(10) Lying to prevent a crime is a virtue.
Commentary: USA citizenship-based taxation is a crime when applied to people living outside the USA jurisdiction. It is theft at multiple levels: (1) It is territorial theft of another country’s tax base. (2) It is theft to tax a person without representation. (3) It is theft to tax a person for the benefit of others. Furthermore, many of the reporting requirements of FATCA and FBAR cause crimes to be committed. The government of Canada, e.g., has committed a crime by sending the bank account information of Canadian residents and ciitzens to the IRS–it is national origin discrimination which is forbidden in the charter of rights, and it is a violation of their right to privacy.
It may be necessary to lie to prevent the IRS and one’s own local government from committing crimes. One may have to lie to a bank about where one was born. One may have to omit details when filling out forms.
While lying to prevent a crime is a virtue, lying to cover up a crime is politics as usual.
Previous Discussion:
Rahab’s renunciation of citizenship–Was she a harlot, liar, traitor and tax cheat or a heroine of faith?
California genocide and the Indian Tax Revolt of 1851
Fair tax, unfair tax: or When is it paying my fair share?
Is it taxation without representation if you can vote? Damn right!
Previous Petros Principles:
(1) What the IRS can’t know unless you tell them can’t hurt you.
(2) Fear makes the IRS more dangerous than it really is.
(3) Haste is the devil.
(4) Those most hurt by the IRS’s persecution of expats have engaged the services of cross-border compliance condors.
(5) Those least hurt have done nothing.
(6) Home is where you live.
(7) An unjust law is no law.
(8) Don’t feed the beast.
(9) Do the minimum in trying to achieve the least bad outcome.
(10) Lying to prevent a crime is a virtue.
(11) Cynical derision of Homelanders is healthy.
About: Petros is the alias of the founding administrator of the Isaac Brock Society. Petros Principles are guidelines that have helped him and others deal with the United States’ world-wide tax invasion.
@Petros – evidence is what counts, in my book. But I don’t mean to start another controversy. People can watch the video and make up their own minds.
I would still vote for your Petros principle #5 as the best one. The value of doing nothing is overlooked both in our predicament, and in life in general.
I lied to my bank. Some would say that’s wrong, but I think FATCA in Canada is worse. Not as bad as the former WW2 civillian internment camp in my city, but worse than the white lie I tell. I guess I just want to be one of those “A Canadian is a Canadian” Canadians that Justin used to talk about (I’ve noticed he doesn’t anymore).
Here’s an ethics exercise:
My 18 yo son is a born in Canada “American”. His parents, unfortunately, afflicted him with the Dark Mark. The IRS has never reached out to him– unlike when I lived in the US, he’s never received a 1040 booklette in the mail (nor have I since I left the US come to think of it). Selective Service has never sent him a card notifying him of his requirement to register with them.
Forget lying. How can you lie if no one is even asking you the questions. In his case, he has obligations to the US that Uncle Sam isn’t even telling him about.
My question:
Would it be virtuous to march him down and let someone know that Private Mini-BC_Doc is reporting for duty and can he please have one of those American tax forms? If lying is wrong (and I don’t think it is in this case), wouldn’t voluntarily presenting your unkown family member for tagging and processing be a selfless, virtuous action? Hmm… I’m not so sure. I think we’ll take a pass.
@Renaud, you are welcome.
Do nothing is obviously superior to principle 10, provided one is far enough away or at least off the radar. After that the question is whether one allows the compliance condors to force you into a full disclosure to the IRS. The problem is that people who have done that have been literally destroyed financially. Yet still, none of the expats I’ve ever talked to who made an omission such as failure to report certain bank accounts, have ever been taken to court for perjury. So quite frankly, Jay’s accusations that these Petros Principles are unwise and bad advice is completely is belied by actually cases.
@Jay
I was extremely clear that I was not referring to you.
@Petros said, “I do not see how anything I say against your dogmatic positions can be ad hominem, when you are not a real person.”
