These are the Neanderthals that claim the right to tax you no matter where you live

Some Americans disturb me. Yesterday, a commenter told me to eff-off on my timeline on Facebook. I had expressed opinions at Think Progress that he didn’t appreciate so he came over and told me to eff myself (but he used the real f-word). Later he took down his comment. Still, we cannot judge an entire country on the basis of isolated trolls on the internet, who may only be interested writing offensive comments in order to piss you off. However, some months ago, I received from a former US government employee a private email that mocked me because I am a Christian. Of course, this same man also scorned my views on his own blog (without mentioning me or the Isaac Brock Society by name), but to take it to the level of sending me a taunt to my personal email is somehow barbaric. This former government employee undoubtedly has a very high opinion of himself. But why do these Americans drop the level of conversation to a child’s game, whereby they get their five-year old jollies? The man that told me to eff-off on Facebook claimed that he represented the majority of Americans, judging by the last two presidential elections. So alleged US persons, please meet your persecutor: the Obama voter.

These Neanderthals elected the Obama regime, the same regime that enacted the HIRE Act (2010) with its FATCA provisions. These are the same Neanderthals that are telling Canadian citizens that they must cross the border with a US passport, then entrapping them with FATCA into paying taxes to the US Treasury, in violation of the Master Nationality Rule. But what makes us think that these cavemen would understand international law when they don’t even understand their own laws? Insisting that a Canadian citizen cross the border with a US passport is a clear violation of that person’s right to expatriate, a fundamental right. They should be saying, “Sir, if you have relinquished your US citizenship, you need to inform the US Consulate nearest you and obtain a Certificate of Loss of Nationality.” But instead they act like total prats and say, “You are an American until we tell you that you aren’t!” Well actually, sir, that is not what the law says. The law says that a person who commits a relinquishing act with intent is no longer an American–it is not a question of whether they have informed a US State Department, and you would know that if you weren’t an imbecile. But how can we expect the Neanderthals who guard the border to know the law when their counterparts at the State Department are such ignoramuses? Here are some comments yesterday at Isaac Brock from MyKitty (emphasis mine):

I had my appointment at the U.S. embassy … and it didn’t go well.

Just a recap – I am a dual citizen by birth (us/can). I worked for the federal government. I requested a CLN backdated to when I began working for the government. I had the contents of my employee file, including the oath that I signed.

I was told that the only way a dual citizen by birth could get rid of U.S. citizenship was to 1) renounce 2) commit an act of treason.

Has anyone else been told this?

The agent told me that she was going to recommend that my request be denied. I insisted that she send all of my documentation to the lawyers in Washington anyway. She said she had denied three of these cases recently. …

I don’t think the agent even knew of 4(a) and/or 4(b) of the Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481).

MyKitty did the right thing. Stand your ground! When you go to the US Consulate you must know your rights and the law, because you can’t expect those who receive a full-time salary from the US government to know them. They have violated one of the oldest principles of common law in the English-speaking world: those who enforce the law must know the law. But these American enforcers are dumb and dumber. And this has caused them to become international rights violators of the first order: by denying the Universal Human Right to change one’s nationality.

In 2010, I first learned of the construction of the New Berlin Wall, a provision to tax citizens who relinquish their US citizenship whose wealth exceeds US $2,000,000. This law, called HEROES Act, made me so angry that I decided then and there that I would expatriate, and applied for Canadian citizenship immediately. On February 28, 2011, I became a Canadian and filed, in June, 2012, my final tax forms (2011 1040; Form 8854); I managed to stay well below the $2,000,000 dollar threshold. (One must relinquish citizenship and file the final forms only after receiving the CLN.) Adios, America!

This post originally appeared at the Isaac Brock Society.

While I was preparing to relinquish, it was only when I learned about FBAR and then later FATCA that I became panicky. I experienced many of the symptoms about which many of our readers complain after learning: stress, panic attacks, sleepless nights, weight gain. I especially felt the indignation of becoming a targeted, oppressed person abused by a country which was out of control. This country abuses its expats but considers itself superior to everyone else, and so condemns the only other country with citizenship-based taxation, Eritrea. This is hypocritical to say the least, but I doubt that the average policy maker in the US even is aware of the contradiction. Even the average elite student, who thinks he or she is smarter than everyone else, isn’t nearly as damn smart as she thinks she is. Consider the following question: What is the capital of Canada? Do you think that the elite students at Harvard should know the capital of Canada? Harvard is America’s most prestigious institution, the alma mater of Obama, Bush, and Kennedy. Well, these Harvard students themselves think they should know it, judging by their embarrassed responses:

Americans are not nearly as smart as they think they are. And this is an extremely volatile situation: arrogant ignorance is the worst kind. Finally, I want to apologize for calling these Americans Neanderthals, because it is an insult to the true Neanderthals.

Election day: Get revenge, vote!

Cross-posted from the Isaac Brock Society

I am living, for now, in exile from my land of birth. In a new article at, George Prior explains my situation, “FATCA Critic Fears Arrest by US Authorities“. When George Prior contacted me, I had no idea he would write an article about me nor that he would focus on my fear of returning to the United States. This article appears on Election Day=Revenge Day.

While campaigning, Obama said to a crowd booing Romney, “Get revenge. Vote.” Well, US expats who have suffered the indignities of being treated like criminals without probable clause through the requirement of revealing private information, threats of imprisonment and excessive fines, can get revenge. Some expats who joined the OVDI program have received extortionate penalties designed for homelanders who put money in Swiss bank accounts to hide it from the IRS and avoid paying taxes. I have Canadian accounts to be sure. But I live here in Canada and I pay more taxes than the majority of homelandersHomelanders have never even heard of GST/HST. I pay my fair share.

I can’t vote as I was forced to give up my US citizenship and my right ever to return and to live again in my country of Birth. I and many others here have suffered at the hands of President Barack Hussein Obama. He has allowed the IRS to hound expats, one could even say that he has sicked his dog on expats. Who is to blame: Republican George ‘Dubya’ Bush for signing 2008 HEROES Act which instituted an exit tax for those who would relinquish their citizenship. A democratically controlled Congress pass the legislation and Barack Obama voted for it. The same democrats in Congress passed the 2010 HIRE act, and President Obama signed it; HIRE included the FATCA legislation which tries to force our banks to rat on US expats, even when we are dual citizens of our countries of residence. Yes, Democrats are to blame. But then the lamentable Reed Amendment, which bans those who expatriate for tax purposes, was passed by a Republican Congress and signed by a Democrat President Bill Clinton. We are hounded by dogs of both breeds.

Thus, I urge people to vote against Obama–while not endorsing Romney. I can’t vote. I’ve already lost my citizenship and fear returning to the United States. This is Obama’s America: persecuting and torturing United States citizens living abroad. Yes, I consider forcing an expat to give up the right to return to his or her native land a form of torture:

Exile is torture, and torture is universally condemned around the world. The Ex-Patriot Act would permanently separate persons from their heritage and their families — children from parents, brothers from sisters, nieces and nephews from beloved aunts and uncles. It tears people away from communities and friends. Exile would destroy their lives. It is psychological warfare, condemning people to years of regret, bitterness, and rage.

The above words, I wrote about the torture of being banned as a result of the Ex-Patriot Act. But my fear of arrest at the border for spurning the FBAR filing requirement also results in exile and torture.

Please, there is a way to avenge me and thousands of other expats in my situation. Vote for Obama, NOT.

PS: I will likely e-mail this to members of my family.

Nicolas Santa still in federal custody

Cross posted from the Isaac Brock Society.

