disgusted I'm getting a headache.

[liquidorcard]

We're back to this.

Okay, so, Lily's not actually EXACTLY right about this, but unfortunately, I'm worried anything she says will immediately be doubted because she's Lily. I care about people's perception of this, so I'm not going to kinda half-heartedly back her up by filling in the gaps of some of what she's said here. But, this isn't an unreasonable explanation of the issue, let me be clear. Just somewhat incomplete and not articulated the best.

The US is at a trade deficit with Canada. They buy more from us than we do from them.

Most of that is vital resources the US doesn't have enough of. Like water, power and gas.

But the deficit isn't actually as big as Trump has made it sound. Though the US imports a lot of material goods from Canada, they export a lot of services aswell. Most of what Canada gets from the US is stuff like network companies, telecommunications, shit like Uber and Netflix, etc. As someone who works in entertainment, I can tell you, a lot of shit is filmed here. Hollywood productions. The world got to see the campus of the college I went to featured on The Last of Us. Almost every time you see NYC on screen, what you're actually seeing is Vancouver. That's just what the American market has prioritized services. Canada has nothing to do with that (other than do things like provide tax cuts for studios to film here, etc.)

That's not an endorsement of how our respective economies operate and interact, I have my own criticisms of it. That's just a description.

Trump, in this one instance, I wouldn't characterize as an idiot. He knows exactly what he's doing. . . What that is though, benefits no one* (I'll get to it). Not even the American people.

It would benefit the American industry if they had more direct control over the resources Canada has. "But Liquid don't you go on and on with your pro labor stance? Wouldn't that be a good thing? More jobs?"

Benefit American industry by benefitting cooperations, increasing America's economic dominance, which we should all understand by now the laborers would not see a fucking dime of.

It wouldn't create more jobs. Especially as automation continues to march forwards. The American government (both the Republicans and the Democrats, even though one is way more guilty of this than the other) would take the opportunity to squeeze the citizens under its control. For its many faults, the Canadian government has done a lot more in terms of protecting its laborers and the environmental impact of its industry. Not ENOUGH in my opinion, but MORE. Way more. Part of why America needs to buy so many resources from Canada is because of how badly it's absolutely decimated it's own. These aren't resources the US is capable of handling responsibly. That's part of the reason why we don't have any of the megacorps the US does. The job market in Canada isn't what it should be, but it IS more stable because of that. Believe it or not, there are way more economic and social advantages to not endlessly expanding until the world is (literally) on fire than not.

The US doesn't subsidize Canada. If anything, it's the other way around.

That's why he's talking about Annexing us. He wants to rape the world even more than the US already does.

And, fair is fair, Canada is somewhat responsible for this. The country has become complicit in allowing the US to become the global monster it is by not diversifying in our economic partnerships sooner. The US was seen for so many years abd a reliable and safe partner for trade-- so we sent our troops to aid in their wars, we covered their asses regardless of the skullduggery they partook in. I think the only thing Canada ever really did to defy the American government truly in a way that mattered was accepting draft dodgers during the Vietnam War. And even then, part of me is half remembering we did deport some of them. I can't quite remember why, but Canada has no official laws in terms of accepting political refugees-- something apparently some Jan 6th insurrectionist are finding out in real time right now.

Because Lily doesn't give a shit, probably doesn't know, let it not go unsaid that here in Alberta the government has fucked over our own people in order to support American industry in the past. Especially First Nations people. That's a whole other can of worms I can't get into in detail, but trust me, it's fucking happened.

That willingness to suck American dick is EXACTLY why Danelle Smith is currently lying on Fox News that Canadian citizens, even Albertans (Canada's most Ameriboo province) want to be a part of America.

If any of you want a deeper dive into what's actually going on with Canada's response to America's threats, how Trudeau, Poilievre, and Alberta's oil industry factors into that-- let me know. I feel like I'm ready to rip my hair out right now with how little Americans (and frankly a lot of Canadians-- like Lily) give a shit about our politics, so just give me the excuse. I'm begging you.

[todaysdocument]

The Supreme Court ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional on June 26, 2013. 

In U.S. v Windsor, SCOTUS held that the federal government could not discriminate against same-sex couples. 

Record Group 267: Records of the Supreme Court of the United States Series: Appellate Jurisdiction Case Files

Transcription: 

[Stamped: " FILE COPY "]

(Bench Opinion)                 OCTOBER TERM, 2012            1  [Handwritten and circled " 1"  in upper right-hand corner]

Syllabus

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is

being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.

The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been

prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.

See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR, EXECUTOR OF THE

ESTATE OF SPYER, ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE SECOND CIRCUIT

No. 12-307.  Argued March 27, 2013---Decided June 26, 2013

The State of New York recognizes the marriage of New York residents

Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer, who wed in Ontario, Canada, in

2007. When Spyer died in 2009, she left her entire estate to Windsor.

Windsor sought to claim the federal estate tax exemption for surviv-

ing spouses, but was barred from doing so by §3 of the federal Defense

of Marriage Act (DOMA), which amended the Dictionary Act---a

law providing rules of construction for over 1,000 federal laws and

the whole realm of federal regulations-to define "marriage" and

"spouse" as excluding same-sex partners. Windsor paid $363,053 in

estate taxes and sought a refund, which the Internal Revenue Service

denied. Windsor brought this refund suit, contending that DOMA vi-

olates the principles of equal protection incorporated in the Fifth

Amendment. While the suit was pending, the Attorney General notified

the Speaker of the House of Representatives that the Department

of Justice would no longer defend §3's constitutionality. In re-

sponse, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) of the House of

Representatives voted to intervene in the litigation to defend §3's

constitutionality. The District Court permitted the intervention. On

the merits, the court ruled against the United States, finding §3 un-

constitutional and ordering the Treasury to refund Windsor's tax

with interest. The Second Circuit affirmed. The United States has

not complied with the judgment.

