Talk:America: Freedom to Fascism/Archive 1

Commentary removed

The following material inserted into the article on 6 July 2006 by Jasonpeck has been removed:

The preview of this movie, available at www.freedomtofascism.com, is full of half truths and deceptions. The entire segment on the federal reserve, for example, is particularly disturbing in its inaccuracies and lack of objectivity. Russo interviews people from all walks of life and asks them if they knew that "the fed" was a private corporation. He then tells them that it is. This is intellectually dishonest because it doesn't really tell the whole truth.

The fed is truly a unique entity. It's not really government, nor is it really private. The 12 regional banks are owned by the member banks. When a person decides to open a bank, he is required to purchase stock in the fed (the 12 regional banks as a system). This stock is not like other stock. It does not pay dividends, and the owner of the stock is not allowed to profit from it in any way. This is just one example of the half-truths that people like Russo are telling when they say it is "privately owned". They don't bother to point out that nobody is allowed to make a profit off of this ownership, nor do they point out that all of the profit above operating expenses goes back into the Treasury. Furthermore, the fed is limited by statute to retain only 6% of profits for operating expense at a maximimum. It's really easier to think of the bank itself owning the stock rather than the bank owner. Good basic info is available at http://www.federalreserve.gov Their FAQ explains this.

Each governor is appointed by the President, and remains indpendent so that he is not under the influence of political pressure. One would shudder at the thought of the mess that would result from congress directly changing monetary policy, especially in an election year. The governors set monetary policy, thus influencing the money supply (and economy) in 5 basic ways. A few examples are: the discount rate, which is the rate that member banks pay for short term loans from the fed, stock margins, which state how much stock can be bought on margin (like a loan), the reserving rate (how much each bank is allowed to loan on their assets).

Nobody profits or gains from the feds manipulation of the economy. Moreover, they do not directly control anything, they passively influence it by changing market conditions. It doesn't always work, but the beauty of this system is that it allows the monetary supply to expand and contract based on the need for money. Money is created when people borrow. One of the problems with a gold standard is that gold is a finite commodity. If a person wanted to open a business, but there was no more gold to finance it, he couldn't do it regardless of how successful it would be. Therefore wealth could not be created, it would have to be dug up out of the ground. With fracional reserve banking, wealth is actually created by assigning a value to a resource without regard to any commodity. From this segment, Russo begins a discussion of credit card companies and their tactics to enslave us with debt. He even goes so far as to say that they are forcing us into debt, but declines to offer any proof that anyone has ever been forced to borrow money from a bank.

Russo's assertion that there is no law requiring an individual to pay income tax is equally absurd. The 16th amendment clearly states, "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." Not only is there a law requiring us to pay income tax, but there is a constitutional amendment.

Many people object to the IRS, the income tax, and even the federal reserve system of banking. Russo takes this objection a step further and suggests that it is a conspiracy against the common man. In doing so, he loses a great deal of credibility.

I haven't seen the film in question. I agree with the thrust of about 99.9% of Jasonpeck's commentary, especially the comments about the Federal Reserve System and the Federal income tax, so my sympathies are probably with Jasonpeck. Assuming that the film is really as wacky as has been depicted by some other commentators, the analysis by Jasonpeck is probably more accurate (in my opinion) than most of the information that is reported to be in the film. The problem is that Jasonpeck's commentary is just that: commentary that lacks a neutral point of view for purposes of Wikipedia. Perhaps we can work together to rework this material to strike a balance. Any thoughts, anyone? Yours, Famspear 21:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Kudos to Famspear for an excellent low key way of removing questoinable material. Looking at the gist of the side-tracked text, the problem solution would be to change the narrative voice, and recast it into alternative pov appropriately encyclopediac disputing the conclusions presented by the film. Looks to me your half-way there—the rebutal points are now above, just revise and work down it as if it were an outline. // FrankB 05:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

What we need, really, is a good article on Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code, which states in pretty clear terms that it the law, passed by Congress and signed by the President, which requires all Americans to pay a federal income tax. bd2412 T 14:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Excerpt form Jasonpeck: "Furthermore, the fed is limited by statute to retain only 6% of profits for operating expense at a maximimum. It's really easier to think of the bank itself owning the stock rather than the bank owner. Good basic info is available at http://www.federalreserve.gov Their FAQ explains this.".

If anyone knows, please give me some references to where can I find information about institution or whoever that guards the law of 6% (I think it's enormous ammount of money anyway!), references other than www.federalreserve.gov - please, you must be kidding, giving their site for the support of this views. I would like to know about any outside organization that controls what is going on there?

And does anyone know when it will be screening in Europe?. Thanks. SalvNaut --83.6.223.21 00:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

No outside organization, other than private banks which make up the Fed, control what goes on there. Not even congress. Congress has far more control, oversight, and budgetary powers over the CIA and the NSA than they do over the Fed. The Fed conducts all of its meetings in ABSOLUTE secrecy, only to release very vague meeting minutes weeks later. You should read up on Murray N. Rothbard's works on the Fed. He was a great man.

Also, i dont think the movie will ever be screened in Europe. The advertising budget is non-existent, seeing as how the website asks the fans to do all of the work. And the movie deals entirely with the US government. The movie is intended to be seen by US audiences, and i wouldnt count on the owner going out of his way to show it in Europe. You are better off following the torrent link to the movie posted in the bottom section titled, "The Actual Movie". It is NOT the theatrical release version, it is a pre-release version. However, it is similar to the theatrical release. --Arltomem 19:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I feel it's important to note that Mr. Russo asserts that the Federal Reserve Bank is one of several global banks collaborating together to operate in much the same way. The Euro and The Bank of England (IIRC, the correct nomenclature) are included in his discussion. 206.124.31.24 09:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I entirely disagree Jasonpeck's assesment that inflating the money supply is somehow a good thing. Creating new money without adding any value to the money supply is known as debasement. In order to create new money, you must 'steal' value from all other notes in circulation. For instance; I have worked all of my life to save money. In the past 5 years, the incredible expansion of the money supply has turned my savings into a fraction of what they used to be worth. How is that somehow a good thing? How is that justified?

If the government hadn't stolen my savings, I would have much more money to invest in new businesses without needing to borrow anything!

Monetary policy is a stronger form of governance than any other. Most Americans are far too ignorant of what goes on because it is seemingly hidden behind economic mumbo jumbo such as 'monetizing the debt'.

Most new money goes to government contractors, not new businesses. Allowing the government to borrow as much as they like is similar to giving a credit card to a teenager, they go crazy and are not encouraged to spend wisely, exercise thrift, ensure proper oversight, or recycle.

Jasonpeck flatly asserts that the gold standard is bad and that new money must be created or else no new businesses can form. This is simply wrong. You will always find somebody willing to lend money. However, as credit tightens the lenders' terms become less favorable to the borrower. This is freemarket economics and there is no reason to "fix" something that is not broken. America got along just fine before the Federal Reserve came into existence.

Gold is by no means the only way to back paper money. There is also;

• Silver
• Base Metals
• Other Commodities such as oil, corn, wheat, coffee, etc.
• Consumer Goods
• Corporate Stock and bonds
• Personal IOU's

There is no reason why the Federal Reserve should have a monopoly on our money supply. Federal Reserve Notes should have to compete with other paper money. This would force them to; protect the dollar's value, exercise thrift, educate the public about their actions. The only reason why they cannot allow it to compete with other paper is because they know that FRN's will eventually turn into the only thing that they are good for, toilet paper.

I also have numerous examples of people being 'coerced' into borrowing money; student loans, home mortgages, automobile purchase and repair. How many people can afford to pay for college? How many people grow up to have enough money to buy a house without borrowing? If you want to get an education or own a home, chances are pretty good that you will have to borrow a significant portion of the cost. Having debt hang over your head also coerces you into doing other things that you do not want to do; working for less than a fair wage, working a dangerous job, doing things you find unethical. If you have debt hanging over your head it will significantly change your life. You will not be as free to exercise your will when you are afraid of loosing your job and your house if you do so.

