We have to remember that United States law code only applies to little people like you and me, but not to big important people like Hillary Clinton:
This is an illustration of Petros Principle 12: The criminals are in DC.
We have to remember that United States law code only applies to little people like you and me, but not to big important people like Hillary Clinton:
This is an illustration of Petros Principle 12: The criminals are in DC.
@iota
“would probably mean….”
You are not a lawyer. I wish you would stop interpreting the law here. I understand that you are trying to make people calm, but you don`t have a basis for your interpretations of laws. Even such experts as Bopp and Array do not know what the judge will decide. We read the law one way and the experts read it another. So if we are totally honest, we do not actually know what the future will bring. And one has to be able to stand that uncertainty or renounce. ( I developed something approaching an ulcer so I renounced.)
“Even such experts as Bopp and Array do not know what the judge will decide.”
Even a judge doesn’t know what the judge will decide in the next case involving the same parties, same facts, and different tax years. Even when the judge knows what he decided in the previous case involving the same parties, same facts, and different tax years, the judge doesn’t have to give a shit, and can issue a contradictory ruling (Federal Circuit intra-circuit split where the same judge was on both panels).
A judge can even issue a self-contradictory ruling within a single ruling (US Tax Court).
iota’s interpretations are neither better nor worse than a lawyer or judge. Maybe iota is more honest, but it doesn’t matter. A judge is the one who rules, even when the judge contradicts self.
Two fun quotes from the Clinton emails:
One by P.J. Crowley, Assistant Secretary of State for Something-Or-Other:
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/195
(That from May 2010, around the same time as The Secretary was hiking the renunciation fee to $450)
and another by Philippe Reines, Senior Advisor to the Secretary of State:
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/23290
@Iota, sanctions by the USA is something that they do to enemies. So are you saying that 30% sanctions is how the USA plans to treat every country without an IGA? That is flatly ridiculous. The USA cannot survive without Canadian hydroelectric power. We could also apply 30% sanctions to Walmart, Costco, Sears and multiple other ventures here in Canada. And it has been suggested that all the flights from the USA to Europe could be diverted around Canadian airspace. Is the USA prepared to have every nation on earth treat them as a pariah?
Suppose China had 30% sanctions applied to them by the USA. China could stop shipping goods and the USA would have to cancel Christmas and Walmart would have to close all over the country due to lack of inventory.
@Eric
Thanks for the quotes. The “Secretary” AKA ________ (this is Brock so the name of the Secretary shouldn’t be mentioned) has got it wrong. U.S. citizenship is a right and NOT a privilege. At least that’s what the U.S. Supreme Court decided. But, then again, when it comes to U.S. citizenship, I guess “only the Secretary knows for sure”.
@Polly
I agree with you. Nobody can know for sure how this will unfold in the short term, the medium term or the long term.
@Iota
A positive result in the Canadian lawsuit WOULD certainly have some impact on this issue. The are two kinds of positive results. First, a clear win. Second, a loss but a decision saying that although the conduct of the Government of Canada is legal, that conduct is immoral and unjust and that conduct of the USA is immoral and unjust. The question is what would the impact be of either form of positive result. At the end of the day, you will find that the law is basically irrelevant anyway.
@Petros – You pose and answer your own question “Suppose China had 30% sanctions applied to them by the USA. China could stop shipping goods and the USA would have to cancel Christmas and Walmart would have to close all over the country due to lack of inventory.”
The US is indeed highly vulnerable to trade interruption. What would they do? Send out Gunships to seize other people’s goods? Or would the American people wake up at last and demand that their Government behave in a rational way?
@nervousinvestor, Canada could turn out the lights in several eastern seaboard states that vote democrat, voted for Obama and FATCA. I wouldn’t put it past them to invade Canada to get the lights put back on.
But the fiat money and debt-based economy is indeed fragile if the rest of the world stops bank-rolling the USA or stops accepting USA printed money (with no intrinsic value) for real goods.
@Petros – I concur – but do you think that the ordinary people of those Seaboard States might possibly listen to reason broadcast to them across the border and understand that it is their Government’s policies that are the cause of the say 24 times a day power outages? Might they understand why Canada demands payment for its power in Precious metals or other hard goods due to the unacceptability of the USG seizing 30% of every payment of fiat money to Canada? As you say, China is in an even stronger position. The several together …..
@nervousinvestor, no telling what people who are used to bread and circuses are capable of doing. But advocating the invasion of Canada would be not an unlikely reaction.
Canada could…..but would it?
To this day I wonder at how easily all these countries gave in to FATCA, even though to steals money from their own treasuries. And what is more – they did it without demanding anything in return. WHY? They could have done so many things- like even asked for money for each bit of information they deliver to the USA. Instead- they opted to pay for everything America ordered. I just don`t get it.
it steals….not to steals
@Petros – After WWII, President Charles de Gaulle demanded that the US settle its accounts with France in gold bullion. I seem to think that that happened … without the US attacking France (which in any case was in a wrecked state in the decades following WWII).
Sadly however the US population does seem particularly susceptible to propaganda coming from “those who know best”.
Anyway. Gotta run.
@Polly
Because it’s easier to throw a few citizens under the bus. Now they’re hearing from us.
@Bubblebustin
What I mean is: why don`t other countries ask for some money in return? Why did they give in for free? They could have said “OK- but for every piece of information on an account here we want 30$.” The BANKS could have said that. Nobody said anything, nobody demanded anything, and they took all the costs on their own shoulders. They just rolled over. Why?
Yeah, I don’t get it either, Polly.
Poor leadership?
@Petros
Not “on topic” re FATCA or RBT, or on anything Canadian, but does this count as breaking Federal law? Or implementing it? It’s all so corrupt, hard to tell anymore . . .
https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/blogs/jim-jatras/trump-claims-obama-and-hillary-are-founder-and-co-founder-of-isis/
@polly and bb
Because they thought they were going to get something in return. They had wanted to implement crs for a while with no success. Facta forced the banks into accepting the cost of implementing the software to enable fatca and hence crs.
@ Petros and Jim Jatras
You might find yourself nodding along with Rand Paul on that which some feel should not be discussed on Brock:
Great flick EmBee. After listening to Rand Paul, I now honestly don’t know who is more dangerous – Trump or Clinton. Hillary clearly considers herself to be above the law.
Rand Paul would have been a good president. Sigh.
@Jatras, I am pretty sure that Obama at least could go to jail for breaking anti-terrorism laws. It seemed to me to be an incoherent foreign policy to arm terrorists to take down the Syrian government, there you have it.
The FBI is investigating with the help not of District Attorney Lynch, but Preet Bharara, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York.
Now this: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-12/fbi-mutiny-feds-reportedly-launch-clinton-foundation-corruption-probe-despite-doj-ob
Then, Hillary is very generous–she gave over $1 million to a charitable project: herself.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/12/96-percent-of-hillarys-charitable-donations-in-2015-went-to-clinton-foundation/
“U.S. citizenship is a right and NOT a privilege.”
For people who choose to naturalize, without having been born into it or otherwise having it thrust upon them US citizenship is a privilege. After they naturalize, retention is a right.
For people who were born into it or otherwise had it thrust upon them, it is kind of like a right, like the right to spend your life in poverty (unwillingly), but anyway you’re right that it’s not a privilege for those people.
“Canada could turn out the lights in several eastern seaboard states that vote democrat, voted for Obama and FATCA. I wouldn’t put it past them to invade Canada to get the lights put back on.”
Canada could also stop sending oil to the US, upon which the US would invade and pump oil through the Keystone Pipeline.