Held:

1. This Court has jurisdiction to consider the merits of the case.

This case clearly presented a concrete disagreement between oppos-

ing parties that was suitable for judicial resolution in the District

Court, but the Executive's decision not to defend §3's constitutionali-

[page 2]

2                  UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR

Syllabus

ty in court while continuing to deny refunds and assess deficiencies

introduces a complication. Given the Government's concession, ami-

cus contends, once the District Court ordered the refund, the case

should have ended and the appeal been dismissed. But this argu-

ment elides the distinction between Article Ill's jurisdictional re-

quirements and the prudential limits on its exercise, which are "es-

sentially matters of judicial self-governance." Warth v. Seldin, 422

U. S. 490, 500. Here, the United States retains a stake sufficient to

support Article III jurisdiction on appeal and in this Court. The re-

fund it was ordered to pay Windsor is "a real and immediate econom-

ic injury," Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., 551 U. S.

587, 599, even if the Executive disagrees with §3 of DOMA. Wind-

sor's ongoing claim for funds that the United States refuses to pay

thus establishes a controversy sufficient for Article III jurisdiction.

Cf. INS v. Chadha, 462 U. S. 919.

Prudential considerations, however, demand that there be "con-

crete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon

which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult consti-

tutional questions." Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 204. Unlike Article

III requirements---which must be satisfied by the parties before judi-

cial consideration is appropriate---prudential factors that counsel

against hearing this case are subject to "countervailing considera-

tions [that] may outweigh the concerns underlying the usual reluc-

tance to exert judicial power." Warth, supra, at 500-501. One such

consideration is the extent to which adversarial presentation of the

issues is ensured by the participation of amici curiae prepared to de-

fend with vigor the legislative act's constitutionality. See Chadha,

supra, at 940. Here, BLAG's substantial adversarial argument for

§3's constitutionality satisfies prudential concerns that otherwise

might counsel against hearing an appeal from a decision with which

the principal parties agree. This conclusion does not mean that it is

appropriate for the Executive as a routine exercise to challenge stat-

utes in court instead of making the case to Congress for amendment

or repeal. But this case is not routine, and BLAG's capable defense

ensures that the prudential issues do not cloud the merits question,

which is of immediate importance to the Federal Government and to

hundreds of thousands of persons. Pp. 5-13.

2. DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of

persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment. Pp. 13--26.

(a) By history and tradition the definition and regulation of mar-

riage has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the

separate States. Congress has enacted discrete statutes to regulate

the meaning of marriage in order to further federal policy, but

DOMA, with a directive applicable to over 1,000 federal statues and

[NEW PAGE]

Cite as: 570 U.S._ (2013)           3

Syllabus

the whole realm of federal regulations, has a far greater reach. Its

operation is also directed to a class of persons that the laws of New

York, and of 11 other States, have sought to protect. Assessing the

validity of that intervention requires discussing the historical and

traditional extent of state power and authority over marriage.

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v.

Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, "regulation of domestic relations" is "an area

that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the

States," Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393, 404. The significance of state

responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to

the Nation's beginning; for "when the Constitution was adopted the

common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband

and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States,"

Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280 U. S. 379, 383-384. Marriage laws

may vary from State to State, but they are consistent within each

State.

DOMA rejects this long-established precept. The State's decision

to give this class of persons the right to marry conferred upon them a

dignity and status of immense import. But the Federal Government

uses the state-defined class for the opposite purpose---to impose re-

strictions and disabilities. The question is whether the resulting injury

and indignity is a deprivation of an essential part of the liberty

protected by the Fifth Amendment, since what New York treats as

alike the federal law deems unlike by a law designed to injure the

same class the State seeks to protect. New York's actions were a

proper exercise of its sovereign authority. They reflect both the

community's considered perspective on the historical roots of the in-

stitution of marriage and its evolving understanding of the meaning

of equality. Pp. 13--20.

(b) By seeking to injure the very class New York seeks to protect,

DOMA violates basic due process and equal protection principles ap-

plicable to the Federal Government. The Constitution's guarantee of

equality "must at the very least mean that a bare congressional de-

sire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot" justify disparate

treatment of that group. Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413

U. S. 528, 534-535. DOMA cannot survive under these principles.

Its unusual deviation from the tradition of recognizing and accepting

state definitions of marriage operates to deprive same-sex couples of

the benefits and responsibilities that come with federal recognition of

their marriages. This is strong evidence of a law having the purpose

and effect of disapproval of a class recognized and protected by state

law. DOMA's avowed purpose and practical effect are to impose a

disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter

into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority

[page 3]

4           UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR

Syllabus

of the States.

DOMA's history of enactment and its own text demonstrate that

interference with the equal dignity of same-sex marriages, conferred

by the States in the exercise of their sovereign power, was more than

an incidental effect of the federal statute. It was its essence. BLAG's

arguments are just as candid about the congressional purpose.

DOMA's operation in practice confirms this purpose. It frustrates

New York's objective of eliminating inequality by writing inequality

into the entire United States Code.

DOMA's principal effect is to identify and make unequal a subset of

state-sanctioned marriages. It contrives to deprive some couples

married under the laws of their State, but not others, of both rights

and responsibilities, creating two contradictory marriage regimes

within the same State. It also forces same-sex couples to live as mar-

ried for the purpose of state law but unmarried for the purpose of

federal law, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of basic

personal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and

protect. Pp. 20-26.

699 F. 3d 169, affirmed.

KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which GINSBURG,

BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. ROBERTS, C. J., filed a

dissenting opinion. SCALIA, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which

THOMAS, J., joined, and in which ROBERTS, C. J., joined as to Part I.

ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS, J., joined as to

Parts II and III.

[NEW PAGE]

Cite as: 570 U. S. _ (2013)          1

Opinion of the Court

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the

preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to

notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington,

D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order

that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 12-307

UNITED STATES, PETITIONER v. EDITH SCHLAIN

WINDSOR, IN HER CAPACITY AS EXECUTOR OF THE

ESTATE OF THEA CLARA SPYER, ET AL.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF

APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

[June 26, 2013]

JUSTICE KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court.

Two women then resident in New York were married

in a lawful ceremony in Ontario, Canada, in 2007. Edith

Windsor and Thea Spyer returned to their home in New

York City. When Spyer died in 2009, she left her entire

estate to Windsor. Windsor sought to claim the estate tax

exemption for surviving spouses. She was barred from

doing so, however, by a federal law, the Defense of Mar-

riage Act, which excludes a same-sex partner from the

definition of "spouse" as that term is used in federal stat-

utes. Windsor paid the taxes but filed suit to challenge

the constitutionality of this provision. The United States

District Court and the Court of Appeals ruled that this

portion of the statute is unconstitutional and ordered the

United States to pay Windsor a refund. This Court granted

certiorari and now affirms the judgment in Windsor's

favor.

I

In 1996, as some States were beginning to consider the

concept of same-sex marriage, see, e.g., Baehr v. Lewin, 74

[salvia-plathitudes]

Ford said U.S.-based businesses will lose out on “tens of billions of dollars” in new revenues as a result of Ontario’s response.

“We just aren’t going to be using American companies,” Ford said. “And no matter if we are building a hospital, if we’re building anything, if we’re building a dog house I want to make sure we are using Ontario steel, Canadian products, Canadian wood, Ontario wood, anything.

“I don’t care if it’s a toothpick. We need to purchase from Canada and Ontario.”

“Canada didn’t start this fight with the U.S., but you better believe we’re ready to win it,” said Ford, who called an election for his province last week.

Ford said he wants a four year mandate that outlasts Trump’s term.

“He wants to come after us?” he asked. “I’ve yet to hear one American citizen say Canada is the problem.”

“This is a tax on American citizens. That’s what Donald Trump is doing to his own people,” said Ford, who described Musk as part of the Trump team “that wants to destroy families incomes, destroy businesses. He wants to take food off the table of hard working people and I’m not going to tolerate it.”

Trump responded Sunday, criticizing Canada’s trade surplus with the United States and contending that without that surplus, “Canada ceases to exist as a viable Country. Harsh but true! Therefore, Canada should become our Cherished 51st State. Much lower taxes, and far better military protection for the people of Canada — AND NO TARIFFS!”

It was reported by Infrastructure Ontario in January last year that only two satellite internet service providers were capable of meeting the coverage needs of Ontario – Musk’s SpaceX, which runs Starlink, and Xplore Inc, a rural Canadian service. Both were invited to participate in a bidding process, with SpaceX ultimately securing the slot.

The contract, first signed in November, aimed to provide high-speed internet access through Starlink’s satellite service to 15,000 eligible homes and businesses, notably those in remote, rural and northern communities of Canada, by June 2025.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Simon Rosenberg at Hopium Chronicles:

Next, the not so good news. If President Trump goes through with his announced tariffs, and doesn’t find some fig leaf to back down as he did with the country of Colombia last weekend, it will be one of the single most reckless acts by an American President in our history. Perhaps the most reckless, and irresponsible, and idiotic. [...] Tariffs are a tax on goods imported from aboard that we and our companies pay to the US government. As Trump has announced tariffs on our three largest trading partners - Canada, China and Mexico - prices will rise on just about everything immediately, but particularly on food and gas/oil. Rather than getting prices and inflation down, Trump is taking actions that will raise prices and re-ignite inflation. Trump needs the revenues from tariffs to help pay for his tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations. As Rob argues in our interview, in this case tariffs are a direct transfer of wealth from working people to the oligarchs. Tariffs are an enormous new tax paid for by working Americans. Again Trump promised lower prices, lower inflation, lower taxes. He is actually giving the American people higher prices, higher inflation, higher taxes. Trump’s tariffs will slow the economy and cause unemployment to rise. So yes, Trump is giving us higher prices, higher inflation, higher taxes, higher interest rates, slower growth and higher unemployment. It is hard to imagine a more fundamental betrayal of the core promises he made to the American people during the campaign. And this is particularly the case when new data this week showed the economy slowing and inflation rising. These are not the only ways Trump is working to raise prices and taxes on working people. The emerging Republican budget deal will also raise taxes on working people and cut critical benefit programs that will cause health care and other vital services to become more expensive while providing tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations. Rounding up millions of workers during a time of low unemployment will create labor shortages, harm our businesses, devastate families and communities and cause prices to rise on food, health care, day care, restaurants/hotels and many other items. [...] Donald Trump betrayed our country when he openly worked with the Russian government to seize power in 2016; when he attacked the Capitol and the Congress in 2021; betrayed it when he stole top secret documents and shared them others; and is now betraying all of us again in his lawless attacks against our government, our democracy and the rules based global system that has keep America prosperous, safe and free for generations. Donald Trump hates the America of the Four Freedoms, and I am profoundly worried he’s attempting to bring it down, with the help of his South African and other Russian stooges.

Simon Rosenberg wrote in Hopium Chronicles explaining accurately that Donald Trump’s tariffs towards Canada, Mexico, and China (and possibly the EU) will wreck the economy and make America less safe.

[voxxvindictae]

In light of the escalation of state violence at several protests, I have elected to release my findings on the Canary Mission here.