For more info, please see this video from The Mises Institute --Arltomem 16:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Arlt is absolutely correct. I assure you that the Federal Reserve is operated by some of the most wretched and despicable people on the planet, and it's only a matter of time before we're in a Depression that makes our last one look like child's play. Invest in gold while you can. 192.249.47.11 15:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight! Now that I've got your unsubstantiated, anonymous assurance, I know the truth about the Federal Reserve. That depression must be coming any minute now—after all the gold bugs, etc., have been predicting it for over 60 years. — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 21:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Purpose of the Following Changes

I changed the page for the following reasons.

1) After consulting several random people, it was determined that the article had a biased tone. The language of paragraph 6 (following the quote) was revised to reduce the elements of the article which made it sound like a movie critique, not a factual article.

2) The following was removed:

The website for the Federal Reserve System describes the Fed's structure (in part) as follows:

The Federal Reserve System is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution. Instead, it is an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects. [1]

The reason for its removal was that the article does not mention what statements Russo makes about the Federal Reserve system and thus leaves people unfamiliar with the preview confused as to the quotes relevance and purpose.

The bottom paragraph was revised because no specific examples were provided and thus it cannot yet be asserted as fact in the article.

Rushfan 23:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

What happened to the link that disputed many of the claims of this movie? I can understand why it was taken out of the text of the article, but if you're going to include a link to spychips.com, you should also include the site that attempts to debunk the movie.

User:mlipkin 13:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I wasn't the one to take the link out, and I also didn't put the link to spychips.com in there. I, however, agree with the link being removed because it was promoting somebodys blog. This is supposed to be about the movie, not a debunking or supporting of it.

Rushfan 23:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Hot Topic

This is a rather hot topic and I would like to have somebody who does not reside in the United States, has little knowledge of US politics, and has little interest in politics themselves to review this article and certify its neutrality.

Other than that I think editing is being conducted in a reasonable matter and I've yet to see anything that really sticks out in my mind as direct bias.

Rushfan 01:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The Blog

I removed the link to Brain Ragles blog, again, because it is just a link pointing to his blog, with no actual article. It seems like a cheap attempt to promote his blog. I also removed the following sentence because it was confusing. I removed the other links too, because if Brain Ragle can't promote his blog it is only right we don't allow other sites to promote themselves without some kind of explicit relevance to the article.

Rushfan 01:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Ad hominem?

Dear fellow editors: I restored [actually, another editor restored before I could even get to it] the following verbiage deleted from the article by an anonymous user:

The film does not mention that Russo has had over $2 million of tax liens filed against him by the Internal Revenue Service and the states of California and New York for unpaid taxes. In an interview with the New York Times, Russo refused to discuss the liens, saying they were not relevant to his film.

In a section on Mr. Russo's personal beliefs about taxes, a statement of his own personal tax problems is not an argumentum ad hominem. See the following example from Ad hominem:

[given as examples of ad hominem arguments:]

"Tobacco company representatives are wrong when they say smoking doesn't seriously affect your health, because they're just defending their own multi-million-dollar financial interests."

[ . . . ]

Of course, such statements could also be reworded to avoid the logical fallacy:

"Tobacco company representatives may be biased when they say smoking doesn't seriously affect your health, because of their own multi-million-dollar financial interests. Thus, such statements may be wishful thinking, or even outright lies, on their part."

In other words, it might be an ad hominem argument to say:

"Mr. Russo is wrong about the legitimacy of the tax law because he has had his own tax problems."

It would arguably be valid to say:

"Mr. Russo might be biased when he claims the tax law is invalid, because he has had his own tax problems."

That does not mean Mr. Russo is right or wrong, or that he is necessarily biased -- or not biased.

Obviously, a person's personal tax problems are both logically (and legally) relevant to what his views about taxes might be. To state that he has had his own serious tax problems in a section on his personal views about tax problems in connection with a film addressing the legitimacy of tax law is not an ad hominem argument. A true statement about personal tax problems of the filmmaker is relevant to show possible bias. Obviously possible personal bias is also relevant in evaluating a film (made by that filmmaker) which is reportedly attacking the legitimacy of the tax laws.

Yours, Famspear 17:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed this is not an ad hominem but some factual evidence that provides a motive for why the filmmaker made the film, and also puts his denial of the legality of assessing and collecting income tax(i.e. that no US law was passed by congrees authorizing income tax) in perspective. --Trödel 18:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

That (Russo has had over $2 million of tax liens against him)wouldn't be relevant to the film anyway. [This comment, originally inserted out of chronology, added by anonymous user at IP 61.122.255.20 on 7 Sept 2006.]

No, sorry, as discussed above, the fact that Russo has had tax liens against him is relevant to "the film" -- touted as a documentary in large part about taxes -- to show possible bias, which in turn is relevant in evaluating the film. Again, this in and of itself does not mean that the filmmaker is necessarily biased or necessarily not biased. Yours, Famspear 14:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

So, then, it would not be an ad hominem attack to point out that Mr. Famspear might be biased when he claims that Mr. Russo's claims are baseless, because Mr. Famspear's income is derived from the mere claimed lawful basis of a personal direct and unapportioned tax on labor. 206.124.31.24 09:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it would not be improper to say that I, Famspear, might be biased, etc., if my credibility here in Wikipedia is important. My credibility here in Wikipedia is not that important, as I CITE MY SOURCES and those sources ACTUALLY BACK UP what I say. The same cannot be said of what Mr. Russo is reported to have stated in his film. The credibility of the filmmaker is relevant to a discussion of the film he has made.

If someone thinks that I or another editor is incorrect about something, it should be a fairly easy task to find the error. The fact that I earn lots of money helping people fight the IRS and pay the minimum amount of tax they legally owe is not that important, since you have the citations to the court decisions, etc., that I have posted right here in Wikipedia. You can check everything out. Good luck. Yours, Famspear 15:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course you say this, not even having seen his film. Credibility indeed! QED. 206.124.31.24 07:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear user at IP 206.124.31.24: No, I and the other editors of Wikipedia do not need to "see the film" to edit a Wikipedia article about the film. I am not presuming to be writing a review of the film itself. And the credibility of Wikipedia editors is not generally going to be a concern where the edits are backed up by reliable sources. Again, I and other Wikipedia editors do not need to "see the film" in order to have credibility (believability) in editing an article about the film. Yours, Famspear 15:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The article is about the film, not your feelings. 206.124.31.24 18:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear user at IP 206.124.31.24: That's right, and there is nothing in the article or in this talk page about my "feelings." This talk page is about following Wikipedia policies and guideliness and discussing ways to improve the article. Yours, Famspear 19:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It might be refreshing if you're edits were about the FILM, which IS the topic, but you haven't SEEN it. 206.124.31.24 19:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The film shown "at" Cannes

This section has absolutley nothing to do with the film itself. It appears to be nothing more than an argument over semantics, aimed at discrediting the filmmaker. It's tantamount to adding a section under the civil right's entry, saying that Martin Luther King cheated on his wife. It may be true, and it was an issue concurrent to the civil rights movement, but it had nothing to do with the substance of the movement, just as this entry has nothing to do with the substance of the film. Does anyone have any objections to removing it? Lar03 19:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC) 08/09/06

Dear fellow editors: On 16 January 2006, in the article on Aaron Russo, an anonymous user at IP 67.177.11.116 inserted the following statement:

Mr. Russo, as writer, director and producer, is entering "America ." in the May 2006 Cannes Film Festival.

By mid-July at the latest, the verbiage had changed to:

Mr. Russo, as writer, director, and producer, entered America in the May 2006 Cannes Film Festival, where it received a standing ovation.

On 31 July 2006, editor NawlinWiki changed the article to clarify that the film was not actually entered at the Cannes Film Festival.

On 31 July I moved the bulk of the material on the film from the Aaron Russo article to the article on the film itself.

The material about Cannes goes to the credibility of the filmmaker. The credibility of the filmmaker is relevant. This film is styled as a "documentary," not as fiction or entertainment.

Originally I think the article stated something to the effect that Mr. Russo's web site for the film stated that the film had been shown at the Cannes Film Festival. I did not find that specific statement on the web site. I did find that the Russo web site stated that the film had been shown at "Cannes." (I changed the Wikipedia article accordingly.) While that statement is apparently literally, denotatively true, the average knowledgeable person could easily be misled into thinking the film was entered in the festival itself. We do not know what Mr. Russo's intention was. However, the statement in the article that the film essentially was not actually part of the festival was put there by NawlinWiki, I believe, to clarify the point.

As you can see from the article, Mr. Russo has been quoted as having made a statement or statements (at least about the nature of U.S. Federal tax law) which call his credibility into question. He has also reportedly used, in his film, persons such as Irwin Schiff, whose credibility regarding Schiff's interpretation of the U.S. Federal income tax laws is logically relevant.

Credibility has at least two components: One is competence, and the other is truthfulness. Even if a person is truthful in the sense of not deliberately making statements he or she knows to be false, that person can lack credibility if he or she simply is not competent to pontificate about the subject at hand. For example, I personally am not competent to pontificate about elementary particle physics or Einstein's theories of relativity. In other words, if I pontificate at length about these subjects, even with no intent to falsify, I may still lack credibility simply because I lack competence in the field; I am out of my depth.

According to the press reports, Mr. Russo makes several unorthodox claims about the nature of the U.S. Federal income tax laws, both in his film and in promoting the film.

I agree with my fellow editor that whether the film was shown as part of the Film Festival or merely was shown at Cannes during the film festival is not material to the subject matter, the substance, of the film. The material is relevant, however, to an encyclopedia article about the film -- which can properly include more information that just a commentary on the substance of the film. This material goes to the credibility of the promotional effort for the film, which in turn relates to the credibility of the filmmaker -- an important aspect of evaluating a film touted as a documentary.

I would argue that truthful information that is reasonably related to Mr. Russo's credibility about the film and his credibility with respect to the film's promotion probably belongs in the article on the film. Yours, Famspear 20:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Reviews of the film

I have moved some material on reviews of the film from the article on Aaron Russo to here. I'm not sure about the Wikipedia rules on inserting reviews of films, but I argue that the material is more appropriate here than it would be in the article on Aaron Russo. Yours, Famspear 17:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Ad Hominem revisited

This wikipedia article is disappointing in its bias and tone, and I encourage its complete revision. This is a movie purported to be a documentary containing claims based on facts, and yet there seems to be no information in this article regarding exactly what is claimed in the movie. Instead, this article contains mainly attacks on the credibility of those involved with the movie and pre-emptive rebuttals of arguments that might possibly be made in the movie based upon what those involved in making the movie have previously said. This article is more about the interests and agenda of the author regarding the people involved with the movie than it is about the movie itself, and for that reason the entire article needs to be rewritten to focus on the movie and its contents NOT possible motivations, legal troubles, mental conditions, fallability, or likability of the persons involved in making the movie. Such information has its place in biographical entries where a wide range of information about a person is listed rather than just those things that would possibly undermine credibility regarding a specific endeavor. Credibility of the maker of the film and credibility of the promotion of the film have absolutely nothing to do with the movie itself. Anyone disagreeing with this should read the wikipedia article on ad hominem arguments to refresh their memory on the purpose of attacking credibility, inferring motivation, and "putting into perspective" rather than discussing the actual arguments made. The person who claimed that it is not an ad hominem argument if you imply that a lack of credibility is possible rather than certain needs to read the article three times at least.

An article about this movie should contain: 1. A synopsis of the movie

2. A discussion of the claims made presupposing nothing, with links to corroborating and rebutting information

3. A brief biography of the person responsible for the movie including credentials and self-stated motivations

68.5.51.77 08:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Eric B

Dear fellow editors: In my opinion Eric B makes a good point about the tone of the article. I also believe the article lacks some detailed information about what is claimed in the movie (although saying there is "no information" about that in the article is in my view overstating the case). Part of the problem is that almost nobody has seen the film, due to its limited distribution. The original information (which included little if any balancing information "challenging" the film's assertions) was also inserted by people who probably had not seen the film (as the article was created before the film was released). On the other hand, in my view the so-called "attacks" on the credibility of the film are quite appropriate (see below).

I also agree that the article can be fine tuned "to focus on the movie and its contents" -- but I contend the article should also continue to include information on "possible motivations, legal troubles" of those making the movie. I don't know where "mental conditions, fallability [sic], or likability" comes into play (except for the mental condition of Mr. Irwin Schiff).

As far as the statement that the "[c]redibility of the maker of the film and credibility of the promotion of the film have absolutely nothing to do with the movie itself" -- I completely disagree. The credibility of the maker and the credibility of the promotion for a documentary have EVERYTHING to do with the movie itself -- and are also important to an encyclopedia article about the movie.

The first two of Eric B's three suggestions about what the article should look like are in my view very helpful. I also agree with his third point, except that information about "motivations" should not be limited to "self stated" ones (if by "self stated" we mean only those motivations disclosed by the filmmaker himself).

Regarding the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem -- more on this later.

Any thoughts, anyone? Yours, Famspear 19:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

"Part of the problem is that almost nobody has seen the film, due to its limited distribution." So whip out your credit card and purchase a copy from the web site. Being to cheap to pay to see it is not an excuse for presumption. 206.124.31.24 07:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear anon at IP 206.124.31.24: No, I am not being "presumptuous." I am not reviewing the film. I and the other editors here are editing Wikipedia. As already stated on this talk page, for a film reviewer or critic who is writing a review of a film, it is only fair that the reviewer or critic actually see the film before drawing conclusions and writing the review. Here, we have an encyclopedia article about a film -- where various editors (who also may or may not have seen the film) had previously inserted information. As Wikipedia editors, we do not need to see the film itself to add to that same article some balancing information. Yours, Famspear 15:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Much like your cult, you cannot balance information about that which you have not seen. 206.124.31.24 18:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear user at IP 206.124.31.24: Thank you for sharing your feelings with us. Famspear 18:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you cannot balance information about that which you have not seen has nothing to do with feelings--except yours, which is apparently your source of "balance." 206.124.31.24 19:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Mark one more wikipedia article that is biased by certain committed 'editors' who only seek 'balance'. There is clearly a bias against the film throughout the article. It is my hope, and a part of my mission, that wikipedia is never taken seriously on an academic level. Thankfully this is thusfar the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.120.198.172 (talk) 21:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've seen the whole film. It is as the reliable sources say it is—questionable. And as someone with a passing familiarity with the Supreme Court, I found his interview with the IRS representative very disingenuous. The IRS man was saying that very old (pre-Depression era) cases could not be used as authority for the proposition that the Federal Government has not income tax authority. Russo stopped the film and adds narration like "I couldn't believe what I was hearing. He was telling me that the Supreme Court is not a legal authority." In fact, no, the IRS rep was trying to making a reference to the New Deal shift that occurred in the Court. Before the 30's, the Supreme Court thought that many economic regulations were constitutionally forbidden, see Lochner era. The Court no longer feels this way, and pre-Depression cases are generally not good law on economic issues. As for the conspiracy theory that the Sixteenth Amendment was never ratified, we cover that in Tax protester constitutional arguments, among other places. Basically, it's a silly claim because the necessary states did ratify it, and then some. What Russo doesn't say (because his documentary is dishonest) is that some conspiracy theorists claim it hasn't been ratified due to punctuation and spelling differences in some of the approved versions.

