The Swiss/US emergency Agreement of August 19, 2009 (www.solami.com/CH-US.pdf), negociated under duress, is seen to constitute an alarming, for potentially hugely damaging diktat by an out-of-control, globally marauding Internal Revenue Service IRS. Backed by an over-exposed and disoriented US administration struggling to recognise its own limits, this looks like the IRS version of the blindly and arrogantly revenge-seeking and fateful Versaille Treaty. In as much as it was intended to defuse the dangerously veering IRS/UBS outgrowth of their illegal qualified intermediary conspiracy (.../QI.htm ¦ .../USvsUBS.htm), it calls - on both sides - for sober and well-moored reflections, sine ira et studio, and in the interest of the traditionally amicable bilaterral relations and the economy of both the US and Switzerland and far beyond.

Maybe the original idea of channelling the annually accruing trillions of "parallel economy" dollars back into "white economy".(IMF 1998 estimate: "2-5% of world GDP") has still merit and a universally beneficial future - if developed and implemented with full respect to sovereignty, privacy and the rule of law. But the IRS' narrow-minded attempt to copy the "World's District Attorney" of New York (.../swissbanks.htm#studio), and become the world sheriff and money-laundering monopoly-holder could not but end in disaster sooner or later. Particularly as it was done behind the back of its own constitutional lawmakers, and regardless of the convenient cover of a gullible "serious" private player like UBS as reference partner par excellence. The IRS's related anti-business rip-off used to be called protection money. It now comes under a more sanitized term, i.e. its unfamously confiscatory 28% "backup withholding tax". My own uneducated estimate is that the IRS now collects annually some $500 bn through its clandestinely setup network of globally some 7000 QI banks (so far, the IRS and US Treasury repeatedly declined my invitations to either confirm, deny or correct this sum, or to state who, in the event, secures the public accounting of these slush funds).

The available Swiss legal defenses and traditional ways and means against transmission of any of the "agreed-to" some 4450 UBS account data cannot reliably be expected to provide effective protection for most if not all of the clients concerned, eventually untypically citizen-friendly rulings by the Swiss Federal Administratice Court notwithstanding. I am thus hoping for our American friends and other comrades-in-arms to come up with practical ideas, indications and suggestions for blocking, in the event, any and all Swiss bank data thus extracted as being tainted and not usable in U.S. courts. In the same vein - in the sense of an admittedly risky high-wire act - I could imagine one of you remembering, or being interested to conduct a corresponding pro bono research without delay on whether a U.S. Court, or perhaps a congressional authority, has ever stated something along the following lines which seems obvious but could now be decisively helpful if available in time and in writing for the Swiss courts concerned:
If there is no treaty obligation to extradite a tax cheat, no legal obligation can be construed either to exact his foreign bank data. Unless this was freely and explicitly agreed upon, such data transmission could be in violation not only of his constitutional rights against self-incrimination, but also of his privacy, equal treatment and other treaty rights.

So please tell me what's your take on this! Thank you for your prompt and benevolent consideration of the above. Salve!

Authorities eventually underpinning such a blocking statement are seen to be (emphasis added):

1.    US Constitution, 5th Amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

2.    Swiss-US Friendship, Reciprocal Establishments, Commerce and Extradition Convention of Nov 25 1850
 (SR 0.142.113.361) http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/c0_142_113_361.html

ARTICLE   I        The citizens of the United States of America and the citizens of Switzerland shall be admitted and treated upon a footing of reciprocal equality in the two countries, where such admission and treatment shall not conflict with the Constitutional or legal provisions as well Federal as State and Cantonal of the contracting parties. The citizens of the United States and the citizens of Switzerland, as well as the members of their families, subject to the Constitutional and legal provisions aforesaid, and yielding obedience to the laws, regulations and usages of the country wherein they reside, shall be at liberty to come, go, sojourn temporarily, domiciliate or establish themselves permanently, the former in the Cantons of the Swiss Confederation, the Swiss in the States of the American Union, to acquire, possess and alienate therein property (as is explained in Article V); to manage their affairs, to exercise their profession, their industry and their commerce, to have establishments, to possess warehouses, to consign their products and their merchandise, and to sell them by wholesale or retail, either by themselves, or by such brokers or other agents as they may think proper; they shall have free access to the Tribunals and shall be at liberty to prosecute and defend their rights before courts of Justice, in the same manner as native citizens, either by themselves, or by such advocates, attorneys or other agents as they may think proper to select. No pecuniary or other more burdensome condition shall be imposed upon their residence or establishment, or upon the enjoyment of the above-mentioned rights than shall be imposed upon citizens of the country where they reside, nor any condition whatever, to which the latter shall not be subject.

3.    Swiss/US Extradition Treaty of 14 November 1990
(SR 0.353.933.6) http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/i3/0.353.933.6.de.pdf

Art.3
3. Der ersuchte Staat kann die Auslieferung ablehnen für Taten, die:
(a) Gesetzesbestimmungen verletzen, die sich ausschliesslich auf Währungs-, Handels- oder Wirtschaftspolitik beziehen;
(b) ausschliesslich dem Zwecke dienen, Steuern oder Abgaben zu vermindern;

3. L’Etat requis peut refuser l’extradition pour des actes
a) qui violent des dispositions légales régissant des questions d’ordre exclusivement
monétaire, commercial ou économique;
b) qui ont pour unique but de faire diminuer des impôts ou des taxes ou

(unofficial translation)
3. The requested State can refuse an extradition for offences which
(a) violate laws relating exclusively to monetary, commercial or economic policy,
(b) aim exclusively to reduce taxes or duties,

Art. 19     Herausgabe von Gegenständen
1. Der ersuchte Staat übergibt, wenn die Auslieferung bewilligt wird und soweit es seine Rechtsvorschriften zulassen und unter Vorbehalt der Rechte Dritter, dem ersuchenden Staat alle Gegenstände, die als Beweismittel dienen können oder die aus der strafbaren Handlung herrühren oder als Entgelt für solche Gegenstände erlangt wurden und die im Zeitpunkt der Festnahme im Besitz des Verfolgten gefunden worden sind oder später entdeckt wurden. Die Gegenstände werden wenn möglich gleichzeitig mit dem Verfolgten und auch ohne ausdrückliches Ersuchen übergeben. Die Gegenstände werden auch dann herausgegeben, wenn der Verfolgte, dessen Auslieferung bereits bewilligt worden ist, nicht übergeben werden kann.
[Umkehrschluss: Die Gegenstände, also z.B. Bankkundendaten, werden dann nicht herausgegeben, wenn die Auslieferung des Verfolgten nicht bewilligt worden ist, resp. deren allenfalls bereits erfolgte Herausgabe erfolgte ohne weiteres unter dem in Art.16 festgeschriebenen Spezialitäten-Prinzip und steht somit unter entsprechender Quarantäne, deren Handhabung dem Recht des ersuchten Staates untersteht.]
2. Der ersuchte Staat kann die Herausgabe der Gegenstände von der hinreichenden Zusicherung des ersuchenden Staates abhängig machen, dass die Gegenstände dem ersuchten Staat so bald als möglich zurückgegeben werden.

4.    US/Swiss Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty of May 25, 1973
(SR 0.351.933.6) http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/i3/0.351.933.6.de.pdf

Article 3     Discretionary Assistance
1. Assistance may be refused to the extend that:
(a) the requested state considers that the execution of the request is likely to prejudice its sovereignty, security or similar essential interests;

Art. 3     Rechtshilfe nach Ermessen
1. Die Rechtshilfe kann verweigert werden, soweit:
a. der ersuchte Staat der Ansicht ist, dass die Erledigung des Ersuchens geeignet wäre, die Souveränität, Sicherheit oder ähnliche wesentliche Interessen seines Landes zu beeinträchtigen;

5.    EU/US Agreement on mutual legal assistance of June 25, 2003
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:22003A0719(02):EN:HTML

Article 13     Non-derogation
Subject to Article 4(5) and Article 9(2)(b), this Agreement is without prejudice to the invocation by the requested State of grounds for refusal of assistance available pursuant to a bilateral mutual legal assistance treaty, or, in the absence of a treaty, its applicable legal principles, including where execution of the request would prejudice its sovereignty, security, ordre public or other essential interests.
 

October 22, 2006 {url: www.solami.com/IRSblues.htm]