The canary mission is a shady group of Zionists that doxx activists and students that express support for Palestine in an attempt to silence, intimidate, and defame them.

Some time ago, I was able to link the organization to one Howard David Sterling, an American lawyer who invests in Israeli medical firms. I wrote the report on my site here.

More recently, I found the account that runs their tip submission form. The username was included in the resource URL of the banner image of the form, which is hosted on a service called jotforms, under the username “carlossantanajm”

A google dork turned up two potential candidates: a man from eastern Canada, and a the rock musician Carlos Santana, who played a concert in Israel around 2010 despite backlash. Investigation is underway to conclusively prove the involvement of either of these individuals, but data is scarce.

Also of note was an investigation by Josh Nathan-Kazis into Megamot Shalom: an elusive organization that acts as a front for the Canary Mission. In the report, data from the Israeli charity register is cited but not provided to prove connections between Megamot Shalom and Aish HaTorah, an organization that focuses on pro-Israel media advocacy.

Funding for Megamot Shalom is contributed by wealthy zionists in the US, through the Central Fund for Israel, which routes the money to the Israeli organization so that the donors can claim it on their tax breaks. The connection between the Central Fund for Israel and Megamot Shalom was confirmed by the 2017 Tax returns of the Hellen Diller Family Foundation, who donated to CFI and labeled the reason as “CANARY MISSION FOR MEGAMOT SHALOM”

Two anonymous sources claim that a man named Jonathan Bash (who has ties to Aish HaTorah) confided in them that he ran the Canary Mission. From this info, six other Megamot Shalom board members were able to be named.

Efforts are Still underway to obtain the charity data cited in the report.

More to come soon, for updates follow the #opmonoxide tag.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

This day in history

On OCTOBER 23 at 7PM, I'll be in DECATUR, presenting my novel THE BEZZLE at EAGLE EYE BOOKS.

#20yrsago Entertainment companies bent on wholesale slaughter of Betamax, puppies https://web.archive.org/web/20041010092552/https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/001987.php

#15yrsago What’s wrong with Search Engine Optimization http://https://powazek.com/posts/2090

#15yrsago Gag order blocks Guardian from reporting on Parliament https://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/oct/12/guardian-gagged-from-reporting-parliament

#15yrsago Copyright vs. folk music https://web.archive.org/web/20091016014623/https://freemusicarchive.org/member/stevenarntson/blog/The_Absent_Second_An_Explanation

#15yrsago xkcd: volume 0 https://memex.craphound.com/2009/10/12/xkcd-volume-0/

#10yrsago Chinese Supreme Court makes service providers liable for “human flesh search engine” https://archive.shine.cn/national/Rules-to-protect-personal-rights-online/shdaily.shtml

#10yrsago NSA agents may have infiltrated the global communications industry https://web.archive.org/web/20141011080630/https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/10/10/core-secrets/

#10yrsago Librarians on the vanguard of the anti-surveillance movement https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/10/03/librarians-wont-stay-quiet-about-government-surveillance/

#5yrsago AT&T hikes business customers’ bills by up to 7%, charging them to recoup its own property taxes https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/10/att-raises-prices-7-by-making-its-customers-pay-atts-property-taxes/

#5yrsago Google continues to funnel vast sums to notorious climate deniers https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/11/google-contributions-climate-change-deniers

#5yrsago Mayor accused of failing to fullfil road maintenance promises is dragged through the streets by angry voters https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-49984987

#5yrsago CBC sues Canada’s Conservative Party for using short debate clips in campaign materials https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2019/10/cbc-sues-the-conservative-party-of-canada-for-copyright-infringement-citing-campaign-video-posting-debate-excerpts-on-twitter/

Tor Books as just published two new, free LITTLE BROTHER stories: VIGILANT, about creepy surveillance in distance education; and SPILL, about oil pipelines and indigenous landback.

[rickanderson123]

Top 5 Documents You Need for a Successful Canada Family Sponsorship Application

Starting your Canada family sponsorship journey requires meticulous preparation and attention to detail. A well-organized application package can significantly reduce processing times and increase your chances of approval. Let's explore the five most crucial document categories you'll need for success. 

1. Sponsorship Agreement and Undertaking Form (IMM 1344)

This legally binding document confirms your commitment to financially support your family member(s) for the required period. It outlines your responsibilities as a sponsor and must be signed by both you (the sponsor) and the sponsored relative. Ensure all sections are completed accurately, as errors here could jeopardize your Canada family sponsorship application.

2. Proof of Relationship

Whether it’s a marriage certificate, birth certificate, or adoption papers, you must provide evidence of your relationship to the sponsored individual. For spousal sponsorships, include photos, joint bank statements, or communication records to demonstrate the genuineness of your relationship. Immigration officers scrutinize this closely to prevent fraud.

3. Financial Documents

As a sponsor, you must prove you meet the minimum income requirements to support your family member. Submit your Notice of Assessment (NOA) from the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) for the past three years, recent pay stubs, and employment letters. Self-employed individuals should include business records or tax filings.

4. Police Certificates and Clearances

Your sponsored family member must provide police certificates from every country they’ve lived in for six months or more since turning 18. This ensures they have no criminal history that could affect their admissibility to Canada.

5. Medical Examination Results

A designated panel physician must conduct a medical exam to confirm the sponsored person meets Canada’s health requirements. This includes testing for infectious diseases and ensuring they won’t pose excessive demand on healthcare services.

Create a master checklist of all required documents and their expiry dates. Submit clear, high-quality copies while keeping originals safe. Consider using tabs or dividers to organize different sections, making it easier for officers to review your application. You should take the help of licensed consultants for the best Canada family sponsorship application guidance.

[ask-a-native]

Do Native Americans pay taxes?

