38 thoughts on “Statement of Claim to the Canadian Attorney General of Canada”
I am reading it now, and I am so chuffed. Way to go Ginny and Gwen for your courage and convictions!
Woo-hoo! Well done everyone, plaintiffs and lawyers both. God Speed and Good Luck.
That statement of claim really nails it.
Congratulations! Thanks to all involved, and the best of luck to us all!
H
Great Stuff. I pray for justice to be done in this matter. It would be picky to suspect that there are one or two typos in the Statement of Claim … so I wont discuss any such thing. Love the simple clarity. Wonder what the response from the “Wrong” side will be. I suppose that we will need to wait 30 days though the phone lines might be jammed with busy signals in the meantime.
@Petros … I think that everyone worldwide should read this.
I agree with nervousinvestor — everyone worldwide should read the Statement of Claim!
The FinCEN experience also violates provision 10 in my view. Provision 10 says taxpayers have the “right to a fair and just tax system.” It is neither fair or just in my view to force individuals to register and transmit sensitive personal information on a website that is built for the sole purpose of detecting money laundering, terrorist financing, and other financial crimes, where no evidence exists that the individuals have perpetuated or are planning to perpetuate any such crimes. This process constitutes an intimidation tactic. If you don’t believe it, I invite you to visit the FinCEN website, register yourself, and file an FBAR form as a civics lesson.
I am not saying Treasury doesn’t need the information FBAR requires (though much or most of it is egregiously duplicative with IRS forms that non-resident US persons already have to file). But I am saying there is no way that Treasury needs to extract this information by making individuals register on a website that so clearly transmits the message: “you are a suspected criminal and we are watching you.”
Remember, we are talking about millions and millions of people who have “foreign” bank accounts because they live in foreign countries; most are citizens of those foreign countries where they live; and their banks are local to them. Congress treats these people as if they live in the United States, when they do not. But Congress does not similarly treat their local bank accounts as local (Congress should do so, and would fix many problems if they did, as I argued in a Tax Analysts column in 2012). This mismatch of fiction against fact does not make people money launderers or tax evaders. Many, many of these individuals are unjustly caught up in the US tax net because of the madness of citizenship taxation. Also: consider that the FBAR instructions even say that kids ought to fill out their own FBAR forms. Come on.
The best defense is a strong offense.
Ex-pats/former-pats have been playing defense for far too long.
Tonight, a single shot has been heard round the world. Defense is no longer the “game.”
Ottawa did not believe this could happen.
Washington could not believe this could happen.
But it did and it happened tonight.
Those affected by FATCA have been living a nightmare.
Tonight, the politicians begin to have political nightmares.
The language in this lawsuit SHALL become a legal template in other nations.
I can only pray that the politicians will step back from the edge and break bread on what is really important.
What is important? Homelanders of any nation, who use foreign accounts that are truly foreign, they are rightly a target.
Incidentally, tracking information for this claim is now available at the court’s website:
There have been many, many opportunities for both Harper and the U.S. to stop this problem. Amend FATCA to say it applies to accounts held where you do not live, earn or gain anything monetarily. They were warned it violated the laws of this country and they went ahead pretending we would all be rolled over like a train without a peep. Wrong. We have families, kids we care about, homes to protect. We demanded the same rights every other Canadian and to not be searched unless there was clear evidence of criminal intent and wrong doing. No one listened. It was fine for us to be treated that way and if we complained we were told we are tax evaders and what are we hiding. Well, enough is enough. This is great news and it was coming all along, it did not have to come to this but, that wasn’t our choice. If the U.S. wants to think it gets away with criminalizing every single expat family it can think again. They are an outlier with CBT. Canadians if you read this even if you are not affected you need to donate. If you don’t then the next time Harper or the U.S. tries to violate our Charter of Rights and Freedoms you will be impacted. Donate and stop this blatant over reach and discriminatory U.S. law on our soil.
Historic. Ball’s in their court now.
I am just starting to read this. It is amazing. However, I have a question about point #16 on page 6, 2nd sentence. It reads:
“The Unites States also automatically considers anyone born outside the United States to be a citizen and a US Person if both of that person’s parents were United States citizens at the time of birth, the parents were married at the time of birth, and at least one parent lived in the United States or its territories prior to the birth.”
Is this fully accurate? Do both parents have to have been US citizens? I thought that citizenship would be passed even if only one parent was a US citizen. And are there not other permutation/factors that would lead to definite US citizenship of the child? I mean, maybe this is not relevant to this specific case with these specific plaintiffs, but could someone out there who is more thoroughly familiar with the legalities clarify please?
In any event, Bravo for the initiation of this action and , on behalf of all Canadians (not just those who were US-born, 1,000,000 cyber-hugs to our very brave Ginny and Gwen!!!!!
Best news of the day.
And best wry smile of the day. The post title and link refer to the “Canadian Attorney General of Canada”.
As Harper’s minister who must defend FATCA and the IGA in this legal case, doesn’t he actually have to act as the American Attorney General of Canada?
@LM–yes, one citizen parent can transmit US citizenship to a child born abroad if the citizen parent had the requisite physical presence in the United States–a total of 5 years of physical presence in the United States, at least two of which were after the age of 14.
A simple & clear statement of claim, and yet the WSJ still manages to mischaracterise it. In contrast to Forbes and the Globe & Mail which correctly identify the plaintiffs as Canadians and FATCA as an extraterritorial law, the WSJ takes the U.S. government line and claims that the plaintiffs are “US expats” who earn “overseas income” and that FATCA is a “U.S. law designed to clamp down on tax evasion” http://online.wsj.com/articles/expats-in-canada-sue-over-u-s-effort-to-collect-taxes-abroad-1407856738
Clause 16 omits that only one US citizen parent of a child born abroad is needed to transmit US citizenship to that child at birth.
@George-your comment “single shot heard around the world”
the hairs on my neck stood up i read this and emotion (weepy) as well .
too right!!! thank you for reclaiming this phrase from American History for us.
qm’s comment also made me think of HIV in the womb analogy
“one citizen parent can transmit US citizenship to a child”
like a cure for AIDS slowly evolving from years of effort, a cure for US clinging nationality is being hammered out by Brockers blood, sweat and tears
It should be noted that the IRS considers certain children to be US taxpayers by descent, confirming what Calgary411 has asserted all along – that the IRS will lay claim to a US citizen’s offspring regardless of whether that offspring has taken any action to claim US citizenship. From the IRS itself:
“U.S. Citizens by Birth or through a U.S. Citizen Parent
Amendment XIV, Section 1, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution directs that all persons born in the United States are U.S. citizens. This is the case regardless of the tax or immigration status of a person’s parents.
Furthermore, a person born outside the United States may also be a U.S. citizen at birth if at least one parent is a U.S. citizen and has lived in the United States for a period of time. The United States Citizenship and Immigration (USCIS) Web page on Citizenship Through Parents contains more detailed information for persons born outside the United States to a U.S. citizen parent or parents.”
It should also be noted that physical presence in the US of a mother that’s necessary to transmit citizenship is different for children born out of wedlock: one year, any time before the child is born.
@Shovel, Well, how embarrasing for me to make a typographical error in the title. I abhor such things. But actually, with your amusing explanation, it works for me. It is as you say, a lawsuit against the Canadian Attorney General of Canada. Whether such a attorney shows up or someone working for the United States, we will see. Thanks.
@LM This FATCA nonsense has made amateur US lawyers of us all. I for one look forward to unlearning every sorry detail I have had to learn when this challenge is ultimately successful. However, in a nutshell: 2 US parents = US citizen children; 1 US citizen parent = US citizen children IF that parent lived in the US for the requisite number of years in total and over beyond the age of 14. I think it is ten years in total and five past the age of 14 but I frankly can’t be bothered to look it up!
An aspect of the case (more for argument than the Claim itself) will be the effective reverse onus that Canada’s FATCA Implementation Act imposes. US indicia means reporting to CRA and thence IRS unless NON-US Personhood is proved. The onus shifts on the (normally) presumptively innocent citizen to prove that they are not “guilty” of being a US Person and thus entitled to no financial privacy. The only avenue of satisfying the reverse onus stipulated is a CLN (which requires application to a foreign government and is subject entirely to their discretion). In fact, US citizenship can be lost in a variety of ways (naturalization, serving in Armed Forces, public service, etc) without a CLN ever being acquired. Prior to 1994, there was no hint of a requirement to obtain a CLN and anyone who relinquished via an expatriating act prior to that date is NOT a US Person in fact but is nonethless presumed to be one and put to the task of proving to the satisfaction of the US government that they are not. In other words, the only way such a person can defend their privacy from the intrusion of a foreign government is….to surrender their right to privacy to that same foreign government and ask, cap in hand and sworn declarations regarding property ownership, Canadian voting records etc, for that government’s agreement that they are no longer tarred with membership in a club they abandoned years ago. I strongly suspect that at least one of our plaintiff’s is in that boat and this will be an excellent argument to be advanced in terms of the Charter over-reach of C-31.
By the way, the case is not that much different for post-1994 relinquishment except that while citizenship is lost upon relinquishment, there have been a variety of punitive tax code provisions that continued to tax former citizens anyway until a CLN is obtained and then for a period of time thereafter. They are NOT citizens but the US may consider them to be taxable US Persons anyway. Given the limited approval of extraterritorial citizen-based taxation by the US Supreme Court founded on the (un-examined and un-explained) rights and obligations said to bind both the citizen and the government, it remains to be seen whether the purported taxation of non-citizens (or dual citizens, for that matter) would ever withstand such scrutiny. However, that is not our issue in Canadian litigation.
The point for the litigation in Canada is that C-31 institutionalizes a witch hunt for any Canadians or permanent residents who MIGHT be open to being treated as tax cheats by the USG. It then requires all the potential victims to go to the US to PROVE that they are not legitimate victims in a process which requires not only that they take the initiative of undertaking a foreign proceeding at a potentially distant consulate or embassy, but that they become subject to invasive examination of their personal details at the instance of that government to prove their innocence. As I said, surrender your right to privacy in order to preserve it through a reverse onus.
As well, of course, gigabytes of private financial data pertaining to “pure” Canadians and their businesses is innocent by-catch in this sweep as their privacy rights are violated without a shred of consent or control (and their data sent to the IRS) simply because they had the misfortune to marry, employ or go into business partnership with a Canadian who – possibly unknown to them – happened to have unfortunate historical connections to the US.
Dual citizens sue feds over FATCA tax deal with U.S.
By Patrick Cain Global News
With links to Statement of Claim, the IGA, Alliance for the Defence of Canadian Sovereignty and raising funds (donate) among others.
It seems to me that with the above post the IRS is attempting to herd people into the US tax system when the US government is still making it unclear as to whether a child needs to claim their right to be a US citizen through a parent. They are trying to take advantage of a grey area by even referring to citizenship by descent on their site. Whats the progression from here, the banks require their customers disclose lineage?
@LM – minor supplement (yes, I did look it up): the residency requirement for passing on US citizenship is 2 parents and ONE has actually lived in the US prior to birth = US citizen at birth (in other words, US citizenship can only be passed down a single generation unless residency is established); 1 parent resident for five years at least, two of which are post-14th birthday = US citizen at birth. There are other variants for born out of wedlock, time served abroad in US Armed Forces etc etc.
last PS – further point to bear in mind re over-reach of C-31: Canada has already enacted a statute approving the US Canada tax treaty (as has the US – the Treaty was Senate-approved) which specifically provides that Canada will NOT assist in the collection of US taxes from Canadian citizens who are US citizens from and after the point at which they became Canadians. In other words, the Revenue Rule applies to US taxes as regards Canadian citizens (US can’t collect). The privacy violation of C-31 is thus for the purpose of identifying a potential obligation which is not enforceable in Canada as regards Canadian citizens apart entirely from the fact that the same treaty guarantees sufficient exemptions that – in most cases, most of the time – no taxes (as opposed to in terrorem non-filing penalties) will be owing.
As I have noted before, the trick in this litigation is not going to be about describing the Charter violations per se – they are numerous and fairly manifest – it is going to be establishing the prejudice that everyone on this site understands like the back of their hands but must nevertheless be patiently explained to an un-initiated judge.
10:30 a.m. ET Aug. 13: “The Government is confident that the legislation in question is constitutionally valid,” finance department spokesperson Jack Aubry said in an e-mail late Tuesday. “The Government is prepared to defend the legislation in court. As the matter is under litigation, we are not in a position to comment further at this point.”
I am reading it now, and I am so chuffed. Way to go Ginny and Gwen for your courage and convictions!
Woo-hoo! Well done everyone, plaintiffs and lawyers both. God Speed and Good Luck.
That statement of claim really nails it.
Congratulations! Thanks to all involved, and the best of luck to us all!
H
Great Stuff. I pray for justice to be done in this matter. It would be picky to suspect that there are one or two typos in the Statement of Claim … so I wont discuss any such thing. Love the simple clarity. Wonder what the response from the “Wrong” side will be. I suppose that we will need to wait 30 days though the phone lines might be jammed with busy signals in the meantime.
@Petros … I think that everyone worldwide should read this.
I agree with nervousinvestor — everyone worldwide should read the Statement of Claim!
Allison Christians has a related item on her blog: Allison Christians, August 12, 2014: FBAR e-filing: violates Taxpayer Bill of Rights, challengeable under Haar
The FinCEN experience also violates provision 10 in my view. Provision 10 says taxpayers have the “right to a fair and just tax system.” It is neither fair or just in my view to force individuals to register and transmit sensitive personal information on a website that is built for the sole purpose of detecting money laundering, terrorist financing, and other financial crimes, where no evidence exists that the individuals have perpetuated or are planning to perpetuate any such crimes. This process constitutes an intimidation tactic. If you don’t believe it, I invite you to visit the FinCEN website, register yourself, and file an FBAR form as a civics lesson.
I am not saying Treasury doesn’t need the information FBAR requires (though much or most of it is egregiously duplicative with IRS forms that non-resident US persons already have to file). But I am saying there is no way that Treasury needs to extract this information by making individuals register on a website that so clearly transmits the message: “you are a suspected criminal and we are watching you.”
Remember, we are talking about millions and millions of people who have “foreign” bank accounts because they live in foreign countries; most are citizens of those foreign countries where they live; and their banks are local to them. Congress treats these people as if they live in the United States, when they do not. But Congress does not similarly treat their local bank accounts as local (Congress should do so, and would fix many problems if they did, as I argued in a Tax Analysts column in 2012). This mismatch of fiction against fact does not make people money launderers or tax evaders. Many, many of these individuals are unjustly caught up in the US tax net because of the madness of citizenship taxation. Also: consider that the FBAR instructions even say that kids ought to fill out their own FBAR forms. Come on.
The best defense is a strong offense.
Ex-pats/former-pats have been playing defense for far too long.
Tonight, a single shot has been heard round the world. Defense is no longer the “game.”
Ottawa did not believe this could happen.
Washington could not believe this could happen.
But it did and it happened tonight.
Those affected by FATCA have been living a nightmare.
Tonight, the politicians begin to have political nightmares.
The language in this lawsuit SHALL become a legal template in other nations.
I can only pray that the politicians will step back from the edge and break bread on what is really important.
What is important? Homelanders of any nation, who use foreign accounts that are truly foreign, they are rightly a target.
Incidentally, tracking information for this claim is now available at the court’s website:
http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=T-1736-14
OR
http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_moreInfo_e.php?T-1736-14
FANTASTIC!
There have been many, many opportunities for both Harper and the U.S. to stop this problem. Amend FATCA to say it applies to accounts held where you do not live, earn or gain anything monetarily. They were warned it violated the laws of this country and they went ahead pretending we would all be rolled over like a train without a peep. Wrong. We have families, kids we care about, homes to protect. We demanded the same rights every other Canadian and to not be searched unless there was clear evidence of criminal intent and wrong doing. No one listened. It was fine for us to be treated that way and if we complained we were told we are tax evaders and what are we hiding. Well, enough is enough. This is great news and it was coming all along, it did not have to come to this but, that wasn’t our choice. If the U.S. wants to think it gets away with criminalizing every single expat family it can think again. They are an outlier with CBT. Canadians if you read this even if you are not affected you need to donate. If you don’t then the next time Harper or the U.S. tries to violate our Charter of Rights and Freedoms you will be impacted. Donate and stop this blatant over reach and discriminatory U.S. law on our soil.
Historic. Ball’s in their court now.
I am just starting to read this. It is amazing. However, I have a question about point #16 on page 6, 2nd sentence. It reads:
“The Unites States also automatically considers anyone born outside the United States to be a citizen and a US Person if both of that person’s parents were United States citizens at the time of birth, the parents were married at the time of birth, and at least one parent lived in the United States or its territories prior to the birth.”
Is this fully accurate? Do both parents have to have been US citizens? I thought that citizenship would be passed even if only one parent was a US citizen. And are there not other permutation/factors that would lead to definite US citizenship of the child? I mean, maybe this is not relevant to this specific case with these specific plaintiffs, but could someone out there who is more thoroughly familiar with the legalities clarify please?
In any event, Bravo for the initiation of this action and , on behalf of all Canadians (not just those who were US-born, 1,000,000 cyber-hugs to our very brave Ginny and Gwen!!!!!
Best news of the day.
And best wry smile of the day. The post title and link refer to the “Canadian Attorney General of Canada”.
As Harper’s minister who must defend FATCA and the IGA in this legal case, doesn’t he actually have to act as the American Attorney General of Canada?
@LM–yes, one citizen parent can transmit US citizenship to a child born abroad if the citizen parent had the requisite physical presence in the United States–a total of 5 years of physical presence in the United States, at least two of which were after the age of 14.
A simple & clear statement of claim, and yet the WSJ still manages to mischaracterise it. In contrast to Forbes and the Globe & Mail which correctly identify the plaintiffs as Canadians and FATCA as an extraterritorial law, the WSJ takes the U.S. government line and claims that the plaintiffs are “US expats” who earn “overseas income” and that FATCA is a “U.S. law designed to clamp down on tax evasion”
http://online.wsj.com/articles/expats-in-canada-sue-over-u-s-effort-to-collect-taxes-abroad-1407856738
Clause 16 omits that only one US citizen parent of a child born abroad is needed to transmit US citizenship to that child at birth.
@George-your comment “single shot heard around the world”
the hairs on my neck stood up i read this and emotion (weepy) as well .
too right!!! thank you for reclaiming this phrase from American History for us.
qm’s comment also made me think of HIV in the womb analogy
“one citizen parent can transmit US citizenship to a child”
like a cure for AIDS slowly evolving from years of effort, a cure for US clinging nationality is being hammered out by Brockers blood, sweat and tears
It should be noted that the IRS considers certain children to be US taxpayers by descent, confirming what Calgary411 has asserted all along – that the IRS will lay claim to a US citizen’s offspring regardless of whether that offspring has taken any action to claim US citizenship. From the IRS itself:
“U.S. Citizens by Birth or through a U.S. Citizen Parent
Amendment XIV, Section 1, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution directs that all persons born in the United States are U.S. citizens. This is the case regardless of the tax or immigration status of a person’s parents.
Furthermore, a person born outside the United States may also be a U.S. citizen at birth if at least one parent is a U.S. citizen and has lived in the United States for a period of time. The United States Citizenship and Immigration (USCIS) Web page on Citizenship Through Parents contains more detailed information for persons born outside the United States to a U.S. citizen parent or parents.”
http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/International-Taxpayers/U.S.-Citizens-by-Birth-or-through-a-U.S.-Citizen-Parent
It should also be noted that physical presence in the US of a mother that’s necessary to transmit citizenship is different for children born out of wedlock: one year, any time before the child is born.
@Shovel, Well, how embarrasing for me to make a typographical error in the title. I abhor such things. But actually, with your amusing explanation, it works for me. It is as you say, a lawsuit against the Canadian Attorney General of Canada. Whether such a attorney shows up or someone working for the United States, we will see. Thanks.
@LM This FATCA nonsense has made amateur US lawyers of us all. I for one look forward to unlearning every sorry detail I have had to learn when this challenge is ultimately successful. However, in a nutshell: 2 US parents = US citizen children; 1 US citizen parent = US citizen children IF that parent lived in the US for the requisite number of years in total and over beyond the age of 14. I think it is ten years in total and five past the age of 14 but I frankly can’t be bothered to look it up!
An aspect of the case (more for argument than the Claim itself) will be the effective reverse onus that Canada’s FATCA Implementation Act imposes. US indicia means reporting to CRA and thence IRS unless NON-US Personhood is proved. The onus shifts on the (normally) presumptively innocent citizen to prove that they are not “guilty” of being a US Person and thus entitled to no financial privacy. The only avenue of satisfying the reverse onus stipulated is a CLN (which requires application to a foreign government and is subject entirely to their discretion). In fact, US citizenship can be lost in a variety of ways (naturalization, serving in Armed Forces, public service, etc) without a CLN ever being acquired. Prior to 1994, there was no hint of a requirement to obtain a CLN and anyone who relinquished via an expatriating act prior to that date is NOT a US Person in fact but is nonethless presumed to be one and put to the task of proving to the satisfaction of the US government that they are not. In other words, the only way such a person can defend their privacy from the intrusion of a foreign government is….to surrender their right to privacy to that same foreign government and ask, cap in hand and sworn declarations regarding property ownership, Canadian voting records etc, for that government’s agreement that they are no longer tarred with membership in a club they abandoned years ago. I strongly suspect that at least one of our plaintiff’s is in that boat and this will be an excellent argument to be advanced in terms of the Charter over-reach of C-31.
By the way, the case is not that much different for post-1994 relinquishment except that while citizenship is lost upon relinquishment, there have been a variety of punitive tax code provisions that continued to tax former citizens anyway until a CLN is obtained and then for a period of time thereafter. They are NOT citizens but the US may consider them to be taxable US Persons anyway. Given the limited approval of extraterritorial citizen-based taxation by the US Supreme Court founded on the (un-examined and un-explained) rights and obligations said to bind both the citizen and the government, it remains to be seen whether the purported taxation of non-citizens (or dual citizens, for that matter) would ever withstand such scrutiny. However, that is not our issue in Canadian litigation.
The point for the litigation in Canada is that C-31 institutionalizes a witch hunt for any Canadians or permanent residents who MIGHT be open to being treated as tax cheats by the USG. It then requires all the potential victims to go to the US to PROVE that they are not legitimate victims in a process which requires not only that they take the initiative of undertaking a foreign proceeding at a potentially distant consulate or embassy, but that they become subject to invasive examination of their personal details at the instance of that government to prove their innocence. As I said, surrender your right to privacy in order to preserve it through a reverse onus.
As well, of course, gigabytes of private financial data pertaining to “pure” Canadians and their businesses is innocent by-catch in this sweep as their privacy rights are violated without a shred of consent or control (and their data sent to the IRS) simply because they had the misfortune to marry, employ or go into business partnership with a Canadian who – possibly unknown to them – happened to have unfortunate historical connections to the US.
Dual citizens sue feds over FATCA tax deal with U.S.
By Patrick Cain Global News
THE ASSOCIATED PRES
http://globalnews.ca/news/1504452/dual-citizens-sue-feds-over-fatca-deal-letting-banks-pass-info-to-irs/
With links to Statement of Claim, the IGA, Alliance for the Defence of Canadian Sovereignty and raising funds (donate) among others.
It seems to me that with the above post the IRS is attempting to herd people into the US tax system when the US government is still making it unclear as to whether a child needs to claim their right to be a US citizen through a parent. They are trying to take advantage of a grey area by even referring to citizenship by descent on their site. Whats the progression from here, the banks require their customers disclose lineage?
@LM – minor supplement (yes, I did look it up): the residency requirement for passing on US citizenship is 2 parents and ONE has actually lived in the US prior to birth = US citizen at birth (in other words, US citizenship can only be passed down a single generation unless residency is established); 1 parent resident for five years at least, two of which are post-14th birthday = US citizen at birth. There are other variants for born out of wedlock, time served abroad in US Armed Forces etc etc.
last PS – further point to bear in mind re over-reach of C-31: Canada has already enacted a statute approving the US Canada tax treaty (as has the US – the Treaty was Senate-approved) which specifically provides that Canada will NOT assist in the collection of US taxes from Canadian citizens who are US citizens from and after the point at which they became Canadians. In other words, the Revenue Rule applies to US taxes as regards Canadian citizens (US can’t collect). The privacy violation of C-31 is thus for the purpose of identifying a potential obligation which is not enforceable in Canada as regards Canadian citizens apart entirely from the fact that the same treaty guarantees sufficient exemptions that – in most cases, most of the time – no taxes (as opposed to in terrorem non-filing penalties) will be owing.
As I have noted before, the trick in this litigation is not going to be about describing the Charter violations per se – they are numerous and fairly manifest – it is going to be establishing the prejudice that everyone on this site understands like the back of their hands but must nevertheless be patiently explained to an un-initiated judge.
Update to Patrick Cain’s Global News article: http://globalnews.ca/news/1504452/dual-citizens-sue-feds-over-fatca-deal-letting-banks-pass-info-to-irs/,