But my opinion doesn't really matter. We have to follow reliable sources, and the article does. Cool Hand Luke 15:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Cool Hand Luke: I assume you meant the Sixteenth Amendment, not the Seventeeth. However, ironically, one tax protester argument is that that Seventeenth ALSO was not properly ratified! Non-ratification arguments have also been made (albeit in non-tax contexts) about the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Nineteenth amendments, and none has ever succeeded in court. Interestingly, most of the "Sixteenth Amendment" non-ratification arguments come from a Mr. William J. Benson, an ex-con whose theories have been discredited over and over in courts of law -- and whose non-ratification argument didn't even work for him in his own criminal tax conviction case. See The Law that Never Was, an article about his book, which is part of what has been ruled to be Benson's fraudulent tax scheme (see the latest court ruling in December 2007).

I can't speak for the anonmyous user at IP70.120.198.172, but I suspect that he/she may be upset because he/she is getting the idea from the article that at least some of Russo's theories were pretty goofy, or whatever. If he/she is getting that idea, it's not because the article itself is biased; it's because the reliable sources cited in the article actually say what the article says they say.

Just as an aside: The article does not say that some of Russo's theories were goofy (although of course they were goofy). The article does not say that Russo didn't do his homework (although it's obvious that Russo did not do his homework). The article does not say that Russo allowed his bias to affect what was supposed to be a "documentary," although I suspect that he did allow his bias to affect the quality of his work in this particular case.

To the anonymous user at IP70.120.198.172: Neutral point of view (NPOV) or lack of bias in Wikipedia does not mean the absence of points of view. NPOV, or lack of bias, means presenting opposing, significant points of view without taking sides. NPOV - or lack of bias - also does not mean giving equal weight to fringe points of view and majority points of view. Several of Russo's points of view were not only extreme fringe points of view, they were (from a legal standpoint) completely erroneous and preposterous. For example, his fundamental error in, essentially, claiming that the Internal Revenue Code is only a "regulation" (and not a statute passed by Congress) is a mistake that (to paraphrase one of my fellow editors) should not be made by a reasonably bright high school senior. Famspear (talk) 16:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Sixteenth. I fixed it before you replied. Cool Hand Luke 16:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Luke, you're too fast for me! My long-winded commentaries take too long to write! Famspear (talk) 17:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

PS: This is off-topic a bit, but I hope that Russo is remembered not just for the mistakes in this film, but also for the good work he did during the bulk of his career. Famspear (talk) 16:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The Actual Movie

Apparently, most of you have not seen the film. Many are clearly biased against it and/or trying to debunk it. I think that people should watch the actual movie before they can either verify or debunk its content or claims. Unfortunately, this film is not widely available in theatres and there is no DVD. Under the Fair Use Act, the following torrent link is being added to this discussion for non-profit educational uses and commentary / criticism. AFTF torrent is available but to download you will need uTorrent which is free.--Arltomem 07:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors: With all due respect, I have to disagree at least in part with my fellow editor Arltomem's assertion that "people should watch the actual movie before they can either verify or debunk its content or claims." I have not seen or heard anyone deny that the film does indeed make the assertions about the validity of the Federal income tax and the nature of the Federal Reserve System that are described in the article. So, there's no serious doubt -- at least at this point-- that the article is accurate when it says that the film takes the positions described in the article. To leave out contrary information about the substance of what the film is asserting -- merely because the Wikipedia editors have not seen the film itself -- is not tenable. Here's why.

If a film reviewer or critic is writing a review of a film, it is only fair that the reviewer or critic actually see the film before drawing conclusions and writing the review.

This is different from trying to "verify or debunk the "content or claims" of the film. Nowhere does the Wikipedia article say that Mr. Russo is correct or incorrect. Here, we have an encyclopedia article about a film -- where various editors (who also may or may not have seen the film) had previously inserted information to the effect that the film itself challenges the validity of the Federal income tax. As Wikipedia editors, we do not need to see the film itself to add to that same article some balancing information to the effect that under the U.S. legal system, the Federal income tax statutes actually do exist (with links to the statutes on the Cornell University Law School web site) and that the statutes are legally valid, any more than we first need to read the literature of the "Moon is Made of Green Cheese Society" before adding balancing information to the effect that the vast majority of astronomers and other scientists do not adhere to the argument of that Society that the moon is made of green cheese.

I'm sorry, but adding balancing material with a view opposed to the view reportedly taken in a film touted as a documentary does not constitute an "attack" on the film in the sense in which I believe my fellow editor is using the term, and is in my opinion fair in the context of an encyclopedia article on the film.

If, however, our goal is merely to "debunk" the substance of the film or write a review of the film, then yes, we should see the film first. If our goal is instead to write and edit a balanced Wikipedia encyclopedia article about the film, we can surely write about what the film reportedly claims -- and provide contrary information as well. Yours, Famspear 19:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

If you had seen the film, you would be familiar with the following arguments:

• The 16th Amendment was never properly ratified.

• Even if The 16th Amendment had been ratified, it is in direct contradiction with Article 1, Section 8 of The Constitution.

• Article 1, Section 8 has never been repealed. Any attempt to repeal it should be considered treason.

• In 1920, The Supreme Court upheld the limitations in Article 1, Section 8 and ruled The 16th Amendment to be unconstitutional, stating absolutely that, "Congress cannot enforce a direct unapportioned tax on an individual's income."

• The 1920 Supreme Court ruling has never been over turned.

• Lower courts cannot supercede The Supreme Court's rulings. Yet somehow they are allowed to do just that in regards to individual income taxes? Clearly, something does not add up.

• The IRS's own statutes state that The Federal Income Tax is voluntary. Yet they put a gun to your head to enforce it?

• If you took The 16th Amendment back to 1800 and tried to amend The Constitution, you would likely be charged with treason.

• If The Founding Father's had intended to have a direct unapportioned tax on indivual income, they would have put it in The Constitution.

• The Constitution is relatively short in comparison to The Tax Code. Our entire government is based upon this 'short' and fairly easy to understand document. The Tax Code is longer than The Illiad, The Odyssey, and The Bible combined, and it is nearly impossible to understand, even for educated individuals. The Tax Code employs distracting, irratating language. Perhaps this is done for a purpose? --Arltomem 05:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Arltomem: I have not seen the film, but I am already familiar with the arguments you listed.

Many of these arguments have been posted right here in Wikipedia -- sometimes in articles, other times in talk pages. They are called Tax protester arguments. A tax protester argument is an argument about the U.S. Federal income tax that is both legally invalid and legally frivolous. Most tax protester arguments are based on misconceptions about how the U.S. legal system works or in some cases outright lies, false quotes, etc. These arguments began showing up in larger numbers in reported court decisions in the mid- and late-1970s (with only a few dating back to around the early 1950s).

I have studied most of these arguments for years, and I and other editors have written extensively about them – again, right here in Wikipedia. See, for example Tax protester constitutional arguments and Tax protester statutory arguments and Tax protester conspiracy arguments.

If someone were to post these arguments in the article itself -- as being from the film in question – neutral point of view might require that the information be balanced with contrary information about what the legal system – the court system – actually has ruled on these arguments. The film is a documentary. Wikipedia should not leave the impression that such arguments have ever been ruled in a court of law to have legal merit. Where such arguments contain outright falsehoods exposed and rejected by every court that has been presented with such arguments (see below), neither Wikipedia nor any other encyclopedia should put itself in the position of publishing an unbalanced article that fails to point out those arguments’ actual legal status.

For example:

Argument: The 16th Amendment was never properly ratified.

Response: This argument is legally incorrect. The Federal courts have rejected all arguments that the 16th Amendment (and other amendments such as the 14th and 19th) were not properly ratified, and have done so over and over. For some background on the 16th Amendment argument, see Tax protester constitutional arguments. Incidentally, these phony “16th amendment was not properly ratified” arguments began showing up in court cases about sixty three years after the Amendment was ratified – and were rejected in court every time (for good reason).

Argument: Even if The 16th Amendment had been ratified, it is in direct contradiction with Article 1, Section 8 of The Constitution.