Well, it’s been a long time since someone has dehumanized me like that. As an East European Jew, my family has had history with being dehumanized. I never imagined a simple comment on the isaacbrocksociety.ca website would result in one of its founding members raising “the spectre” again.
I shall now leave this site. I shall never return.
@Jay, I do not see how my suggestion that you are compliance condor is ad hominem, when I am dealing with a disembodied commenter, who is not using his full name or sent me his CV or references.
You are not a victim here. You are safely hiding behind your anonymity.
@petros-thank you again. As a finer point of linguistics, I consider the term compliance “condor” overly mild. Better would be compliance c**t or compliance c**ksu**er.
@renauld doing nothing is a great option for many people.
@renaud: “As a finer point of linguistics, I consider the term compliance “condor” overly mild. Better would be compliance c**t or compliance c**ksu**er”
Well, that forsake accuracy for mere vulgarity. A condor is a carrion that feeds off the carcasses of dead animals. That is an apt metaphor for what the compliance condors do. Besides, had I called “Jay” either of those suggestions, I think it might actually have been over the top.
However, the mere suggestion that he is a condor is based upon his view that USA law is in fact binding upon so-called citizens around the world and that it would be “unethical” to violate it. It seems that he’s learned his ethics from the condors, even if he is himself not one. But since I do not know who he is, and today he introduces a disembodied alias only to contradict me by saying my principles are unethical, I must make the best hypotheses that I can. He says he agrees with me that CBT etc. is bad, but not a human rights abuse. I do not think he has paid any attention at all to what I’ve said in the last 5 years. I have consistently said that it is not just bad it is a human rights abuse. So we do not agree at all.
Petros for the life of me I cannot understand it when people,even people who are themselves subjected to place of birth taxation, don’t see it as a human rights abuse and modern form of slavery. And how perfect a form of slavery it is when you don’t even have to physically contain the people to keep them under your control and handing over the results of their distantly located labour to you. Isn’t modern technology wonderful!
@Petros – “However, the mere suggestion that he is a condor is based upon his view that USA law is in fact binding upon so-called citizens around the world and that it would be “unethical” to violate it.”
I think a lot of Americans take that view, and are shocked that anyone could possibly disagree.
Some people are drawn to things that shock them. Maybe that’s why a person who seems to think American law must always be respected, spends time lurking on a website where most people think and say the opposite.
iota wrote:
We do not have many unaffected Homelander Americans that come to this website, but we do have a fair number of condors who lurk here.
WhiteKat wrote:
You touch on the very reason why Jay and I do not agree on anything at all. If he says its bad (but nevertheless the law), and I say it is a human rights abuse, we are not at all on the same page
Petros Principles and my other writing at Isaac Brock have made it clear thus far that CBT, FATCA and FBAR are human rights violations and they are unjust laws that are being extraterritorially applied in a way that violates not just international law but all decency. And yet Jay says he’s lurked here for years and agrees with me and then everything he has said here contradicts the very essence of my activity at Isaac Brock since 2011. Do I have any reason at all to believe that he is not an astroturfer? None.
Petros as I said in my comment above, there are other Brockers (not astroturfers) who like Jay also do not see the enforcement of CBT as a human rights violation. You and I may think otherwise but not all of us agree. I recall one Brocker who comments regularly referring to our situation as “very unfair” but not abusive. This point of view is not unique to condors and astroturfers.
Compliance condors do not just refer to those who are tax consultants. It refers to anyone who advocates for the legal rights of the United States to enforce taxes on expatriates as well as undermining the financial security of other nations by threatening them with financial war (30% compliance penalty on foreign financial institutions).
I find that the hypocrisy of the United States’ formation as a nation under protest of “unreasonable taxes (citizenship based taxes)” then not more than a century later, inflicts citizenship based taxes on its expatriates who have left and are now protesting their own form of “unreasonable taxes”. In this regards, the United States is a hypocrite and thus are engaged in the same sort of actions for which they protested vociferously during the reign of King George.
