Opponents of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, or FATCA, have now brought on one of America’s top constitutional lawyers to lead the fight, Attorney Jim Bopp

• The New American

Critics Mount Constitutional Attack on Dreaded FATCA Tax Regime

Written by  Alex Newman

As the implementation deadline looms large for a deeply controversial new tax regime adopted largely by congressional Democrats and the Obama administration, critics of the measure are mounting a constitutional challenge, saying the scheme is wildly unconstitutional and must be struck down. Opponents of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, or FATCA, have now brought on one of America’s top constitutional lawyers to lead the fight. In his initial analysis, the heavyweight attorney concluded that the sprawling addition to the U.S. tax code violates multiple provisions of the Constitution and, as such, must come down.
Faced with what even compliance mongers have said would be a “train wreck” on July 1, the day full enforcement of FATCA was supposed to begin following previous unilateral delays by the Obama administration, the IRS and the U.S. Treasury recently announced a “transition period” extending into 2015. According to the opaque announcement, the federal government will delay imposing harsh penalties on banks for now — as long as authorities believe they are trying in “good faith” to comply with the byzantine new tax regime. In other words: more lawlessness.
If opponents of the scheme get their way, however, it may all be a moot point. Attorney Jim Bopp — described by analysts as a “superlawyer” for his role in the Supreme Court striking down other unconstitutional statutes such as McCain-Feingold — announced that he was taking up the case. In an interview with the Washington Times and other statements, Bopp, who is working with the group Republicans Overseas to kill the scheme, outlined three primary constitutional problems with FATCA and the related Foreign Bank Account Report (FABR).

“It is our preliminary opinion that the potentially meritorious claims are a violation of the treaty power, an 8th Amendment Excessive Fines Claim, and a 4th Amendment Search and Seizure Claim,” Bopp said in a statement posted online by Republicans Overseas. “We do not believe that a claim based on an unconstitutional delegation of Congressional power has merit. We believe that these three claims form the basis for a successful suit that would stop the damage that FATCA and FBAR have inflicted on U.S. citizens.”
First of all, because the Treasury is unilaterally signing unauthorized pseudo-treaties with foreign governments to violate privacy rights, the Senate’s constitutionally mandated role in ratifying treaties has been usurped. Numerous other experts have made the same argument, as The New American magazine reported in a major report on FATCA published last month. Already, without any purported authority to do so from the Constitution, or the FATCA statute itself, dozens of such “agreements” to gather and share private financial information have been signed with foreign rulers.
According to Bopp, the FATCA statute also violates two of the unalienable rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. Under the Fourth Amendment, privacy is supposed to be protected and the government needs a warrant to infringe on it. FATCA, though, takes the opposite approach, indiscriminately gathering sensitive information on everyone in an NSA-style dragnet for perusal by authorities. Multiple foreign governments have been coerced by the Obama administration to undo their own protections for privacy rights in an effort to comply with FATCA.
Finally, the Eighth Amendment prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment, as well as excessive fines, might also represent a viable avenue for challenging FATCA and related schemes. Under the emerging tax regime, Americans abroad who for whatever reason have not complied perfectly with unimaginably complex IRS demands can be hit with crippling penalties and fines that in some cases could literally threaten the life savings of entire families. Critics say that must end; and experts believe the courts might be inclined to agree. Most U.S. expats were not even aware of the purported IRS requirements that now threaten their financial survival.

Read More Here

Related articles

• Critics Mount Constitutional Attack on Dreaded FATCA Tax Regime
• New law expands IRS surveillance on Americans overseas
• U.S. tax law puts privacy of Canadians in 'jeopardy,' NDP warns
• Breaking FATCA News: A Semi-Stay of Execution for Americans Assets And The US Dollar

Banks warned they risk prosecution if they follow Obama admin. guidance on marijuana

Enlarge Photo

** FILE ** President Obama speaks at a campaign rally in Las Vegas, Oct. 24, 2012. (Associated Press)

The Washington Times

By Valerie Richardson

DENVER — Bankers should beware of the Obama administration’s newly issued green light for banks doing business with the legal marijuana industry, according to the head of the Colorado Bankers Association.
Memos released Friday by the Justice Department and Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network were intended to give banks leeway to open accounts for marijuana businesses in states like Colorado and Washington that have legalized retail pot. Instead, the guidance “only reinforces and reiterates that banks can be prosecuted for providing accounts to marijuana related businesses,” said the CBA in a Friday statement.

---

SEE ALSO: Obama admin.: Banks can do business with marijuana sellers

---

“In fact, it is even stronger than original guidance issued by the Department of Justice and the Treasury,” said CBA president and CEO Don Childears. “After a series of red lights, we expected this guidance to be a yellow one. This isn’t close to that. At best, this amounts to ‘serve these customers at your own risk’ and it emphasizes all of the risks. This light is red.”
Colorado’s first-ever legal marijuana market, which kicked off Jan. 1, has been hampered by a lack of access to bank accounts and small-business loans. Many of the state’s retail pot shops are cash-only enterprises, making them vulnerable to crime.
Washington is expected to start sales of retail pot in June. Voters in Colorado and Washington approved in 2012 ballot measures legalizing limited amounts of recreational marijuana for adults 21 and over.
“Now that some states have elected to legalize and regulate the marijuana trade, FinCEN seeks to move from the shadows the historically covert financial operations of marijuana businesses,” said FinCEN Director Jennifer Shasky Calvery in a statement.
“Our guidance provides financial institutions with clarity on what they must do if they are going to provide financial services to marijuana businesses and what reporting will assist law enforcement,” she said.
But the FinCen memo makes it clear that banks must avoid doing business with illegal marijuana operators or those that violate the eight priorities laid out in the Justice Department’s so-called Cole Memo, issued in August by Deputy Attorney General James Cole.

Read More Here



.....

Forbes

The Feds' Scary Reassurances To Banks That Deal With State-Licensed Marijuana Businesses

Jacob Sullum, Contributor

On Friday the Treasury Department and the Justice Department issued guidelines for banks that do business with state-licensed marijuana suppliers. According to Attorney General Eric Holder, the aim of the memos is to reassure financial institutions that are leery of accepting cannabusinesses as customers because they worry it will attract unwanted attention from federal regulators and prosecutors. But as with the August 29 memo in which Deputy Attorey General James Cole said that prosecuting properly regulated marijuana growers and sellers would not be a high priority, there are no guarantees, and that fact is likely to deter traditionally cautious banks more than plucky cannabis entrepreneurs.

The Treasury memo, issued by the department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), says the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) requires financial institutions to file “suspicious activity reports” (SARs) for all marijuana businesses. But FinCEN draws a distinction between marijuana businesses that violate state law or implicate one of the Justice Department’s “enforcement priorities” and marijuana businesses that do neither. The former merit “marijuana priority” reports, while the latter fall into a newly invented “marijuana limited” category. According to the memo, this distinction “aligns the information provided by financial institutions in BSA reports with federal and state law enforcement priorities.”
What are those priorities? Cole’s August 29 memo lists eight: 1) “preventing the distribution of marijuana to minors,” 2) “preventing the diversion of marijuana from states where it is legal under state law in some form to other states,” 3) “preventing drugged driving and the exacerbation of other adverse public health consequences associated with marijuana use,” 4) “preventing the growing of marijuana on public lands,” 5) “preventing marijuana possession or use on federal property,” 6) “preventing revenue from the sale of marijuana from going to criminal enterprises,” 7) “preventing violence and the use of firearms in the cultivation and distribution of marijuana,” and 8) “preventing state-authorized marijuana activity from being used as a cover or pretext for the trafficking of other illegal drugs.” At the end of the memo, Cole adds that the feds might also intervene for other, unspecified reasons.
The FinCEN memo lists “red flags” that suggest a marijuana business deserves special scrutiny, including “international or interstate activity,” an inability to “demonstrate the legitimate source of significant outside investments,” signs that the business is “using a state-licensed marijuana-related business as a front or pretext to launder money derived from other criminal activity,” and “negative information, such as a criminal record, involvement in the illegal purchase or sale of drugs, violence, or other potential connections to illicit activity.” Such red flags are supposed to inform banks’ decisions about which customers to reject or drop as well as which sort of SAR to file. FinCEN warns that the red flags it mentions “do not constitute an exhaustive list.” Although FinCEN says its advice “should enhance the availability of financial services for, and the financial transparency of, marijuana-related businesses,” it never actually says banks that follow the guidelines need not worry about getting into trouble with regulators.

Read More Here

.....

Related articles

• Banks Warned They Risk Prosecution If They Follow Obama Guidelines On Weed
• The Feds' Scary Reassurances To Banks That Deal With State-Licensed Marijuana Businesses
• Banks warned they risk prosecution if they follow Obama admin. guidance on marijuana
• Bankers assocation warns new administration rules on marijuana transactions could get firms into trouble
• Colorado Bankers: Feds' 'Green Light' on Marijuana Looks More Like a Speed Trap
• US eases rules for banks to do business with licensed pot shops
• UPDATE 2-U.S. to let banks do business with licensed pot shops

Americans Renouncing Citizenship Up 221%, All Aboard The FATCA Express

Forbes

Robert W. Wood, Contributor

America is a great land and lures immigrants worldwide, yet record numbers of U.S. citizens and permanent residents are giving up their citizenship or residency. For all the immigrant arrivals the trickle the other direction is increasing. The number is still small, with the “published” expatriates for the quarter 630 for the last quarter of 2013.
That brings the total number to 2,999 for all of 2013. The previous record high for a year was 1,781 set in 2011. It’s a 221% increase over the 932 who left in 2012. You can call it a shaming or a public record, but the Treasury Department is required to publish a quarterly list of Americans who renounced their U.S. Citizenship or terminated their long-term U.S. residency. The public outing puts Americans on notice who relinquished their rights.

US Passport (Photo credit: Damian613)

Those seem like tiny numbers, yet the total thus far for 2013 is 2,369. See Number of Taxpayers Who Renounced U.S. Citizenship Skyrockets to All-Time Record High, quoting Andrew Mitchel. Under U.S. tax law, it is not relevant why someone expatriates. Whether the expatriation was motivated by tax avoidance or something else used to matter, but the law was changed in 2004.
Since then, the tax and other consequences do not depend on why one leaves. Yet after Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin departed permanently for Singapore with his Facebook IPO riches, there was an angry backlash. Mr. Saverin’s post-Facebook fly-away prompted such outrage that Senators Chuck Schumer and Bob Casey introduced a bill to double the exit tax to 30% for anyone leaving the U.S. for tax reasons.
So far, that bill remains unpassed. Meantime, are people following Tina Turner’s lead? No, and not Eduardo Saverin’s either. Most expatriations are probably motivated primarily by factors such as family and convenience. Many people like Ms. Turner have built a life somewhere else and may not plan to need a U.S. passport.
Read More Here

Related articles

• Americans Renouncing Citizenship Up 221%
• Americans Renouncing Citizenship Up 221%, All Aboard The FATCA Express

Obama Lies About the Implications of Raising the Debt Ceiling

Peter Schiff

Related articles

• US DEBT:U.S. Is Broke, Can't Afford to Raise the Debt Ceiling says Peter Schiff
• Peter Schiff: The Inflation Rate Will Go Up and the Government is Going to Lie Even More!
• More examples of government waste from Peter Schiff
• The Debt Ceiling is Raised to Avoid Paying the Bills
• Peter Schiff - Phony Government GDP Numbers Hide Shrinking U.S. Economy

'Unprecedented And Catastrophic' Things Could Happen If The US Defaults

 

 

Gimme

Truthout.org

Last I checked Republicans  were  not the  only political party in Congress.  From the looks  of  it   the  democrats  are  more  than  happy  to  step in  and  play the  hostage  game.

So,  when  are  we  all  going to  wake  up and  understand  that  this is  not  a  political party issue? 

It is a corrupt  system and  government  issue  and both  sides  are  rotten to the  core.  This  blame  game  may  look good from  plush  offices and  homes  but  for  the  people  it stinks.   Government  spending  has  be   checked, not  something they  want  to  understand.   If the  citizens  are  expected  to  balance  their  budgets  without a  bail out then so  must  the  government.  Simply  because they have  been living  high  on the  hog  all this  time does not  excuse  them from their  lack  of  discipline  and  fiscal  responsibility.  They  have  played  fast  and  loose  with money  taken  from  the   Citizens wasting  it frivolously without a  second  thought  to  the  consequences.  Yet  again  it is   the  people  that  will pay the  price.  

The  poor  and the Working  Middle Class are  the ones  who will suffer  for  their  posturing  and manipulation.  None  of  the politicians  in  question,  and that  includes   Obama, have  to  worry  about  where  their next  meal   or  where the  money  for  rent is going to  come  from.  None  of  those  fat  cats  will have to  worry   whether  Grandma  will be  able to  afford  her medication  or be forced to choose  cat food  to  get  by  this month.  They  certainly won't have to  concern themselves about  the baby  having  enough  diapers or  formula  to  make  it  through the  month. 

But  guess  who  does ?

I am  sick  of  the  partisan B.S..  Republicans  and Democrats  alike  are  responsible  for  this  mess and  it is  time  they  were  both  held  accountable..  They are  destroying   this  Nation and taking   us  with them  for  what? 

For a grand political  pissing  contest,  only  "We The  People" are  the  damn  target!!

~Desert Rose ~

*************************************************************

'Unprecedented And Catastrophic' Things Could Happen If Republicans Force The US To Default

Business Insider
Jason Lange and Andy Sullivan, Reuters

REUTERS/Lucas Jackson

Broken glass covers an armed forces recruiting poster at the scene of an explosion outside the U.S. Armed Forces Career Center in New York's Times Square, March 6, 2008.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/what-will-happen-if-the-us-defaults-2013-10#ixzz2gn83HaBK

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Nobody knows exactly when America would default on its bills if Congress fails to raise a cap on government borrowing. But the recent past gives a pretty good idea of how a default could unfold.
Even the Treasury Department can't know how much tax revenue will come in each day after October 17, when it expects to hit its $16.7 trillion debt ceiling. Nor can officials anticipate exact costs, such as how many people will apply for jobless benefits that week.
Yet we can infer how quickly the government might run out of cash by looking at the equivalent of the Treasury's daily bank statements from that same period a year ago.
What follows is a timeline that shows what a default might look like, based on daily Treasury statements from October and November of 2012.
OCT. 17
The Treasury Department exhausts all available tools to stay under the cap on borrowing and can no longer add to the national debt. Treasury expects it would still have about $30 billion cash on hand to cover its bills. Among the many inflows and outflows that day, it takes in $6.75 billion in taxes but pays out $10.9 billion in Social Security retirement checks. By the end of the day, its cushion has eroded to $27.5 billion.
OCT. 18 - OCT. 29
Treasury's cash reserve quickly dwindles. Washington only takes in about 70 cents for every dollar it spends and is now unable to issue new debt to cover the difference.
The tide turns briefly on October 22, when the government takes in $3.5 billion more than it spends.
But that temporary gain is soon erased. October 24 is an especially rough day: Treasury pays $1.8 billion to defense contractors, $2.2 billion to doctors and hospitals that treat elderly patients through the Medicare program, and $11.1 billion in Social Security, while taking in only $9.6 billion in taxes and other income.
One possible wild card: Treasury could lose the trust of the bond market.
Even though the government cannot add to the national debt at this point, it can legally roll over expiring debt. Investors have the opportunity to cash out about $100 billion worth of U.S. debt every week but choose to reinvest it. If fear of default causes investors to steer clear of new debt offerings, Treasury's finances could unravel almost overnight.
"It's very hard to predict," said Brian Collins, an analyst at the Bipartisan Policy Center, which helped Reuters with this analysis. "It's the same thing that causes (bank) runs or credit markets to freeze."
OCT. 30
Default happens. By the end of the day, the government is $7 billion short of what it needs to pay all of its bills.
So who gets stiffed?
Everybody, according to the Obama administration.
Treasury says it doesn't have the ability to pick and choose who gets paid. The last time the government faced this situation in 2011, they planned to wait until public coffers were full enough to pay a full day's bills before cutting any checks, according to a Treasury Department watchdog report from 2012.

Read More Here

******************************************************************

Gross Says U.S. Will Avoid ‘Catastrophic’ Default on Debt

By Cordell Eddings - Oct 1, 2013 3:29 PM CT

• Facebook Share
• Tweet
• LinkedIn
• Google +1
• 48 Comments
• Print
• QUEUE
  Q

Play

Pimco's Gross on U.S. Shutdown, Debt Ceiling

Pacific Investment Management Co.’s Bill Gross said the U.S. will avoid a “catastrophic” default on Treasury securities if lawmakers fail to extend the debt limit on the nation’s debt.

Enlarge image

Pacific Investment Management Co. Co-Chief Investment Officer Bill Gross said a default would trigger a “complex series of events worldwide” throughout financial markets. Photographer: Scott Eells/Bloomberg

“The U.S. Treasury is the center of the global financial complex,” Gross, manager of the world’s biggest bond fund, said during a Bloomberg Television interview with Trish Regan and Adam Johnson. A default would be “unimaginable,” as it would have “catastrophic” consequences on U.S. borrowing costs, and would trigger a “complex series of events worldwide” that would ripple through global financial markets.
The U.S. government began its first partial shutdown in 17 years after Congress failed to break a partisan deadlock by a midnight deadline. Congressional leaders have scheduled no further negotiations on spending legislation, raising concern among some lawmakers that the shutdown may have an impact on the more consequential fight over how to raise the U.S. debt limit to avoid a first-ever default after Oct. 17.
The odds of a default are “a million-to-one” as the Treasury Department will be able to take other measures to ensure it is servicing the country’s debt, Gross said.
“The Treasury is not going to default on their debt simply because the debt ceiling isn’t going to be raised,” Gross said. “There will be other repercussions like slower economic growth. But the Treasury is not going to default.”

Read More and Watch Video Here

******************************************************************

Related articles

• Here's what will happen if the U.S. defaults on its debt
• UPDATE 1-US Treasury starts last measures to preserve borrowing authority - Reuters
• The Debt Limit, Hostage-Taking, and Ideological Stockholm Syndrome
• Raise debt limit before October 17 or risk default, Treasury warns
• What if Congress doesn't increase the debt limit? The risks of default
• US Treasury warns of harm from debt default