via Keith Redmond:
It is not about being Republican, Democrat, or unaffiliated, it is about OUR RIGHTS as US citizens living overseas!
“Republicans Overseas Action just filed FATCA/FBAR Complaint and Motion for preliminary injunction against Obama regime and the IRS with eight counts constitutional violations in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Dayton on behalf of 8.7 million overseas Americans. In addition, we want the federal court to stop Obama’s IRS by immediately issuing a preliminary injunction that will protect Americans overseas from FATCA and FBAR until a trial can be held by the court. Please see ROA Press Release, Ten Detailed Points, and Description of Each Plaintiff below.”
This is SO exciting! And incredibly satisfying for me personally as the suit will be heard in my hometown! Shared with non other than Douglas Shulman…the Gem City’s own favourite son…..Ironically enough, a statement by Mrs. Obama describes our situation very well:
Washington Times
“Rand Paul sues Obama over foreign banking law
FACTA blamed for causing overseas Americans to renounce citizenship
UPDATED: Complaint, Exhibit, Memo, & Motion
D. 1 – Complaint
D.1-1 – Exhbit 1
D.2-1 – PI Memo
D.2 – Motion for PI
Response of Democrats Abroad:
If the source is reliable, then Rand Paul must be referring to his part of the lawsuit, that is, the IGAs. And let’s face it, among the long shots in the lawsuit, that one is one of the longest. It will take a lot of legal ballet dancing on both sides to argue that part of the case. I like to believe the 4th amendment challenges by other plaintiffs stand some chance.
@noone as to Le Temps article. I think that the author is quoting Martin Neville to say “the chances are almost zero” and not Rand Paul. As an English speaker one would think the personal pronoun would refer back to Paul, but the whole paragraph is about information coming from Neville. That is the way I read it, although it is not 100% clear.
I agree with Jefferson. It really would be kind of absurd for somebody to say of his own lawsuit “I have no chance of winning”.
‘It really would be kind of absurd for somebody to say of his own lawsuit “I have no chance of winning”.’
In fact it isn’t. Example:
https://scholar.google.co.jp/scholar_case?case=17778447860817445243&hl=en&as_sdt=2003
US Tax Court accepted Emmet N. Shelton’s motion to dismiss his own case instead of the IRS’s motion to dismiss, because it resulted in preventing the IRS from collecting an assessment that it had no right to collect. If I had known about that case a few years ago, I would have made a similar motion in one of my cases.
In two of my other cases, I still didn’t know about Shelton’s case, I didn’t know that I could move to dismiss my own case, but I used the same kind of argument. US Tax Court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction. Then US Court of Federal Claims ruled that it lacked jurisdiction, US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed US Court of Federal Claims. I thought the result would combine with the 5th Amendment to prevent deprivation of property without due process. However, during that time frame, the IRS partially collected. I had to ask US Supreme Court. Of course cert was denied, but I had to ask.
Also during the same time frame, the IRS partially collected a something (not an assessment), about a year after Tax Court prohibited collection, so Federal Claims and Federal Circuit had to overturn a statute in order to overturn Tax Court. That was another question that I presented to Supreme Court. I submitted a brief to Tax Court suggesting that if Tax Court believed it should have any legal force at all then they might submit an amicus brief to Supreme Court, but they didn’t. On the other hand, Tax Court didn’t reject the brief. I submitted motions to ask what Tax Court is thinking. They probably don’t have to answer though.
Sometimes a lawsuit has to be attempted even when it has no chance.
@Norman Diamond
Over my head and besides that- quite depressing.
Some more coverage;
http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/lawsuit-by-u-s-presidential-candidate-81901/
http://www.theyucatantimes.com/2015/07/us-senator-sues-president-obama-over-fatca/
UPDATE: https://www.facebook.com/republicansoverseas/posts/408695515980916
“The federal government instead has asked the Court to delay the suit and give them 60 days to respond to Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction—three times the amount of time to which it would normally be entitled!”
@JC…….
As my dad would say, What a crock of shit.
Delay….delay….delay…….Solomon is right they have had five years on this……
Fighting FATCA Tyranny in U.S. Court in TaxConnections. “Financial surveillance of unprecedented scope.”
http://www.taxconnections.com/taxblog/fighting-fatca-tyranny/#.VbjYt7Vvnhn
“Americans around the world are watching.”
Unfortunately, The Hill did not accept this article, so I submitted it to TaxConnections.
Bravo Lynne for your latest article. The Hill obviously does not want this issue to garner the attention it fully deserves. The abuses of US extraterritorial CBT and the FBAR ‘n FATCA ‘n “Foreign trust” ‘n PFIC fundraisers extracting and extorting monies from the taxpayers living in the rest of the globe are to be kept as much under wraps as the US can manage.