Let me add a qualifier that this is not my field of expertise, either by experience or education, but I'll answer in a general sense. Keep in mind I'm speaking on Canada, not the US. But to my knowledge the US has the same complexity to the matter.

Short Answer: Yes

Detailed Answer: It's complicated

From a brief article on the matter:

Most income, sales and property tax exemptions only apply to status Indians (637,660) who live or work on a reserve. Less than half of all registered status Indians live on reserve so the number who are actually eligible for tax exemptions amounts to about 314,000 people. [1] To put it in perspective, somewhat less than half of all registered status Indians live on reserve so less than 1% of the total population of Canada are exempt from paying certain taxes.

All other Indigenous people – Inuit, Métis and non-status Indians - pay taxes on the same footing as non-Indigenous people.

Back to my own words.

"Taxes" is pretty broad so let's get specific:

Sales Tax

Some natives are entitled to some sales tax exemptions that vary case to case. In Canada, you need to be enrolled with a specific First Nation to be eligible for certain exemptions.

Because I'm a Métis citizen that means I don't have "Status" and am not enrolled with a (colonial constructed) First Nation, so I don't have much first-hand knowledge on the subject. But I know enough from others that it's a pain in the ass "privilege" to attempt to invoke in the cases you're actually entitled to it.

Keep in mind this (complicated) exemption is not actually a "privilege." First Nations are considered to fall under the domain of the federal government, not provincial. And many of the government services a non-First Nations Canadian (or American) citizen would expect from municipal and provincial governments are instead provided by the band or let's say, by the "reserve," that don't receive provincial or municipal funding. Those services are funded by revenue generated by the band's own enterprises, or from a fund generated by resources "owned" by First Nations, sometimes according to treaties, but generously managed by the federal government.

In my experience, the only significant, reliable sales tax exemption is if you're a member of a First Nation buying goods from a business located on reserve. Unfortunately, the business is still expected to pay the total of those owed taxes and wait upon a refund that often comes after a delay. Which is a headache for businesses owned and operated by band members who mostly service band members.

Income Tax

Yes. The only exemption is if you're a "Status Indian" (legal term) working on reserve. Any income earned off-reserve is taxed.

Property Tax

Functions the same as the others. There are exemptions for Status Indians living on reserve. I reiterate, if you own property on reserve. But otherwise you pay what everyone else pays.

Well that was an interesting start.

[clarification-sfw]

Canada is so fucking expensive y'all. like it still kills me when americans talk about how expensive just living is because it's somehow worse here. housing is crazy and despite every single politician supposedly working on it, it's still getting worse.

food is getting more scarce and more expensive. our data is from what I remember the most expensive in the world.

all our industries are nearly monopolies and I feel like no one talks about that. like for cell service we really only have 2 providers and they can charge pretty much whatever they want because of it.

it doesn't help that our government's solution to gas is to just charge more for it. the carbon tax is so fucking stupid for so many reasons and has beyond failed. you can't just charge people more for gas when they still need it to function. we have like no public transportation so there's nothing for people to really switch to. it's just making life that much more expensive.

[stroshe]

Expert Advice on Corporate Tax Returns and Personal Tax Filing in Canada

When it comes to tax season in Canada, both individuals and businesses face the challenge of navigating through the intricate web of regulations. Whether you're a corporation seeking seamless Corporate Tax Return Services Ontario or an individual looking for guidance on Personal Tax Filing in Canada, understanding the nuances is crucial. In this blog post, we'll provide expert advice on corporate tax returns and personal tax filing, shedding light on effective accounting and tax planning strategies.

Understanding Corporate Tax Returns

Corporate tax returns demand a strategic approach. To optimize your financial position, it's essential to engage with a reputable Accounting and Tax Planning Company. Their expertise ensures that your business takes advantage of available deductions and credits, maximizing returns while staying fully compliant with tax laws.

Tips for Corporate Tax Returns:

Strategic Deductions: Identify eligible deductions relevant to your industry, ensuring you make the most of available tax incentives without overstepping boundaries.

Timely Record Keeping: Maintain meticulous records throughout the fiscal year to streamline the tax return process. This proactive approach minimizes errors and facilitates a smoother filing experience.

Ensuring a Seamless Personal Tax Filing Process For individuals, the Personal Tax Filing process can be intricate, with various credits and exemptions to consider. Seek guidance from experts who specialize in it to ensure accuracy and compliance.

Expert Tips for Tax Filing:

Utilizing Tax Credits: Explore available tax credits, such as those related to education, homeownership, or medical expenses. These can significantly reduce your tax liability.

Understanding Provincial Variations: Recognize that tax regulations can vary by province. Professionals specializing in Corporate Tax Return Services in Ontario, for example, can provide insights tailored to the specific jurisdiction.

Choosing the Right Accounting and Tax Planning Company:

Selecting the right Accounting and Tax Planning Company is pivotal for both corporate and personal tax matters. Look for firms that offer personalized services and stay abreast of the latest tax reforms.

Conclusion In the complex landscape of Canadian taxation, seeking expert advice is not just beneficial but essential. Whether you're a business owner requiring Corporate Tax Return Services in Ontario or an individual navigating Personal Tax Filing in Canada, partnering with professionals ensures a seamless and compliant experience. Keep these expert tips in mind to optimize your tax strategy and secure a financially sound future.