Response: I think somebody needs to repeat that high school civics or government class. Yes, the 16th Amendment is in direct contradiction to article I, Section 8, at least to the extent of the holding in the Pollock case. Indeed, the Amendment was ratified to overturn the effect of Pollock. As Wikipedia editor BD2412 has indicated on another talk page, many constitutional amendments -- by definition -- directly “contradict” something in the original text of the constitution (or something in the text of a prior amendment, as applicable). That’s the whole point! Amendments are SUPPOSED to do that. That’s why many of those amendments are ratified: to directly contradict (and thereby change) something in the Constitution that came before. If there were no need to “contradict” – or at least add to -- something in the original text (or something in a prior amendment), there would be no need for many of the amendments. The idea that a constitutional amendment cannot properly “contradict” something in the original text (the original seven articles of the Constitution) is not only legally incorrect, it’s silly. The same is true of new statutes that directly contradict old statutes, and new regs that directly contradict old regs. That’s how you repeal a law, that’s how you amend a law, that’s how you modify a law, that’s how you add to a law – by amendment – often by directly CONTRADICTING a prior law.

Argument: Article 1, Section 8 has never been repealed. Any attempt to repeal it should be considered treason.

Response: No, Article 1 section 8 has been modified or “affected” (to use some technical terms) by subsequent amendment. To that extent, you could say Article I actually has been partially “repealed” – at least in its legal effect. The argument that “any attempt to repeal it should be considered treason” is not only legally incorrect, it is nonsensical hyperbole. “Treason” is a legal term. Please go back and read the legal definition of “treason.” (It’s in the Constitution, by the way.)

Argument: In 1920, The Supreme Court upheld the limitations in Article 1, Section 8 and ruled The 16th Amendment to be unconstitutional, stating absolutely that, "Congress cannot enforce a direct unapportioned tax on an individual's income."

Response: Incorrect. Neither the Supreme Court nor any other Federal court has ever ruled the 16th Amendment to be unconstitutional. No such quote or ruling exists in any 1920 U.S. Supreme Court decision. Please understand, many people access to the actual text of every U.S. Supreme Court decision. Stuff like this is easy to catch.

Argument: The 1920 Supreme Court ruling has never been over turned.

Response. Again, there is no such Supreme Court ruling.

Argument: Lower courts cannot supercede The Supreme Court's rulings. Yet somehow they are allowed to do just that in regards to individual income taxes? Clearly, something does not add up.

Response: That’s correct. Lower courts cannot supercede Supreme Court rulings. No Federal court has superceded a Supreme Court ruling on individual income taxes.

Argument: The IRS's own statutes state that The Federal Income Tax is voluntary. Yet they put a gun to your head to enforce it?

Response: Sorry, that is incorrect. I hope Mr. Russo did not actually say that in the film. The “IRS statutes” do not say that the Federal income tax is “voluntary.” The argument that the Federal income tax is “voluntary” (in the sense of “not a legal obligation”) is based on a phony interpretation of the term “voluntary” as used in the Flora court decision and many other cases. Court decisions, by the way, are not “IRS statutes.” The courts have uniformly rejected this phony interpretation – every time. The word “voluntary” is not found in any “IRS statute” imposing an income tax or a tax return filing requirement. Please read 26 U.S.C. § 1, 26 U.S.C. § 6012, 26 U.S.C. § 6151, 26 U.S.C. § 6651, and 26 U.S.C. § 7203.

Argument: If you took The 16th Amendment back to 1800 and tried to amend The Constitution, you would likely be charged with treason.

Response: Again, this argument is nonsensical to the point of being (in my personal opinion) silly. You wouldn’t have needed the Sixteenth Amendment in the year 1800. At the time of the Founding Fathers, an income tax was deemed to be an excise, or indirect tax. Excises have never been required to be apportioned among the states by population, so there would have been no need for the Sixteenth Amendment in the year 1800. (By the way, the first Federal income taxes came during the Civil War, and nobody argued that they were unconstitutional, and nobody charged anybody with treason in connection with the enactment of the taxes.) There was no need for a Sixteenth Amendment until 1895, when the Supreme Court ruled in Pollock that SOME (but not all) income taxes (i.e., only taxes on income from property, such as dividends, interest, and rent revenues) were not to be treated as excises, but instead as direct taxes, and were therefore required to be apportioned. In Pollock, taxes on wages, etc., were still deemed to be excises, and were not required to be apportioned. The Sixteenth Amendment was ratified in 1913 to negate the holding in Pollock. Beginning in 1913, it no longer mattered whether a Federal income tax on income from property was considered a direct tax or not. And that’s the state of the law today: Congress has the power to impose taxes on incomes, regardless of source, and without having to apportion them among the states according to population.

Argument: If The Founding Father's [sic; Fathers] had intended to have a direct unapportioned tax on indivual [sic; individual] income, they would have put it in The Constitution.

Response: If the Founding Fathers had intended us to have a United States Air Force (as opposed to merely an "army" and "navy", to use the words of the Constitution), or a Federal Communications Commission, or an Office of Management and Budget, or a Department of Homeland Security, or a Federal Trade Commission, and a gazillion other things we now have, I suppose that, under that argument, all those things would have been put in the Constitution, too. And we wouldn’t need statutes or court decisions or treaties or administrative regulations or anything else, right? Sorry, but if that's the Filmmaker's argument, he should go back to his ninth grade civics class, and read the original text of the Constitution again. Nothing in the original text prohibits an Air Force, or a Federal Communications Commission, or an Office of Management and Budget, or a Department of Homeland Security, or a Federal Trade Commission, or a direct unapportioned tax on individual income. Go back and read Article I section 8, and go back and read the Pollock and Brushaber decisions, too.

Argument: The Constitution is relatively short in comparison to The Tax Code. Our entire government is based upon this 'short' and fairly easy to understand document. The Tax Code is longer than The Illiad, The Odyssey, and The Bible combined, and it is nearly impossible to understand, even for educated individuals. The Tax Code employs distracting, irratating [sic; irritating] language. Perhaps this is done for a purpose?

Response: Wow. I agree. Didn’t realize anyone else had noticed. Thought it was just me. Come on, folks! Yes, the tax code is nearly impossible to understand, even for educated individuals. So are elementary particle physics, Einstein’s special theory of relativity, and the minute details of DNA sequencing in the human genome project. Highly complex specialized bodies of knowledge are, by definition, nearly impossible to understand (or at least so it sometimes seems) for individuals who do not study for years and specialize in those fields -- even people who happen to be highly educated in other, unrelated fields. That doesn’t make those bodies of knowledge any less valid. And, yes, that distracting, irritating language is there for a lot of different purposes – but not for the purpose of obscuring or hiding anything (contrary to what some tax protesters claim).

If these are Mr. Russo's arguments as presented in his film, he is certainly entitled to his opinions. Wikipedia, however, is not required to report these arguments -- especially as being from a documentary film -- without also pointing out the actual legal status of these arguments in all Federal court decisions since the year 1913. Yours, Famspear 03:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Your argument that ‘tax protester arguments have been effectively dismissed’ is not only wrong, but shows clear bias despite your numerous, self-proclaimed, references to objectivity.

Argument: The 16th Amendment was properly ratified.

PROVE IT!

Argument: Amendments are SUPPOSED to contradict the Constitution.

Numerous proposed amendments have been rejected after they were deemed to be unconstitutional. One amendment can repeal another, but amendments were not intended to contradict the actual preamble. Just because BD2412 says something does not make it so. It looks like someone needs to read what the actual framers of The Constitution wrote, in their own words, about their own document!

Argument: Article 1 section 8 has been modified or “affected”, not treason blah blah

Once again, it looks like someone needs to read what the actual authors of The Constitution wrote, in their own words, about the republic they intended to leave for us.

Argument: Neither the Supreme Court nor any other Federal court has ever ruled the 16th Amendment to be unconstitutional.

Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1. Supreme Court stated in their opinion that the 16th "created no new power of taxation" and that it "did not change the constitutional limitations which forbid any direct taxation of individuals". Anybody that tries to argue that the 16th amendment repeals Article 1, or provides the justification for implementation of The Federal Income Tax is just plain ignorant.

Argument: Phony interpretation of the word “voluntary”.

The only people making a phony interpretation of the word “voluntary” are the IRS agents forcing me to pay my taxes at gunpoint.

Argument: The word “voluntary” is not found in any “IRS statute”

Yes, it is! And even some of the WIKI articles you linked to that supposedly dismiss all tax protest arguments cite this fact. The articles you linked to show clear bias without any good supporting evidence. Simply stating tax protest is wrong is not proof that it is wrong!

Argument: The 16th Amendment would not have been considered treasonous to the framers of The Constitution.

Now that is nonsense! Once again, somebody clearly needs to read what the framers of The Constitution envisioned, in their own words, when they wrote that document.

Argument: income tax is an excise tax

NO, ITS NOT!! Clearly you do not understand what an excise tax is.

Argument: If the Founding Fathers had intended us to have a United States Air Force [sic; an United States Air Force] blah blah

Trying to claim that the framers failed to envision an income tax is blatantly utter nonsense. Comparing a tax to technological advancements? Are you kidding me?!? The framers gave the Federal government power over the military. Adding The Air Force keeps in line with their original powers and did not require any modifications to The Constitution.

The United States was formed when the colonists revolted against bogus taxes. The framers were keenly aware of this. They wrote Article 1 limitations with exactly this type of thing in mind. They explicitly and intentionally did not give the federal government the powers to enforce income tax on individuals. Once again, you need to read what the actual authors of The Constitution wrote in their own words about their own document and the Republic they intended to leave to us. Article 1 unequivocally does not grant the powers to enforce individual Income Tax because it is both unnecessary and tyrannical. There should not be any confusion over this fact because it is written in plain English. However, it would appear that people have been brainwashed by IRS propaganda taught in 9th grade civics class at a Government owned and operated institution. So much so that the extent of which no longer enables them to understand plain English.

Argument: Comparing the Tax Code to things like Einsteinian Reletivistics and genetic sequencing

Wow! That is really, really bad. There is absolutely no reason for the Tax Code to be so confusing. The simple fact that there are books out there like, “Taxes for Dummies” or laws like “The Fair Tax Act” or documents such as “Tax Reqs in Plain English” proves that obviously this document does not need to be so confusing and could have easily been written in plain English as opposed to the nonsensical tax code gibberish that is currently used. --Arltomem 00:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear User Arltomem:

Perhaps you misunderstood what I was trying to do. I assumed that you were listing some examples of tax arguments made in the movie. I was providing examples of how those arguments – if inserted in the article -- could be countered to maintain neutral point of view. (By the way, since the tax protest arguments were presented in an informal way, I structured my responses informally as well -- not in the form that they would appear in an article.)

Regarding your statement that my argument that tax protester arguments have been effectively dismissed is wrong and shows clear bias on my part: No, sorry, I have studied the laws, including the actual text of the Constitution, the actual statutes, actual regs, actual court decisions, etc. I have also studied tax protester materials for years. By definition, a tax protester argument regarding U.S. Federal income tax is one that in some way challenges the validity of the tax -- but has no legal basis.

It would be theoretically possible, I guess, to some day have a lower Federal court rule favorably on what is now a tax protester argument, and maybe that will actually happen some day. However, in the reported decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, the courts of appeals, the Federal district courts, the Federal bankruptcy courts, and the U.S. tax court, no tax protester argument has yet succeeded. I’m not talking about a tax protester argument that might have succeeded in a trial court such as a district court and then been reversed on appeal. I’m saying that NO TAX PROTESTER ARGUMENT has EVER succeeded -- even temporarily at some lower trial court. I have never read any comment by any tax scholar or even tax protester about any such argument that actually was ruled valid. Oh, I’ve read lots of comments by tax protesters claiming that such and such an argument was successful in such and such a case – but every time I have looked up the cited case, I found that the protester was wrong (and possibly intentionally making a false claim about what the court ruled, actually). Sorry, but that’s not my fault, and it doesn’t reveal “bias.” (I may be “biased” in the sense that supposedly everyone is, of course -- but not because of that.)

Regarding the ratification of the 16th Amendment, your demand that I “prove” that the Amendment was properly ratified is an example of an ineffective tactic also tried by many tax protesters, including protesters posting right here in Wikipedia – demanding that other people prove to you that the law is what it is. Sorry, but I and the other editors of Wikipedia are not here to prove to you that we are right and you are wrong. We are here to edit Wikipedia, and to enforce concepts like “verifiability,” “neutral point of view,” and “no original research.” What I basically said was that the courts have uniformly rejected ALL arguments that the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified. That is a correct statement of the law up to this date. No matter how strongly you personally feel the Federal income tax is invalid, wrong, immoral, unfair, or whatever, nothing in your personal feelings changes the state of the law itself.

Regarding your statement: “Numerous proposed amendments have been rejected after they were deemed to be unconstitutional.” No, sorry, that is incorrect. Under our legal system, there is no such thing as an “unconstitutional” proposed constitutional amendment. If it’s just at the “proposed” stage, it’s not part of the constitution, so it’s not a law and by definition it can’t be “unconstitutional.”

Once it’s been ratified, then it is part of the constitution. For such amendments, the United States follow a legal doctrine called the Doctrine of Implied Repeal. If two provisions absolutely and irreconcilably conflict with each other, the more recently ratified provision is deemed to have repealed the prior one -- to the extent of that conflict.

You apparently feel that one or more amendments conflict with the preamble to the Constitution. Too bad.

Regarding your “blah blah” statement in response to my comments about Article 1 section 8 and your comments about “treason”: “Blah blah”?? Is that it? “Blah blah” is your answer?

Regarding your reference to the Brushaber decision. Yes, the Brushaber Court pointed out that the Sixteenth Amendment created no new power of taxation. Read the Brushaber article again.

The material in quotation marks to the effect that the Amendment "did not change the constitutional limitations which forbid any direct taxation of individuals” is a falsification of the Brushaber case. There is no such language in the text of the Brushaber case. I told you that this stuff is easy to catch.

Not only that, there is nothing in the text of Article I which forbids direct taxation of individuals, or forbids direct taxation. The only limitation on direct taxes in Article I was that no direct tax could be imposed except in proportion to the census (apportioned by state), etc. In Pollock, the Court ruled for the first time that income taxes on certain sources (specifically, incomes in the form of interest, dividends and rents) were to be TREATED as direct taxes, and were therefore required to be apportioned. The Sixteenth Amendment overruled the EFFECT of Pollock – by stating that income taxes do not have to be apportioned, regardless of the source of the income.

If tax protesters would read Brushaber more carefully and think about what the Court said in that case, they wouldn’t cite the Brushaber case at all. It’s a TERRIBLE case to be citing if you’re a tax protester. Hint: The Court ruled that the income tax was valid.

With all due respect, anybody that tries to argue that the 16th amendment repeals Article 1, or provides the justification for implementation of The Federal Income Tax just plain knows more about the law than you do. Sorry. We can split legal hairs over whether the Amendment partially “repeals” or doesn’t “repeal” but simply “affects” or “modifies” Article I. It doesn’t matter so much whether you call it “repeal” or “modification” or “amendment” or whatever, as long as you understand the legal effect. As the Federal courts have ruled, the Sixteenth Amendment removed the requirement -- that had been imposed by the Pollock decision -- that we consider the SOURCE of the income in determining whether a given Federal income tax on a give source of income was required to be apportioned. The Sixteenth Amendment means exactly what it says. And income taxes are taxes. Taxes are authorized by Article I of the Constitution. Not “taxes except for income taxes.” Not “taxes except income taxes on individuals.” The Amendment removed any requirement – imposed in 1895 by the Pollock decision, over a hundred years after the Constitution was ratified -- that we worry about having to apportion taxes on dividends, interest, and rents among the states by population.

Regarding the word “voluntary” and the “IRS statutes:” Nobody said that the word voluntary is not found in the Internal Revenue Code. It’s found in MANY places in the Code. The word “voluntary” is NOT found, however, in any Code provision imposing the obligation to file Federal income tax returns or the obligation to pay Federal income taxes.

And no, there is no Wikipedia article I have cited that says that any “IRS statute” imposing these obligations uses the word “voluntary.” You are quite wrong. Go back and read Tax protester constitutional arguments and Tax protester statutory arguments and Tax protester conspiracy arguments. As I stated before, the use of the word “voluntary” is in COURT DECISIONS, not statutes.

The statement that the Founding Fathers “intentionally did not give the federal government the powers to enforce income tax on individuals” is not only incorrect from a legal standpoint, but is legally frivolous. Go back and read Article I again. An income tax is a tax. There is nothing in the text of the U.S. Constitution that provides a legal impediment to enacting and enforcing an income tax on individuals. The argument that there is something in the Constitution that prevents a tax on incomes from individuals has been litigated over and over. The courts have rejected the argument every single time. Please go back and read Tax protester constitutional arguments and the section on taxing labor and income from labor.

I am not the one trying to claim that the framers “failed to envision” an income tax. Go back and read my comments again. In fact, the argument that the framers failed to envision an income tax almost sounds more like a tax protester argument. Indeed, if I were a tax protester, I might try to find some support for that argument. Sorry, but nothing in the original text of the Constitution prohibits a direct, unapportioned tax on income from any source. The only reason the Sixteenth Amendment exists is the decision in the Pollock case.

Regarding your statement that I don’t know what an excise tax is: You are incorrect. Go back and read Pollock and Brushaber.

Regarding your statements: “The framers gave the Federal government power over the military. Adding The Air Force keeps in line with their original powers and did not require any modifications to The Constitution.” Very good! You almost got my point, but not quite. Hint: Now apply your same logic to the relationship between Article I and income taxes, and forget about the Sixteenth Amendment for a moment. (Sorry, but I am not going to spoon feed you on this one.)

So, you don’t like the comparison of the Tax Code to things like Einsteinian Reletivistics [sic; relativity] and genetic sequencing? “There is absolutely no reason for the Tax Code to be so confusing” you say.

Too bad.

Actually, in my opinion the language of the Internal Revenue Code is not “nonsensical tax code gibberish.” The language is beautiful, elegant, almost ... oh, don’t get me started! The language is elegant, and logical and coherent – and at the same time complex and opaque and frustrating.

I didn’t write the tax code. Maybe some day we really will repeal the Federal income tax -- and then I will stop making tons of money doing tax work, and go make tons of money doing something else.

Now, please, let’s keep the rest of this page more directly related to discussion about how to improve the article on the film. Thanks, Famspear 03:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The only time an Amendment was ever used to repeal another one was when prohibition was repealed. The Prohibition Amendment itself should have never been passed, seeing as how it was unconstitutional to begin with. For one, it limited liberties. And two, it was also far beyond the limits imposed by Article I.

The only time an Amendment ever 'revised' an article of The Constitution (articles were intended to be fairly permanent according to the authors' own words) was the Presidential Term Limit. This did not directly contradict Article II, seeing as how Article II did not guarantee that a President could serve again and again and again.

Your arguments, Fams, are full of logical fallacies and holes so large that im surprised you have not fallen through them. --Arltomem 03:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

"Proponents point to the fact that the IRS itself tells taxpayers in the Form 1040 instruction book that the tax system is voluntary." from Tax protester arguments.

"No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken." Article 1, Section 9, United States Constitution.

The Federal Income Tax is a direct, unapportioned tax. Therefore it is unconstitutional.

An excise tax is like a sales tax. Everybody that buys the same thing pays the same tax. You buy gasoline, you pay taxes in direct proportion to everyone else. Income Tax is not an excise tax. If it were, the employer would be paying a sales tax for purchasing my labor. They seller never pays the sales tax. --Arltomem 03:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Arltomem:

You say: “The only time an Amendment was ever used to repeal another one was when prohibition was repealed. The Prohibition Amendment itself should have never been passed, seeing as how it was unconstitutional to begin with. For one, it limited liberties. And two, it was also far beyond the limits imposed by Article I.”

No, I believe it’s correct to say the only time an Amendment actually used the word “repealed” was with the repeal of prohibition (Twenty-First Amendment repealed the Eighteenth Amendment). However, the Constitution is full of other amendments that do not include the word “repealed” but which, from a legal standpoint, do effectively repeal parts of prior provisions. What I mean by that is that the prior provisions are no longer “the law.” In the United States, we follow a legal doctrine call the Doctrine of Implied Repeal. Now, some scholars use the word “repeal” to refer only a to “complete abrogation,” with the word “amendment” being applied to partial repeals (that is, partial changes in existing law, leaving part of the existing law intact). Most U.S. constitutional amendments are only partial changes, as opposed to complete repeals. For some background in the form of Secondary authority, see “Repeal” in Black's Law Dictionary, page 1167 (5th ed. 1979). The terminology is important, but not as important as understanding the underlying legal principles.

For example, U.S. senators were originally chosen by the state legislatures under Article I, section 3, clause 1. The Seventeenth Amendment was ratified, and senators are now elected directly by the people. The Amendment “affected” Article I, section 3, clause 1, under the Doctrine of Implied Repeal. The Seventeenth Amendment does not contain the actual word “repealed” – and yet the original text providing for choosing of senators by state legislatures is no longer “the law” (even though that original text is still included in official re-prints of the Constitution, just like the texts of court decisions that have been reversed, vacated, or overruled are still included in official re-prints of bound volumes of case reports). It doesn’t matter whether you say “affected” or “repealed” – the legal result is the same: the provision of Article I, section 3, clause 1 providing for choosing of senators by the state legislatures is no longer the law – and the reason it’s no longer the law is the Seventeenth Amendment, even though the Amendment does not contain the word “repealed.”

You say: “The only time an Amendment ever 'revised' an article of The Constitution (articles were intended to be fairly permanent according to the authors' own words) was the Presidential Term Limit. This did not directly contradict Article II, seeing as how Article II did not guarantee that a President could serve again and again and again.”

Again, you are incorrect. Numerous amendments have “revised” original articles of the Constitution – without using the word “repealed.” The election of senators is an example. And no, my arguments are not full of any holes. If my arguments were full of holes, then presumably you would be able to find the holes, right?

Another example is Article IV, section 2, clause 3, which says: "No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.” This provision protected the property rights of slave owners whose slaves escaped from a “slave” state to a “free” state. The slaves had to be returned to their owners. Nothing in the provision said that it did not apply to slaves or involuntary servitude – indeed, that was the whole point of the provision: to keep slaves in the condition of slavery. However, because of the Thirteenth Amendment, this provision is no longer “the law” on slavery and involuntary servitude. The Thirteenth Amendment outlawed slavery or involuntary servitude (except as a punishment for crime). And guess what: The word “repealed” does not appear in the Thirteenth Amendment either.

Here’s another example. Article III, section 2, clause 2 reads (in part): “The judicial Power shall extend [ . . . ] to Controversies [ . . . ] between a State and Citizens of another State [ . . . . ]” However, this is contradicted by the Eleventh Amendment, which states: “The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit [ . . . ] against one of the United States by Citizens of another State [ . . . .]” The Eleventh Amendment does not contain the word “repealed.” Yet, under our legal system, the effect of the Eleventh Amendment is to at least partially repeal the quoted material from Article III, section 2, clause 2.

The statement that the Prohibition Amendment (the Eighteenth Amendment) “was unconstitutional to begin with” is, from a constitutional law standpoint, nonsense. That’s not “law” – that’s your own private “feeling.” What you’re really saying is that you believe Prohibition was a bad idea – and you are psychologically transmuting your negative feelings about Prohibition into a bald, untenable statement that Prohibition itself was “unconstitutional.” From a constitutional law standpoint, there is virtually no such thing as an “unconstitutional” amendment to the constitution.