Yes along with badger and others here, bravo, Lynne, for another informative post.
Not only The Hill, but other media both sides of the Canadian/US border and beyond do not want to devote the attention this subject deserves. A sound byte here and there just doesn’t cut it.
Word is getting out
Americans Abroad: A Disillusioned Diaspora?
http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/americans-abroad-disillusioned-diaspora
the judge scheduled a conference on our request to expedite in Dayton on August 4
August 4 a key date:
https://www.facebook.com/republicansoverseas/posts/409466799237121
FBARs and the Fifth Amendment
‘If FBAR & Fifth Amendment cases ever are granted certiorari and are reviewed by the Supreme Court, I expect the Supreme Court to validate these clear encroachments upon fundamental rights. As I mentioned last week, I fully support and hope Rand Paul’s FBAR/FATCA case succeeds, but I’m afraid that it just won’t happen.
A question I would never ask, but I suppose a younger, cuter version of myself could ask, is this: “Why do we need a Supreme Court? Couldn’t their functions be replaced with a rubber stamp and an ink pad and cost taxpayers a lot less money?”’
https://www.irsmedic.com/2015/07/21/fbars-and-the-fifth-amendment/
4 of 7 plaintiffs at debate. Recognize Rand Paul. And the others?
https://twitter.com/Biz_Shrink/status/629452118844395520
It does not look like RP debate uniform, so may be a picture from a different time?
FATCA Lawsuit update of August 13:
DOJ’s delay tactic failed and now they blamed the FATCA victims and think they are above the rule of law…
https://twitter.com/FATCALawsuit/status/631880073491017728
https://twitter.com/FATCALawsuit/status/631843681088069633
“DOJ’s delay tactic failed and now they blamed the FATCA victims and think they are above the rule of law…”
That’s only partly true. DOJ is subject to court rules when courts want to put up appearances. This has no correlation with the way the court ruling will comply with the court’s bias towards its favoured party.
DOJ is above the rule of law. The Privacy Act of 1974 says that victims can sue agencies that violate the act, but even when DOJ reveals that its violation was intentional, courts pretend that they have no jurisdiction. DOJ can repeatedly commit perjury, after repeatedly being reminded that its declarations signed under 28 USC section 1746 were in fact perjured, and still be allowed further repetitions.
And yes of course DOJ blames victims.
Incredible. Despicable. Typical of United States of Arrogance.
The U.S. Government’s defense:
-The U.S. Government isn’t responsible for how foreign banks choose to treat US persons.
-FATCA does not force couples to separate assets, nor prevents them from rejoining their assets.
-If you renounce your citizenship and as a result no longer suffer any harm from US citizenship, then you no longer have a grievance.
US citizenship has no value. If your wife or husband divorces you, it’s your problem. Maybe you should have married an American. It’s your fault that you left the U.S. to become a second-class citizen elsewhere.
“-If you renounce your citizenship and as a result no longer suffer any harm from US citizenship, then you no longer have a grievance.”
That will be enormously beneficial to people who are treated as tax citizens and penalized after they renounce. I hope the court will uphold that claim so that renunciation will remove penalties.
“US citizenship has no value.”
On average that’s true.
US citizenship has positive value for people living in the US.
US citizenship has negative value for people living outside of the US.
I should have been clearer with my “US citizenship has no value” comment by saying that the DOJ views it that way when the enforcement of a law becomes more important than an individual’s enjoyment of citizenship.
I thought it was clear enough. I agree with the DOJ’s position that US citizenship has no value (on average).
Also, whatever it is that DOJ enforces, it’s not laws except by random chance.
Latest salvo from the DA ‘splainin around how they need to provide ‘comfort’ for the IRS/Treasury to implement a SCE:
https://www.democratsabroad.org/sites/default/files/_FATCA.pdf
Still sidesteps the question of the Democrats role in proposing, implementing and enforcing FATCA and the rest of the US tax jihad against the millions deemed ‘UStaxablecitizens/persons’ outside the US.
Still sidesteps the FBAR issue – which the IRS already has had the power to change how it implements, sidesteps the ‘foreign trust’ issues re our education, disability and retirement and other savings accts… etc etc.
Still supports FATCA without admitting that the US already has tools to catch the billionaires they say are the intended targets. Still doesn’t help those with accts in neighbouring countries – as is common in the EU. Still doesn’t help those who cannot afford to be/come US tax ‘compliant’!
If there’s any justice in the world, one judge will make a difference.
“If there’s any justice in the world, one judge will make a difference.”
Hey, I thought it was only Yanks who thought the US and the world were the same thing.
However, as for whether there’s any justice in the US, occasionally there is, by accident. But one judge won’t make a difference. If a trial judge for some reason issues a just ruling, an appeals court will overturn it.