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:
The fund raising for the RO facebook page is for a PR campaign. It is NOT for the law suit.
STOP everyone. We need a rebrand of this. Democrats Abroad have gone into overdrive on Twitter in opposition to the “#FATCA” lawsuit.
Lets please rename: FATCA/FBAR Lawsuit. So does DA support FBAR excessive fines against US persons living overseas for accounts in their country to receive the pay and pay the bills?
@Phil Need PR too.
The more Democrats Abroad oppose this lawsuit, the more Democrats abroad they will lose.
DA clearly has shown their colors. Regardless, now is the time for us to educate and support the suits in Canada and the USA. Let’s get it on.
Democrats Abroad spell out in detail their opposition to the lawsuit. Chief among their reasons: It will take time, won’t provide immediate relief, therefore let’s not even try. The rage I feel toward these shameless traitors to the rest of us knows no bounds.
https://www.democratsabroad.org/DA-Condemns-Paul-Lawsuit
Perhaps it will eventually be revealed that CBT is the biggest obstacle in the US’s fight against offshore tax evasion?
Yes, JC, framing is important. “FATCA and FBAR” lawsuit.
Is there some way to disseminate this information to the International Banking Cartel? Could they be liable for continuing to collect and disseminate information if asked by bank clients to hold off sending information until this case is decided?
@ All
There are several commenters at the Washington Times who just don’t get. JC Double Taxed made an interesting attempt to get through to them. Please take a minute to uptick his comment so it works its way towards the top of the Sort By Best list.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/14/rand-paul-sues-obama-over-foreign-banking-law/#!
Thanks to all the plaintiffs, James Bopp and Republicans Overseas…
This is a NON PARTISAN issue and democrats abroad are making a ridiculous case of themselves by saying they do not agree with this lawsuit.
They’re just jealous because the republicans overseas lawsuit has been filed (they make me think of the French socialist party).
Untill this situation is settled I will remain VERY ashamed of my country.
But, because of FATCA, I have found out so many bad things about the federal reserve private corporation that I don’t think I will be able to be proud of USA anymore.
Shame, shame shame is all that comes to mind when I see an american flag.
That’s probably the worst effect FATCA, FBAR & CBT will have on all those that are effected by this rediculous monarche attitude making USA look like a dictatorship.
Well all I can say is HALLELUYA.
Now things are happening.
Oh and as a PS- I`m guessing the Dems Abroad are too afraid of a republican government/president in the next elections.
The donations should be able to be anonymous. The legalaction (despite connected to the RO name) is a separate organization and the funds cannot be used for campaigning for candidates, it can only be used for furthering a cause. It can be political, but it that branch of the organization ican not be partisan.
@ Polly
I’ll second your HALLELUYA and say July 14th was a good day for justice seekers with the FATCA & FBAR lawsuit being filed and more than $3000 collected for the ADCS fund.
@EmBee Thanks for the endorsement. Reverse logic approach.
We have 2 ex military plaintiffs. How many life long Democrats?
‘If Americans are being denied banking and business opportunities, the court can no more shrug its shoulders and say “Well, that’s the law,” than […]’
Yes they can, if they want. And if the courts want to ignore the law and make up their own, they can. Fabricating a social security number used to be illegal in statutory law and some circuits, but it’s now required in the Federal Circuit (I suppose there are exceptions in cases where the SSA grants an application or the IRS grants an ITIN application).
“Litigation IS the only way we can see justice.”
Not quite. US courts used to be courts of law not courts of justice, but often they’re neither.
Circuit courts have already thrown out Supreme Court rulings in US v. Sullivan and Garner v. US, along with the 4th and 5th amendments. It will happen again.
Regarding “Democrats Abroad Condemns Rand Paul’s Legal Challenge to Law Targeting Tax Evaders” — FATCA does not “target” a specific category of persons suspected of evading taxes. Don’t they get it?
Say you want to catch a couple of fish, so you go to a lake with your fishing rod and the right kind of lure, figure out where the fish are biting, and catch your fish. Or, if you take the FATCA approach, you could just throw in some dynamite and kill off all the fish.
I agree with @foo and others — this should not be a Dems vs. Repubs issue, only an issue of people being able to live normal lives even if they reside outside of the U.S. Thank you to Stephen and the others!
‘FATCA does not “target” a specific category of persons suspected of evading taxes.’
Sure it does. It targets US persons who live outside the US, who are a specific category of persons, all of whom are suspected of evading taxes. No one should understand the possibility that we might be innocent.
Same-country exception is a joke. By definition multi-national people have some history of globe-trotting, one may live in Belgium and have lived in France, while having parents in Spain, and accounts in all these places (not counting the US of course). Belgium now wants a declaration of foreign accounts (but NOT balances – it is way softer and gentler than FATCA, you can use a paper form, and of course only applies to Belgian residents — when you move away, Belgian or not, they leave you alone). A US person in Belgium now needs to declare US accounts to Belgium, Belgian accounts to the US, and other accounts to both.
Truly, it always comes back to CBT vs RBT. Only RBT is tenable in the current complex world.
And therefore, while I remain skeptical of the GOP as a whole, I wholeheartedly support this new lawsuit (and the IBS and current Canadian action).
Two words——
Check Mate
Excellent reading….no….a must reading……
Here is the hole in the IGA documents;
“The statute balances important interests of privacy and consent against administrative
convenience. Congress has weighed those interests and struck the balance it believes is in the
best interest of the public. It has decided that Americans’ financial information should not be
exposed to more parties than necessary by requiring direct reporting to the IRS by financial
institutions. And it has determined that Americans should have the right to consent to disclosure
under FATCA when the laws of the foreign country in which they conduct their financial affairs
would lead them to expect privacy and non-disclosure. This may not be the balance most
convenient for the Treasury Department and the IRS, but it is the choice that Congress has made,
and the Executive Branch is bound to abide by it. The Treasury and IRS may not unilaterally
rewrite FATCA to suit their preferences using sole executive agreements like the IGAs.”
Having had tears last night and gone to bed without having yet seen the documents.
Having now read the documents page by page.
I am saddened that this whole event has caused me to forsake the USA for what they have done to me and my family.
But today, I took my first deep breath with great thanksgiving.
Sounds like setup for RBT:
The federal government has no legitimate interest in knowing the amount of any
income, gain, loss, deduction, or credit recognized on a foreign account, whether a foreign
account was opened or closed during the year, or the balance of a foreign account. The fact that the local bank accounts of citizens living abroad are not held in the United States bears no rational relationship to any legitimate state interest the federal government might have in prying into the private affairs of citizens living abroad
I don’t mean to be annoying, but I see several technical problems with this lawsuit:
Procedure. Except for Rand Paul, all plaintiffs live outside the US. The tax code clearly specifies that the DC courts should be used for judicial purposes for people who don’t live in the US. They didn’t have to find a residential connection to a state, and in fact this may even undermine the case as the plaintiff could be seen as a US resident, not an American abroad. Or worse, the court could simply dismiss the entire lawsuit for being filed in the incorrect venue (Mark Crawford does not live primarily in Ohio). If they wanted to avoid the DC courts for whatever reason, they could have used Kentucky, Rand Paul’s state.
Count 1. The tax code does give the Treasury the authority to negotiate agreements for the exchange of tax information with other countries (26 USC 274(h)(6)(C), the section seems out of place as everything else in the tax code, but it’s there). I’m surprised that such a renowned lawyer as Jim Bopp didn’t see this. If he thinks that the section doesn’t authorize the IGAs for some reason, he should have at least mentioned it.
Count 2. I agree that the IGAs override the FATCA law in some points, but this is a weird claim because these violations are actually exemptions from FATCA. The court could dismiss this claim because the exemptions don’t harm the plaintiffs.
Count 3. FATCA affects any US citizen that has bank accounts outside the US, not specifically those living abroad. Neither the intention nor the text of the law are aimed at any class of people. The court could dismiss the equal protection claim based on similar precedence.
Counts 4-6. No plaintiff has actually been charged any penalty. I’m not a lawyer, but it seems to me that “fear” of a penalty is not a valid basis for a lawsuit. The court could dismiss these claims for this reason.
Counts 7-8. I agree with these claims. But they should have included the FBAR for the same reason.
Of course I wish they win the lawsuit, but I’m not very hopeful. And I’ll make the same criticism again: if the arguments are going to be subjective and weak like this, why aren’t they challenging CBT?