Interview with Aaron Russo...

[wildbilln864]

video link :hi:

[Thurston Howell III]

1. Has anyone attempted to contact Mr. Rockefeller in regards to these statements?

I would love to know about it.

[wildbilln864]

2. I don't think...

we'll ever know. But then again, it would be so easy to deny them now. Wouldn't it?

[Thurston Howell III]

3. No. Why would he tell a filmmaker then deny it?

[wildbilln864]

4. Maybe he thought it would be kept confidential...

and who knows.

[OKthatsIT]

8. Because they're Rockefellers

They've been DENIERS since the Rothschild Banksters started funding their enterprise in the 1800's.

If it works...they use it, repeatedly. These stupid formulas of controlling public opinion are so obvious, aren't they.

PLEASE TELL ME YOU UNDERSTAND.

[Realityhack]

5. Um...

is this the same Aron Russo of the completely retarded and totally incorrect tax claims? Not a very credible source.

[wildbilln864]

6. when you slander a deceased person...

you really should have evidence IMHO. He's absolutely more credible than your ignorant and childish post.

[Bolo Boffin]

7. There's no slander of Aaron Russo.

Saying his views on taxes are idiotic and shouldn't be relied on isn't slander.

That's shining a light in the darkness to keep someone from stumbling.

[Realityhack]

9. no

First off. When it comes to his ideas and claims on what planet does it matter if he is dead?

Secondly it's light years from slander. His tax claims are so completely debunked it's not even worth discussing. If you need evidence learn how to track down original sources yourself. It should take about 12 seconds on Google to find excellent point by point refutations of every single claim he made with sited legal cases etc. The guy was a conspiracy theorist of the worst sort.

[wildbilln864]

10. Debunked!? Bullshit! Accusations prove nothing...

when you have nothing to back them up. You have none as I have seen. Show me. :popcorn:

[salvorhardin]

12. You can start with David Cay Johnston

Facts Refute Filmmaker’s Assertions on Income Tax in ‘America’
By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON
Published: July 31, 2006

... Yet among those thanked in the credits for their help in making the film is Anthony Burke, an I.R.S. spokesman. Mr. Burke said that when Mr. Russo called him asking what law required the payment of income taxes on wages, he sent Mr. Russo a link to documents, including Title 26 of the United States Code, citing the specific sections that require income taxes be paid on wages. Title 26 says on its face that it is law enacted by Congress, but Mr. Russo denied this fact...

Arguments made in court that the income tax is invalid are so baseless that Congress has authorized fines of $25,000 for anyone who makes them. But even though the penalty was quintupled, from $5,000, it has not deterred those who assert this and other claims that Congress and the courts deemed "frivolous arguments."

The film also states repeatedly that people are tricked into paying income taxes because no law makes them liable for taxes. The tax code uses the word impose, whose definition includes the concept of liability, courts have held in published decisions...

Mr. Russo also said that "Congress has no authority to tax people's labor." Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution begins with the phrase "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes." ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/31/movies/31russ.html?scp=1&sq=aaron+russo&st=nyt

Come on wildbil, you can't be so stupid as to believe these far right wing conspiracy theories that have been debunked thousands of times before.

[wildbilln864]

13. I try not to take anything for granted Sal...

your opinion that it's been debunked thousands of times is opposed to what I've seen. But hey, we all have opinions right. Why are so many being aqquitted in courts for not filing taxes? Tom Cryer for one. link :hi:

[salvorhardin]

14. So how's that not paying taxes thing working out for you then?

Obviously, being so enlightened, if you truly believe that Aaron Russo is correct then you must be withholding your Federal income tax payments. Right?

[wildbilln864]

16. wrong again...

I pay em. Always have when required. I'm intrigued by the arguements about it though. I'd like to see someone get to the bottom of it but I guess you're convinced already. :shrug:

[SDuderstadt]

17. Despite his protestations to the contrary...

if Wildbill continues down this path of silly "income tax is not legal" nonsense, we'll be able to write to him in the not-too-distant-future at:

WildBill1254785647
Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary
Leavenworth, KS 23765

[Realityhack]

21. I have trouble believing that.

If you had any real interest in the arguments or desire to see someone get to the bottom of it you would spend 20 min on the net and find out that every one of Ruso's areguments has been completely debunked.