FAIRBANKS, Alaska (BSP) Nicolas (Claus) Santa, Bishop of Myra, has been in federal custody since his arrest at the North Pole on Christmas Eve, 2011. Fish and Wildlife agents apprehended him and seized several tons of exotic woods forbidden by the Lacey act. Santa has been charged with multiple counts of money laundering, illegal exportation of currency, illegally importing into the United States toys made of contraband–rare woods, ivory and other banned substances, as well as violating slave labor and child labor laws. A grand jury has also indicted Santa on 190 counts of criminal failure to file the Foreign Bank Account Report (FBAR). For those charges alone, Santa risks a sentence of 950 years in prison and fines equal to 300% of his wealth. Santa was laundering money from his illegal trafficking in toys.

His court-appointed representative, Legolas L’Elfe, has decried his treatment at the hands of federal authorities since his capture. Denied bail as a flight risk, his keepers abandoned him in his windowless cell at the federal detention centre in Fairbanks, Alaska, from February 22 – April 7, 2012. They gave him neither food nor water during this time, and at one point Santa despaired for his life, says L’Elfe. He survived by drinking his own urine. In addition, L’Elfe says, that Santa is a Greek orthodox bishop from the fourth century, when it was normal for priests and bishops to practice severe forms of asceticism. “If it had not been his practice to live many days without food and water, he probably would have died after the first seven days of isolation.” Federal authorities have issued an apology. They said that they are suffering from budget cuts and do not have sufficient personnel at the detention centre. They just simply forgot that they had put him in the cell.

So far no trial date is set. L’Elfe has demanded that the United States release Santa on grounds that his right to a speedy trial has been violated. An anonymous spokesperson for Justice Department retorted, “Who does he think he’s kidding. Nobody ever gets a speedy trial in the United States.”

L’Elfe has indicated that most of the charges stem from Santa’s alleged United States citizenship. State Department officials claim that Santa obtained citizenship during his brief interlude in the 1940s and 1950s of making movies in Hollywood, such as the beloved Miracle on 34th Street. L’Elfe says that this is a case of mistaken identity, and that Santa is actually a stateless individual who was born in the 4th century in the Roman Empire which has not existed as a nation since 1453.

L’Elfe has declined to comment on accusations of a recent report that Santa is a notorious felon whom the Emperor Diocletian (303-311) imprisoned for several years. The report claimed that the Emperor Constantine offered a general pardon to convicts like Santa and that he had been a fugitive until his recent capture by Fish and Wildlife agents.

Santa has asked to renounce his US citizenship in prison in a letter addressed to the State Department. But officials in the State Department refuse to enter the prison to hear his oath of renunciation. They claim that: (1) Santa must pay $450; but since his bank accounts were seized, he hasn’t a penny to his name; (2) he must be outside of the United States when he renounces, unless it is in a time of war; (3) even if Santa did renounce his citizenship, it would not relieve him of the taxes and penalties, including FBAR fines, that accrued while he was still a US citizen. L’Elfe says, “This is pure discrimination. If Eduardo Saverin can renounce his citizenship and save billions of dollars in capital-gains tax for money he made in the United States, why can’t Santa renounce and be relieved of FBAR violations for accounts containing charitable funds that international donors from around the world have gifted so that Santa could continue his benevolent work of providing good gifts to destitute children?” Commissioner of the IRS, Douglas Shulman retorted, “We really don’t care if those accounts were for charitable purposes. It is clear that Santa had signing authority on them. He refused to file the FBARs and come clean on his taxes before we caught him so now he must face the full brunt of the law; we will crucify him so that others will comply.”

Nicolas Claus in 1994 remake of Miracle on 34th Street

Sweeter than honey I: Introduction

David son of Jesse of the tribe of Judah wrote many psalms.  One such psalm records the following words as translated from the original Hebrew text  (Psalm 19:7–10; RSV):

The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul;
the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple;
the precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart;
the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes;
the fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever;
the ordinances of the LORD are true, and righteous altogether.
More to be desired are they than gold, even much fine gold;
sweeter also than honey and drippings of the honeycomb.

This text is striking when we compare it to our own situation vis-à-vis the Federal Law code in the United States.  The law of Israel was summarized in the Ten Commandments and expanded in the first five books of the Bible, known as the Pentateuch or the Torah.  The Ten Commandments contain 149 words in the Hebrew text.  The whole Torah contains about 80,000 words in the original text.  It is simple, understandable, even elegant.

The basis of the laws of the United States is the constitution and the most important principles contained in it are the first Ten Amendments.  The US constitution (body) contains about 4500 words; the first Ten Amendments are 482 words.  It is simple, understandable, even elegant.

The number of words in the Internal Revenue Code is a difficult thing to estimate.  One blogger writes:

By the way, if you go to the US Government Printing Office (, you can order a complete set of Title 26 of the US Code of Federal Regulations (that’s the part written by the IRS), all twenty volumes of it, at the bargain price of $974, shipping included.

According to the US Government Printing Office, it’s 13,458 pages in total. The full text of Title 26 of the United States Code (the part written by Congress–available for an additional $179) is a mere 3,387 printed pages, bringing the adjusted gross page count to 16,845.

The number of words has been left as an exercise for the student.

The Internal Revenue code is difficult, obtuse, requiring experts to understand it.  Can you imagine anyone extolling this Internal Revenue Code as sweeter than the honey?  No?  I can’t either.  Yet David wrote many generations after Moses handed down the law.  David wrote Psalm 19 not as a lawyer, a priest or a king, though he became king of Israel later; but as a poor shepherd boy who tended sheep and composed many of his great hymns as he worshipped God under an open sky.  He was just an ordinary person who had great admiration for the law of his people.

He looked to the law to guide him in his everyday life, to show him wisdom and to understand what is right and wrong.  He often fell short.  He is a famous adulterer and murderer.  He found himself in violation of the Law, and yet I would venture that even at the end of his life, after so many miserable failures, he could still sing the words of Psalm 19 to the God of the Torah.

By contrast, I have no praise for the Internal Revenue Code of the United States.  Who does?  Even those who enforce it find it so hopelessly complicated that they inadvertently violate its demands (Geithner) or require a professional in order to comply with it (Shulman).  I only have loathing and resentment for this so-called law that instructs me neither in wisdom nor in the difference between right and wrong.  It is only a burden put on my shoulders that I am unable to bear.  This law is oppressive and destructive.  It makes what should be a free people into slaves.  It is more bitter than vomit in my mouth.

I propose in the next few days to discuss the IRS code in comparison to two other great law codes:  (1) the Ten Commandments and the Torah; and (2) the Bill of Rights (Ten Amendments) and the United States Constitution.  Over the course of these posts I will compare these law codes under the following categories:

  1. The purpose of man
  2. The purpose of the law
  3. The knowability of the law

Law is not supposed to be a thing that causes estrangement and hostility.  Rather, it should guide our relationships with one another and help us to achieve harmony and prosperity, what the Hebrews called shalom.  When law helps us achieve shalom, it is sweeter than honey.  Our laws today do not lead to shalom; they have become instead an instrument of State control in our lives, and thus they have become more bitter than vomit.

Dual citizenship and forced marriages, by Alison Symington

The Isaac Brock Society

Alison Symington, “Dual citizenship and forced marriages” (PDF), Dalhousie Journal of Legal Studies 10 (2001); Winner of the Smith Lyons Essay Prize.

Abstract:  This paper examines the phenomenon of forced marriage and how the international law on diplomatic protection and domestic citizenship laws interact to prevent young women from receiving help because of their status as dual nationals. The evolution of international law and the rise of human rights are considered, the author contesting international rules preventing the United Kingdom from attempting to assist its nationals who are abducted to South Asia for the purposes of forced marriage. This paper demonstrates how in complex situations involving power, gender, culture and politics, law is better understood as a struggle over meaning than as a stated rule of practice.

View original post 437 more words