[masllp]

Bookkeeping services in canada

Masllp's Bookkeeping Services in Canada Running a business in Canada is like exploring a majestic national park – filled with breathtaking opportunities and diverse challenges. But just like navigating those rugged trails, managing your finances can be a wild ride. That's where Masllp's top-notch bookkeeping services in Canada come in, acting as your trusted guide to financial clarity. Why Masllp for Your Canadian Bookkeeping Needs? Local Expertise: We understand the intricate tapestry of Canadian tax laws, regulations, and accounting best practices. No need to worry about navigating provincial discrepancies or federal tax quirks – we've got your back, coast to coast. Tech-Savvy Solutions: Say goodbye to dusty ledgers and endless spreadsheets. We leverage cutting-edge cloud-based tools to keep your financials organized, accessible, and secure. Whether you're in bustling Toronto or remote Nunavut, your data is always within reach. Tailored Services: Whether you're a solopreneur in St. John's or a booming startup in Vancouver, we customize our services to fit your unique needs and budget. No cookie-cutter packages here – you get the perfect financial map for your journey. Stress-Free Support: Managing your finances shouldn't be a hair-pulling affair. Our friendly and approachable team is always happy to answer your questions, explain complex concepts, and alleviate your financial woes. Beyond the Basics: A Spectrum of Support Masllp goes beyond mere bookkeeping. We offer a comprehensive range of services to empower your Canadian business: Payroll Management: Ensure your employees receive accurate and timely payments, while staying compliant with Canadian tax regulations. Tax Preparation and Filing: From GST/HST to corporate taxes, we navigate the Canadian tax landscape so you can focus on what you do best. Financial Reporting and Analysis: Gain valuable insights into your business performance with accurate and insightful financial reports. Business Advisory: Take your financial decisions to the next level with expert advice and strategic guidance. Start Your Financial Journey Today Ready to ditch the financial wilderness and explore the path to financial freedom? Contact Masllp today for a free consultation and discover how our bookkeeping services in Canada can be your compass to success. Remember, with Masllp, your Canadian business adventure can be as smooth and enjoyable as a maple syrup latte on a crisp autumn day. Get in touch and let's conquer the Canadian financial maze together! Bonus Tip: Include a call to action, such as offering a free consultation or downloadable resource related to bookkeeping in Canada. Remember to replace "Masllp" with your actual company name throughout the blog. I hope this blog provides a good starting point for your keyword "Bookkeeping services in Canada." Feel free to adjust it to reflect your specific company offerings and brand voice.

[samarthcapital]

How Can NRIs Invest in India With NRI Services?

Non-resident Indians (NRIs) hold a unique position in the Indian economy. They are not only a valuable source of foreign exchange, but also a potential force driving the country's growth story. Navigating investments in India can be a bit confusing for NRIs. Understanding where and how to invest amidst regulations, tax implications, and diverse options can feel tricky, which is why, NRIs willing to invest in India can rely on NRI services, which make investing easier as per the rules set by RBI and SEBI under the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA).

Where Can NRIs Invest in India?

NRI services encompass a range of financial solutions tailored specifically for non-resident Indians seeking to invest, manage their wealth, and connect with their homeland. It is vital to understand where NRIs can invest in India.

Equities

NRIs can invest directly in Indian stocks through the Portfolio Investment Scheme (PIS) by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI).

Mutual Funds

Investing in Mutual Funds offers various choices like Equity, Balanced, Bond, and Liquid Funds. Unlike direct equities, NRIs investing in Mutual Funds do not require PIS permissions from RBI. However, some restrictions may apply to NRIs from the US and Canada due to reporting regulations.

Government Securities

NRIs can invest in government securities on NRE and NRO basis, each with different tax implications based on the type of investment.

Fixed Deposits

Investment opportunities in fixed deposits are available for NRIs through Banks or Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs), each with its tax implications based on the NRE (Non-Resident External) or NRO (Non-Resident Ordinary) basis. NRIs can also invest in Foreign Currency Non-Resident (FCNR) fixed deposits.

Real Estate

NRIs can invest in real estate except for certain property types like agricultural land, farmland, or plantations.

National Pension Scheme (NPS)

NPS, a retirement savings plan, offers tax benefits. Contributions can be made from NRE or NRO accounts, but the pension must be received in India.

Portfolio Investment Scheme (PIS)

PIS allows NRIs to trade in shares and debentures through a designated bank account. It helps regulate NRI holdings in Indian companies, preventing breaches of set limits.

How Experts Simplify NRI Services?

Experts like Samarth Capital simplify the investment process by providing guidance, ensuring NRIs make informed decisions aligned with their goals. Here’s how they make investing easy for NRIs.

Helping open NRE / NRO savings and PIS bank accounts.

Setting up brokerage and demat accounts for trade.

Monitoring your portfolio regularly.

Engaging tax consultants for compliance.

Understanding Taxes and Rules

For NRIs, it's crucial to understand tax implications in India and their country of residence. Compliance with the Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) and filing taxes in India if taxable income exceeds the exemption limit is important.

Wrapping Up

Investing in India as an NRI offers diverse opportunities. With guidance and a grasp of regulations, NRIs can navigate this landscape effectively and make the most of available avenues. Samarth Capital, not only facilitates NRI investments but also helps foreigners invest in India with FPI services. So, whether you're an NRI or a foreigner, investment in India isn't a far-fetched dream anymore.

[chocolateandsilver]

The Restrict Act 2023

About the Restrict Act

There’s a lot of information/misinformation I’ve been seeing about the Restrict Act. I’ve stared at the damn bill for around thirty hours at this point, so I thought I’d give people a summary of what it’s actually doing as well as what it isn’t doing, to help you avoid misinformation.

Buckle in, folks, because this is going to be a long post. I know Tumblr is allergic to nuance, but hopefully you’ll be able to see both the good and the bad in this bill by the time I’m done, and be able to understand what’s actually going on. If you just want to see problems with the act, the last section is devoted to that.

tl;dr good in spirit because of the rising rate of infrastructure cyberattacks, but the letter of the law could use a little work to make sure that the government can't overstep

Why the Restrict Act?