“Protested vociferously” should be amended (my mistake) to “engaged in violent insurrection” as the New World Colonies were beholden to the dictates of King George III as they were formally British Colonies.
I’m hoping that given the experience of the United States, that they should consider the fact that “violent insurrection” may be our only choice should the United States opt to send armed agents to our doors.
I find lying to be unethical reprehensible behavior. But if faced with an immoral predator, at what point does telling the truth become aiding and abetting? I could take solace in the fact that they themselves are lying about my status as a subject of theirs, but two wrongs don’t make a right. A real conundrum. But this is like a war, and truth telling helps the enemy when it’s used to isolate and identify their victims. So, just for the record, I am Spartacus…No, I am Spartacus…. No, I am…..
Peter Your attack on Jay who you know very little about was over the top and demeans you. You seem to believe you are always right and anyone who disagrees with you must always be wrong. Renaud merely demonstrates his ignorance by being excessively vulgar. You will only drive people away from an otherwise useful site. Enough!
@ Duke … Amen! We need supporters! I would hate to have people leaving the site and stopping the monetary donations that are so desperately needed to fight back. I think being dogmatic isn’t not helpful.
@Jay
By not lying on US tax and infrmation returns we may be breaking the laws of the lands we live in. Though some here have expressed doubt that handing over the personal financial information of a third party to anyone, even a foreign government would be breaking Japanese law, the recent Benesse data theft case belies that theory. I know for fact that I would be in breech of my employment contracts if I just left my class roster on the train allowing anyone access to the personal data on my students found on that document.
So Jay, whose law shall I break, US “law” or Japanese law?
US law protects against unequal treatment. The US “law” requiring actions, in this case documentation, on the part of one group of citizens and not the entire citizenry violates equal protection laws.
So Jay, why must I follow a US “law” that violates US law and Japanese law?
My feelings are similar to those of BC Doc.
FATCA has forced me to realize that it is morally justifiable to lie in certain circumstances, such as to protect oneself and/or others from the certain or potential harm of injustice.
@Jim Jatras Thanks for your reply on the Donald Trump satire article thread.
@Mr A, Lying is also morally justified if your wife asks you if you think her pants make her look fat while she’s holding a very sharp kitchen knife.
@ BC Doc and Mr. A
“My feelings are similar to those of BC Doc.”
“FATCA has forced me to realize that it is morally justifiable to lie in certain circumstances, such as to protect oneself and/or others from the certain or potential harm of injustice. ”
My feelings exactly. As when the Nazis began taking the Jews to the death camps, there is a time to avoid financial slavery to the Beast. And that time has come.
@Jay
CBT IS slavery. My childeren, born in Japan by a Japanese national with no ties to the US must none the less purchase their freedom form the US, currently to the tune of over $2,000 USD and how ever much time and money to go through the process, in order to enjoy the freedoms of their free fellow Japanese.
They are denied to use of their time by the requirement of a foreign master to file tax and information returns, not because of any acton they have taken but due to the fact that they are children of a USC.
They are denied to benefits of their own labor by being required to expend considerable amounts of these benefits for the benefit of a foreign master.
Slavery is the inablity to benefit from the fruits of one’s own labor. The only way my children (myself and spouse too for that matter) can enjoy the fruits of their labor is for them to purchase their freedom from their master.
Lying on IRS is not only to avoid liability. I have NO TAX LIABILITY! Yet, I must report my spouse’s, a JM, assets due to a joint account I had. I would be lying to protect my wife, a nonUSC from having her data held by a foreign government and to protect our children. I have no obligation to expose my family to danger of identity theft, extortion kidnapping, whatever just because a US “law” demands it of me. Especially when that “law” violates US law.
You repeatedly state that you are saying what we are reading. Perhaps your are not writing what you want to say.
@usxcanada
Same question to you, to whom do I break faith with, the US for lying or to my Japanese family and business associates by giving their data to a foreign government?