Lets see:
16th amendment wasn't properly ratified
- argument depends upon minor transcription errors during the ratification process including things as minor as capitalization differences.
+ Argument has been shot down by the courts. Proper procedure was followed. Previous laws/amendments contained similar and more severe errors. The legal president is that these where not substantial enough to prevent proper ratification
+ Argument is considered official frivolous and warrants an additional fine just for making it.

16th amendment grants 'no new power of taxation'
- Argument depends upon taking a short quote from a SCOTUS case decision out of context.
+ The case in question was decided AGAINST the person trying to avoid taxes. The SCOTUS said the 16th amendment did not create new tax powers but modified existing ones so they did not require apportioning.

There is no law requiring paying of taxes
- Argument depends upon intentionally confusing two different things both commonly referred to as title 26 one of which IS a law (united states code) and one of which is a regulation (Code of federal regulations).
+ Argument has been repeatedly shot down by the courts. The requirement to pay taxes has been repeatedly upheld and is in fact a law.

Particular people in his film where not required by the court to pay taxes
- Argument relies on a 100% correct court system and ignoring important distinctions between being found innocent of willful failure to pay taxes and not owing taxes
+ Two of the people sited in the film did owe taxes. One was found innocent on the charge of willfully not filing a return but still owed half a million in back taxes. another spent time in jail and his lawyers argued he had a mental disorder related to his beliefs about the need to pay taxes.


You can find all this out in a few min if you ACTUALLY cared.


http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/friv_tax.pdf\
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_arguments#Constitutional_arguments
http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/F2F.htm
etc.
etc.
etc.
etc.

I repeat for the umpteenth time Aron Russo's arguments are flat out retarded. Either he was incredibly stupid/mentally ill or he was flat out lying. I won't give him ignorant because he was repeatedly shown he was wrong by people he interviewed.

His arguments against the legality of the income tax are flat out wrong. Following them will most likely end up with you owing huge additional penalties ON TOP of your back taxes.

While saying he is an unreliable source based on this is technically ad-hominem one must consider that this past behavior of outrageous claims that are easily demonstratively false with even a few moments research is an indicator that all claims by this individual should be very carefuly considered.

I do not think in light of this that saying he is hardly a reliable source is in any way wrong.

Calling his tax claims retarded is well supported and clearly demonstrated if you take the time to look. Frankly I don't wish to waste several hours of my life that I will never get back going through his movie frame by frame posting all of the false and deceitfully arguments and case law for you. You will need to do that for yourself if you really care.

I see nothing slanderous about my statements and stand by them. Aron Russo's tax arguments are retarded, unfounded, and ridiculous. He is in no way a credible source.

[wildbilln864]

25. You and others here in the dungeon...

should weigh in here. With your vast knowledge of the income tax laws and the Constitution, I'm sure you can contribute greatly to the discussion. It will give you something better to do than accusing me of not paying my taxes and being an idiot. Are you up for a broader discussion? :popcorn:

[wildbilln864]

27. Don't dare venture there I see!

:eyes: No surprise.

[Realityhack]

30. Wow 6 hours without folowing your link... I must be scared...

or I didn't see your post during that time.

The link provided does not directly discuss Russo's arguments reguarding taxation but rather some of his arguments regarding the federal reserve.
Therefore I will continue here.

I ask that you answer the following questions:
1. Do you believe Russo is correct that federal income tax is illegal or otherwise not owed?
2. If so please site one specific argument that he makes that you believe is valid.

[Realityhack]

44. I take it you concede. n/t

[wildbilln864]

45. no, I do not!

:hi:

[wildbilln864]

46. My answer for question 1...

is yes.
2=that the constitution allows only the congress to issue the currency.

[Realityhack]

47. ok.

So you say that taxes are not owed...
because only the congress can issue currency?

I think you are missing some pieces of that argument. Please clarify.

[wildbilln864]

49. ok...

Article 1, clause 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the exclusive right to coin money, issue currency, and regulate its value.

Therefore the fed is unconstitutional.

[SDuderstadt]

52. Jesus, Bill

The Fed does NOT "coin money"...the Mint strikes coins and the Bureau of Printing and Engraving prints the currency. The Fed also does not "issue" currency. That is done by the Treasury Department. Lastly, how, exactly, does the Fed "regulate the value of currency"? You're setting a new personal best for the amount of erroneous claims in one post.

[Realityhack]

55. Setting asside any argument over that statment...

I fail to see how that affects wither or not you owe taxes.

Please explain how (even if what you said where accepted as true) you go from the fed being unconstitutional to not needing to pay taxes?

