BTW, I just bought Nestman's report on MLAT's and to say that it is an interesting read would be putting it mildly. It lists all current US- MLATs (the original version only listed about 30, but the new version lists over 50) and analyzes their impact on offshore investors. When you read it, you will find that in many cases, the IRS or other US agency can use a MLAT to seize your offshore assets and you have no legal recourse in either the foreign country or in US courts. They use the MLAT to completely circumvent our protections under the Constitution.
But, to make matters worse, the US government splits the take with the cooperating foreign government, which fosters a bounty hunter mentality. It's basically boils down to, "You sign this treaty and we'll give you half of everything we get." For many less than honorable governments, that's all the enticement that they need.
If an MLAT is in effect, the IRS or other government agency can go on "fishing expeditions" that are expressley prohibited in the United States. In many cases, even if you aren't engaged in anything that even remotely resembles an illegal activity, they can seize your assets and you have no legal recourse in either the foreign jurisdiction or in US courts. Furthermore, even if you manage to get your case heard in a US court and you somehow manage to win, the most that you can get back, is the portion kept by the US agency.
Fortunately, ther are still quite a number of nations that still refuse to sign MLAT's with the US, that would have the effect of circumventing due process.
It's interesting that this ruling in the favor of the rights of investors should have come out of such a socialist leaning nation as Canada. This, of course, gives rise to the question, "If a socialist leaning nation like Canada had to stand up for our rights, what does that say about our own government?"
If you are interested in getting Nestmann's MLAT report, there is a link where you can order it at the end of the original article, but I left it out here, because it might be construed as an advertisement.
Now, before any of you start going off on Schneider, I want to state that I personally think that his advise is far too borderline to be depended on. I have read a lot of his works and researched the applicable laws and I find that, although what he advises is probably legal in the strictest sense, it is very close to the edge. As a result, if you follow his advice, a jury could easily come down on the wrong side. At the very least, you will need to spend tons of money on good attorneys, to make certain that doesn't happen.
But, as the article pointed out, it is not the individual involved, that makes this such an important case, but the fact that it demonstrates the right of targeted persons to raise constitutional and other legal issues, even though the wording of the new US-MLAT's is specifically designed to deny the right of legal redress to the investigated, citizens or third parties.
This MLAT?
"101st Congress
1st Session
October 24, 1989, 5:15 p.m.
Page S-13889 Temp. Record
Vote No. 267
MLAT TREATY WITH CANADA/Ratification
...By unanimous consent, two amendments of understanding would be included in each of the MLAT resolutions of ratification. The first amendment would add that nothing in the treaty requires or authorizes legislation or other action by the United States that is prohibited by the U.S. Constitution... "