Let’s start with the why. Why does the US government feel like this Act is necessary? The stated purpose is: “To authorize the Secretary of Commerce to review and prohibit certain transactions between persons in the United States and foreign adversaries, and for other purposes.” Which is a bunch of legalese, so I’ll give you some examples of things that are happening in the real world which the government wants more authority to look into.

The author of the bill, Sen. Warner, specifically cited Huawei and Kapersky as companies that were doing Suspicious Things, so we’ll look at those first.

Huawei: Huawei is a telecommunications company. The US, Australia, Canada, Sweden, UK, Lithuania, and Estonia have all taken various actions against Huawei over the last decade or so. In 2012, a malicious software update was installed on Huawei devices in Australia, attacking Australia’s telecommunications network. In 2021, a Washington Post review suggested that Huawei was involved in mass surveillance programs. In 2014, a Huawei engineer was caught hacking a cell phone tower in India

Kapersky: The UK, Lithuania, the Netherlands, the EU, Germany, and Italy have all taken action against Kapersky. This company produces antivirus software, and was accused of working on secret projects with Russia’s Federal Security Service, especially in the wake of Russian interference in the 2016 election. Allegedly, the company used the popular antivirus software to secretly scan for classified documents and other information, and allegedly stole NSA information.

In addition to these two companies, there have been tons of cyberattacks worldwide.

Half of the United States’ fuel supply was compromised due to a hack on Colonial Pipeline, shutting down fuel for some areas in the American southeast for days

A hacking group disrupted Iranian steel factories and even started a fire

Costa Rica had to declare a national emergency after government systems were hit, including systems for exports, pensions, taxes, welfare, and even Covid-19 testing.

A ransomware attack caused a major outage to emergency health services in the UK

The stated purpose of this act is to give the USA some kind of formal process to make decisions when something like this is suspected of happening, and when it’s caused by a “foreign adversary.”

What’s a foreign adversary?

A foreign adversary is a country that has engaged in a “long-term pattern or serious instances of conduct significantly adverse to the national security of the United States or security and safety of United States persons.”

The bill kindly provides us with a list of six countries that fit this description: China(including Hong Kong), Cuba, Iran, Korea, Russia, and Venezuela

The Secretary of Commerce can add/remove countries to this list at any time, as long as Congress is informed within 15 days of the reasoning behind that decision.

Once Congress is informed, Congress can disagree via joint resolution (So both Houses have to vote to disagree with the Secretary of Commerce’s decision). If Congress disagrees, there’s a whole complicated process for getting the label added/removed.

We’ll get into the ethics later, in the Genuine Problems section.

For the rest of this post, I’ll be saying Scary Countries instead of foreign adversaries, so that it’s easier for people to understand.

What is the United States allowed to investigate using this Act?

So first we’re going to define some things, because the Act is very specific about what the United States can investigate.

The bill defines something called a “covered transaction,” which is basically a financial or technological action taken by a Scary Country or on behalf of a Scary Country. For the rest of this post, I’ll be saying Scary Action instead of covered transaction.

The bill also defines something called a “covered holding,” which is essentially any group that is partially or fully owned by a Scary Country, on behalf of a Scary Country, or that falls under a Scary Country’s jurisdiction, even with degrees of separation. The group has to affect either 1+ million Americans or has to have sold 1+ million units of a tech product to Americans. This group is usually a company, but it can be other things, too. For the rest of this post, I’ll be saying Scary & Important Group instead of covered holding.

The Secretary of Commerce is allowed to find/investigate/stop any Scary Action or Scary & Important Group that wants to do one of the following:

sabotage information and communications tech in the US

damage critical infrastructure or the digital economy of the US

interfere with a Federal election

undermine democratic processes

Pose any other unacceptable risk to the USA.

This is a list of Really Bad Things, so from now on I’m going to call it the List of Really Bad Things.

If it’s a Scary & Important Group instead of a Scary Action, the Secretary will refer the information to the President, who will then decide what to do to stop the threat. Otherwise, if it’s just a Scary Action, the Secretary has the authority to stop it.

If the Secretary finds out that something Scary is going on and that it falls under the List of Really Bad Things, the Secretary is REQUIRED to publish information in a DECLASSIFIED form about why they thought there was a threat and what was done to stop it, as long as none of the information is already classified. (This is a good thing!)

Process

First, the Secretary is given authority to find and investigate Scary Actions and Scary & Important Groups. The Secretary is also allowed to delegate this to Federal officials. Something key here is that the bill says that Federal officials can only have investigative powers that are “conferred upon them by any other Federal law.” They don’t get any extra powers. Anyone who tells you otherwise is panicking too hard to properly read the bill.

So what happens if, in the course of investigation, the Secretary finds out that a Scary Action or Scary & Important Group is trying to do a Really Bad Thing? Simple. The Attorney General will bring the case to an “appropriate district court.” The max fine for a civil penalty for an individual here is $250,000. For a criminal penalty for an individual, the max fine is $1 million and/or 20 years in prison, as well as giving up any of the things they used to do Really Bad Stuff with.

If someone is found guilty, they can appeal that decision, but only to the District of Columbia Circuit. Note that this is only for appeals! Otherwise, everything will be through the normal federal district courts.

If the appeal fails, too, the US will file all of the information that they used to make any big decisions with the court, and will give the defendant all of the information that is not classified, so that the defendant can ask for a full review.

Once the United States has stopped a Scary Action or a Scary & Important Group from doing Really Bad Things, it’s illegal to go around/against any of the actions that US has taken to do that.

Specifically, the bill says that “no person may cause or aid, abet, counsel, command, induce, procure, permit, or approve the doing of any act prohibited by, or the omission of any act required by any regulation, order, direction, mitigation measure, prohibition, or other authorization or directive issued under, this Act.”

Yes, this is legitimately scary. We’ll get into the ethics later, in the Genuine Problems section.

Myths

The bill gives the USA power to ban VPNs!

No. Unless the VPN company is trying to do one of the Really Bad Things under the instruction of a Scary Country or is suspected of doing one of the Really Bad Things, the VPN company will be fine.

The bill gives the USA power to investigate way more than they could before!

No. “In conducting investigations described in paragraph (1), designated officers or employees of Federal agencies described that paragraph may, to the extent necessary or appropriate to enforce this Act, exercise such authority as is conferred upon them by any other Federal law, subject to policies and procedures approved by the Attorney General” (emphasis mine).

Important here is “exercise such authority as is conferred upon them by any other Federal law” — this act is not giving them additional leeway. Really, the USA is making use of the lack of privacy that’s already baked into law in order to investigate.

If TikTok is banned and I use a VPN to access it, I could go to jail for 20 years!

Possible but severely unlikely, at least according to this law. Let’s go through some scenarios:

Scenario 1: The USA takes TikTok to court. In the decision, the USA says the TikTok app is no longer allowed to be on any app store. In this case, using a VPN to access TikTok would still be allowed, since the ban is for TikTok’s actions, not US citizens’ actions.

Scenario 2: The USA takes TikTok to court. In the decision, the USA says that TikTok is required to have some kind of filter banning US IP addresses. In this case, using a VPN to access TikTok would still be allowed, since the ban is for TikTok’s actions, not US citizens’ actions.

Scenario 3: The USA enacts a law forbidding citizens from accessing TikTok. This is unlikely, since the USA would have to have an entirely separate non-court procedure to do this, which is only kind of in the scope of the law. I guess it’s possible, but it’s skating on thin ice. In this case, using a VPN to access TikTok would be a crime. 4. If you’re charged, you have to go to the DC Circuit Court and not any of the other courts!

Actually, you’d first be charged under an ordinary district court in your state. If you decide to appeal, however, then you have to appeal to DC.

Genuine Problems

Adding a Scary Country to the list seems really easy. There’s nothing to stop the government from adding every single country to the list and then investigating every single action. Granted, it’s highly unlikely that this would happen, simply because then the amount of information would be difficult to go through, but it’s possible.

In the list of Really Bad Things, there’s an additional list item saying “otherwise poses an undue or unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States or the safety of United States persons.” Who determines that?

The definition of a Scary Action is ridiculously broad. It covers any financial or technology-related action. That could refer to a lot of different things.

While the bill is clearly intended only to prosecute people doing Really Bad Things, the wording is kind of vague in some places, and could be used to prosecute others, too.

Specifically, I’m thinking about this clause:

“no person may cause or aid, abet, counsel, command, induce, procure, permit, or approve the doing of any act prohibited by, or the omission of any act required by any regulation, order, direction, mitigation measure, prohibition, or other authorization or directive issued under, this Act”

Yeah this could definitely be used for overreach. It’s far too broad. If there was an infrastructure attack on the USA that affected the police dept, and an ACAB armchair activist tweeted “haha karma” would that count as grounds for prosecution? I have a genuine problem with this clause. The loopholes here are ridiculously large.

Overall, it seems as though this bill is aimed at large companies rather than citizens, but there are definitely loopholes for the government to exploit.

[brantfordpropertymanagement]

Exploring the Scope and Benefits of Property Management Companies in Ontario

The real estate industry is one of Canada's most dynamic and thriving sectors. Property management companies in Ontario provide a wide range of services, including managing properties, tenant selection, rent collection, and property maintenance. In this article, we will explore the scope and benefits of property management companies in Ontario.

Scope of Property Management in Ontario

The scope of property management in Ontario is broad and includes a variety of services. Property management companies in Ontario manage properties on behalf of owners, including residential, commercial, and industrial properties. These companies provide property owners with comprehensive management services such as rent collection, tenant selection, and property maintenance. Additionally, property management companies in Ontario also provide financial management services, which include budgeting, financial reporting, and tax preparation.

Benefits of Property Management Companies in Ontario

1. Tenant Selection

One of the primary benefits of property management companies in Ontario is that they provide comprehensive tenant selection services. These companies have the expertise and experience to identify and screen potential tenants, saving property owners time and reducing the risk of renting to a problematic tenant. They also provide marketing and advertising services to ensure that properties are marketed to the right audience and rented out quickly.

2. Rent Collection

Rent collection can be a tedious and time-consuming task for property owners. Property managers handle rent collection, which can help ensure timely rent payments and reduce the risk of delinquent tenants. This can help property owners avoid legal issues related to late rent payments or evictions.

3. Property Maintenance

Property maintenance is an essential aspect of property management in Ontario. Property management companies offer maintenance services, which include regular inspections, repairs, and renovations. This can help ensure that the property remains in good condition, which can help maintain its value and attract potential tenants.

4. Financial Management

Another benefit of property management companies is that they provide financial management services. These companies help property owners manage their finances, which can include budgeting, financial reporting, and tax preparation. This can help ensure that property owners are financially secure and that their properties are profitable.

Property management companies in Ontario have legal expertise and knowledge of landlord-tenant laws. This can help property owners avoid legal issues related to tenant eviction, lease agreements, and property regulations. Additionally, property management companies help property owners stay up-to-date on changes to laws and regulations related to property management.

In conclusion, property management companies play a vital role in the real estate industry. These companies provide a wide range of services, including tenant selection, rent collection, property maintenance, financial management, and legal expertise. Property management companies in Ontario can help property owners save time, reduce risk, and maintain the value of their properties. They can also help property owners avoid legal issues and stay up-to-date on changes to landlord-tenant laws. If you are a property owner in Ontario, consider investing in property management services to ensure that your property is well-managed and profitable.