As far as I can tell this is a complete non sequitur.

[wildbilln864]

50. Please, tell me what you think this means...

link Is it fraudulent? :shrug: Thanks.

[Realityhack]

20. did you even read that link?

He got off because he convinced a jury he didn't believe he owed the taxes. Every single one of his claims that taxes are not legal was rejected.

BTW do you think every jury case in the US has a perfect outcome?

[Laurier]

18. "Accusations prove nothing when you have nothing to back them up."

For once, we agree.

The entirety of the so-called "truth" movement has never produced a single piece of evidence in support of their many, varied accusations. They really should stop making such unsupported claims, don't you think?

[Laurier]

51. Kick for willbilln864.

Well?

(edited to correct willbilln864's name)

[khaos]

15. what was debunked? be specific

[Realityhack]

22. see post 21 for a partial list. Use your research skills for the rest n/t

[khaos]

24. thx, i'm pretty sure it's a little more complex than that but i don't really care..

about slave/master relationships so..

[Realityhack]

28. What on earth are you talking about???

When did we start discussing maters and slaves?

[Laurier]

19. About slandering the deceased.

The so-called "truth" movement does an awful lot of slandering and libeling of the deceased when they insinuate and/or assert that victims of the 911 attacks were somehow complicit in the attacks. Truthers have been accusing victims of 9/11 of being complicit in the attacks for a long time now. They really should stop, don't you agree?

[420 Bob]

26. Example?

[greyl]

29. Here's one.

[wildbilln864]

33. don't believe everything you read! nt

[Laurier]

34. See #31.

[greyl]

35. You're calling johndoex a liar? Wow, we agree on something again. nt

[wildbilln864]

36. so you're saying the supposed family member's post is a lie?

I've called no one a liar. Don't try to put words in my mouth.

[greyl]

37. No, you are.

Plus, you looked at the picture I posted and didn't acknowledge the relevant part of it. Nothing new there.

[wildbilln864]

40. Once again thanks for your opinion. nt

:hi:

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Laurier]

31. Examples.

Members of the so-called "truth" movement have consistently libeled and slandered the deceased and their family members by insinuating that the deceased and their family members were somehow complicit in covering up the imaginary grand conspiracy that the "truth" movement promotes.

Examples: baseless accusations against Mark Bingham and his mother; baseless accusations against Todd Beamer and his wife; baseless accusations that the family members who received telephone calls or messages from victims are lying about those calls; baseless accusations that members of FDNY knew of, and were complicit in the destruction of the buildings at the WTC despite the deaths of hundreds of their colleagues; baseless accusations against Bernard Brown Sr. accusing him of knowingly sending his young son off to die; baseless accusations against Chick Burlingame that he was complicit in the attacks; baseless accusations against thousands of family members, accusing them of being complicit in the "cover up" of the "faked" deaths of their loved ones; baseless accusations against flight attendants, claiming that their choice of words in the last phone calls of their lives were somehow suspicious; and the list goes on and on.

The "truth" movement really should retract all of their baseless accusations, don't you agree?

[greyl]

32. Is that all you could come up with? nt

;)

[mhatrw]

39. Show us all of these baseless accusations.

Otherwise, we can just assume that your accusations are baseless.

Here are the unanswered questions of the victims' families:

http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html

Do you think the victims' families deserve the answers to their questions or not?

[Laurier]

42. Are you seriously suggesting that you are unaware of them?

They are well known and come from members of the so-called "truth" movement. You seem to be reasonably well versed in that woo, so how could you have missed them?

Nice attempt at changing the subject, though.

[AZCat]

43. mhatrw likes to pretend that he/she/it doesn't know things.

Several posters have noticed and commented on this behavior. I think it's pathetic that someone is playing games with such a serious topic.

[Laurier]

48. Thanks for that info.

I wasn't aware of the history, but it is useful information going forward. Oh, and I agree with your assessment about game-playing on such a serious subject.

[Make7]

53. Well, to be fair... sometimes 'mhatrw' actually doesn't know things. (n/t)

[AZCat]

54. That's the problem with making a false claim.

Because he/she/it has claimed to not know things that he did actually know, it is difficult to take similar claims at face value. How is someone supposed to respond rationally to this behavior?

[wildbilln864]

11. He was easily more credible...

than you! :rofl:

[Realityhack]

23. See my other posts. n/t

[wildbilln864]

41. Here's a good ...

related thread. link :hi: