Here is the full text of the motion to dismiss:
ENTRY AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN
AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT (DOC. 32); GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. 26) PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT (DOC. 1); AND
Here, analyzing each Plaintiff individually, the Court finds that none of the Plaintiffs has standing to sue Defendants. No individual Plaintiff has suffered an invasion of a legally protected interest, which is concrete and particularized, and actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical. Moreover, no alleged injury is fairly traceable to the actions of the Defendants, but rather, the actions of an independent third party. Finally, there are no allegations that it is likely that the alleged injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560–61. In reaching these holdings, the Court analyzed the proposed Amended Verified Complaint, (doc. 32-1), which could not withstand Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, (doc. 26); therefore, the proposed amendments are futile.
Accordingly, all claims are DISMISSED for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), against all Defendants, without prejudice.
UPDATE: Here is a new article from CGMA Magazine detailing the lawsuit dismissal:
US Court dismisses FATCA challenges
And as reported yesterday in Law360:
Sen. Rand Paul’s FATCA Lawsuit Tossed For Lack Of Standing
By Jack Newsham
Law360, New York (April 26, 2016, 9:15 PM ET) — An Ohio federal judge tossed a lawsuit filed by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and several current and former U.S. citizens living abroad that challenged key elements of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, saying the plaintiffs hadn’t shown that the law had harmed them or probably would harm them.
Paul and nine others lack standing, U.S. District Judge Thomas Rose ruled, and they still haven’t done anything to fix the problems Judge Rose identified when he refused to issue an injunction against the law’s provisions in September…
Registration required to read the rest of the article.
Here’s an unsympathetic Forbes story from October 2015 about the same lawsuit and the original motion to dismiss:
Reading through it right now… The whole argument that Sen. Rand Paul was harmed by not being able to vote against FATCA IGAs sounds a lot like parliamentary privilege up here. That’s usually something under the jurisdiction of the House of Commons under the Speaker as opposed to going through the courts.
Sadly, however, because the IGA was passed as part of an omnibus budget bill, I don’t believe MPs would have that recourse.
I’m so frustrated after reading that. “We just implement the laws; how you act as a result is not our fault or our problem.”
More of my money down the drain.
The link to this document will be included in an update to the UN Human Rights Commission. With this loss in the US court our only hope for a “domestic” (i.e. U.S. in this case) resolution to our plight is now in the hands of the politicians currently running for office. Pigs would sooner fly……
Sad but not very surprising, trying to convince the abuser that they are being abusive.
I hope this doesn’t give the green light for Canadian banks to start turfing US persons, something they’ve so far refrained from doing.
Thanks MuzzledNoMore for sending on this bad news to the UN Human Rights Commission.
This decision is very disappointing but somehow I wouldn’t expect good news from south of the border. The American justice system gets more corrupt every day. Best to remove oneself from the mess in whatever way possible.
Yes, thanks for including it in the Human Rights abuse compliant.
So, so sad. All we can do is renounce to free ourselves. The US government is allowed to make any law they want and other nations just enforce these laws without question …no other nation would get away with it.
Yes, Isabelle Brock, that’s what puzzles me the most about it, this refusal to accept responsibility for one’s actions. But, I suppose that for the US, that’s nothing new.
I agree with Bubblebustin. This points out the need to regulate the actions of the financial institutions in Canada (and elsewhere) by enacting laws IN CANADA, for example, prohibiting banks and other FIs registered or chartered IN CANADA (or other country) from refusing to allow new or existing accounts by “US Persons” because of any indicia of a US taint. This might not stop the banks and the CRA from sending account information to the IRS, but it would prevent some of the damage from the IGA, especially if a non-compliant US-tainted person doesn’t care about letters from the IRS.
So far my bank hasn’t asked about my or my husband’s birthplace, not did they when they set up an Estate Account after my husband passed away. I also haven’t had any problems with insurance companies. All this could change, but so far I haven’t had to show our CLNs.
“Sad but not very surprising, trying to convince the abuser that they are being abusive.”
No, the abuser knows that they’re being abusive and they don’t care. They know they’re being abusive because they sponsored a UN resolution condemning their only friend (Etritrea) for copying their abuse when they thought they had a monopoly.
The US gov’t is EXTORTING/threatening other countries if they do not facilitate it’s attack on it’s own citizens. How is that NOT against the law, ffs! This overreach was meticulously planned & implemented & I call it reverse-TREASON by the US gov’t towards it’s own citizens.
The “harm” most definitely is due to the onerous FATCA law– to say it’s the fault of the foreign banks (who are being crushed as a result of this USA extortion & who are trying to get out from under the complexity of it’s compliance by closing US person accts.), is ludicrous.
Up next from the US gov’t: Do what we say, or we send out drones??
I think a letter-writing campaign, to Judge Rose personally, would be a good thing.