Regarding your copying and pasting the quote that "Proponents point to the fact that the IRS itself tells taxpayers in the Form 1040 instruction book that the tax system is voluntary” – from Tax protester arguments – you conveniently left out the rest of the text of that quote, as though you thought no one could link to the article and read the rest of the text. As everyone can see who goes to the linked article, the IRS actual position – which is legally correct by the way -- is that the filing of Federal income tax returns and the payment of Federal income taxes are legal obligations, and are therefore NOT “voluntary” in that sense. When you snip partial quotes out of IRS statements, you are going to have the entire quote throw right back at you. A better use of your time would be to try to find something that actually supports your own position – not taking something from text that contradicts your position and then hoping nobody will go back and read the entire text.

You say that an “excise tax is like a sales tax. Everybody that buys the same thing pays the same tax.” I’m sorry, but you need to study the legal definition of an excise tax. Here, we are talking about an “excise” in the CONSTITUTIONAL sense (as used in Article I), not the statutory sense. In other words, the term has more than one legal meaning. (However, if we had a national sales tax that tax would be an example of one kind of excise tax, as that term is used in the Constitution).

You also quote from the Constitution: "No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken." (Article 1, Section 9). Notice that nothing in Article I says that the “income tax” is a direct tax. The term “income tax” is not even mentioned in Article I. You then say that the “Federal Income Tax is a direct, unapportioned tax. Therefore it is unconstitutional.” Unfortunately, your statement is not found in the text of Article I. Further, since the year 1913 every single Federal court that has considered the argument that the Federal income tax is a direct, unapportioned, unconstitutional tax has rejected the argument. So you have no constitutional text and no court rulings in your favor. From a legal standpoint, that leaves you nowhere. Yours, Famspear 20:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

PS: Dear Arltomem: As this discussion is getting pretty far from the film itself, please add any additional comments you may have at my own talk (discussion) page rather than here (unless the comments relate primarily to the film and not primarily to taxes). Thanks, Famspear 21:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Famspear:

"there is nothing in the text of Article I which forbids direct taxation of individuals, or forbids direct taxation. The only limitation on direct taxes in Article I was that no direct tax could be imposed except in proportion to the census (apportioned by state), etc. "

- although my purpose is not to take a side in this argument, this shows a strong misunderstanding of what the constitutions purpose is. The constitution outlines the federal governments powers and as such, (and reiterated in Amendment X), means that unless a power is expressly delegated to the federal government, it is not a power of said federal government. This means that just because the constitution does not limit the particular power of the federal government, it does not give that power to the federal government in the future. Things like national security (an airforce etc.), are delegated powers, as the federal government is required to maintain the military. However things like the department of education are NOT constitutional as there is nothing in the constitution to allow for the federal government to regulate such things. Incase it comes up, as it always seems to in constitutional debates, the argument of the 'living document' and that the constitution needs to be "reinterpreted" for modern times have been constantly refuted by the founders in many texts, the only thing that makes the constitution 'living' is the amendment process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.84.40.61 (talk) 16:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Trying to "prove to the jury what the law is": That's a no-no!

An editor recently added verbiage to this article regarding Irwin Schiff (who is featured in the film) and the fact that the judge in Schiff's 2005 trial would not allow Schiff to "prove to the jury" what the law is. I have added some clarifying information to maintain neutral point of view. A non-lawyer, reading the text as originally added without the clarification, could get the false impression that somehow the judge was "unfair" to Mr. Schiff on this point.

Unfortunately, the general rule in the United States is that neither side is allowed to try to "prove to the jury what the law is." Determining "what the law is" is not the job of the jury. Under the U.S. legal system, only the judge determines what the law is, and instructs the jury prior to deliberations.

Unfortunately, my explanation of this is a bit long, so I moved the whole thing to the footnote, to keep the balance. I don't really like such long footnotes, but if we put this in the body of the article, it seems to make the article digress too much. Yours, Famspear 03:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

A non-lawyer might understand the irony of "not allowing the law" in courts--particularly in light of eight Supreme Court precedents. Additionally, it's quite different to assert that there is no law. This would be the threat to no legitimate authority, since citing relevant law should be a simple matter. 206.124.31.24 08:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the history of Jury Nullification, the full power of juries, and the mission of FIJA are salient here. In short, the jury has the power to nullify bad (or non-existent) law, or law that is inconsistent with individual rights--especially those listed in the amendments to the US Constitution, or denied by usurped powers over and above those granted to the government in the US Constitution. 206.124.31.24 08:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Finally, the assertion that there are no cases in which tax freedom advocates have won is plainly false. A good portion of the film includes a member of a jury that did in fact find a defendant not guilty on account of the fact that the judge indicated he would cite relevant law and cited none. 206.124.31.24 08:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

One more point of clarification. I went to the trouble, when adding the offending passages, to quote the transcript from the movie. The edits were about the movie, not the partisan smear attacks leveled against it. Unlike almost everyone here, I've seen the movie, and have the transcripts, which I quoted from. If anyone cares about accuracy, I have the text from the source. 206.124.31.24 09:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear fellow editor at 206.124.31.24: As I have stated elsewhere, you have not cited to the "eight" Supreme Court precedents -- so in an article about the film, we do not want to leave the false impression that these precedents exist -- regardless of what the film said.

Jury nullification is a separate legal concept. Here, we're talking about a defendant improperly trying to get around the legal system by trying to get the jury to decide what the law is. That is improper.

Juries find defendants not guilty under what can be termed jury nullification from time to time. That has nothing to do with the validity or invalidity of the law itself.

As explained above, you do not have to have seen the movie to be qualified to make Wikipedia edits on the article about the movie - the rules include VERIFIABILITY, NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW, AND NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Yours, Famspear 15:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

PS: The argument that there is "no law" imposing a valid Federal income tax on individual U.S. citizens and resident aliens, including a valid income tax on labor, income from labor, wages, salaries, etc., etc., etc., is patently false. The judge instructs the jury on the law, which is there for all to see. When tax protesters have the actual statutes and court decisions pointed out to them, including the falsehoods about what the Supreme Court has ruled on the subject of income taxation, tax protesters uniformly essentially say things like "oh, but all that stuff doesn't mean what it says." Sorry, but we've seen it all before, right here in Wikipedia.

VERIFIABILITY, NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW, AND NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Yours, Famspear 15:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, your statement that "the assertion that there are no cases in which tax freedom advocates have won is plainly false" -- is probably correct! Except for one thing. Neither I nor anyone else here has made the assertion that "freedom advocates" (i.e., tax protesters???) have never won a case in court.

What we have said here in Wikipedia -- over and over -- is that no tax protester has ever won on a tax protester argument. No court has ever ruled that a tax protester argument is legally valid. That is a correct statement of the law as of this date (early October 2006). I have studied tax protester cases for years. I know whereof I speak. You don't have to take my word for it, however.

Tax protesters are people like everyone else, and they are entitled to a day in court if they're put into the court system. They are entitled to legal counsel, and they are entitled to legally meritorious, non-frivolous arguments. They occasionally win a point on such meritorious arguments.

For example, see Cheek v. United States. Mr. Cheek, a tax protester, ultimately lost and went to prison when his case was remanded by the Supreme Court and retried, but at least he did win on an important, basic non-frivolous LEGAL point at the Supreme Court. I also encourage you to read the section on the Cheek case in the article on Tax avoidance and tax evasion, and think about what it means to argue that the Federal tax law is unconstitutional (as opposed to merely arguing that you don't understand or weren't aware of the statutory provisions imposing the tax). Yours, Famspear 15:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, you've apparently rearranged everything, so God knows what referred to what. Congratulations. You participate in a legal system which is indecipherable by normal human beings, obviously the source of income to many, and the source of tyranny to many others. 206.124.31.24 05:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was trying to keep things in chronological order. However, you can easily see the way it was ordered before I made my edit by reviewing the history for this page.

I agree with your points about indecipherableness and source of income. I also agree that some people consider the U.S. tax system (and other aspects of government) to be tyrannical (I personally do not consider it so). The Federal income tax system is in my view stunningly inefficient and needlessly complex, and people pay people like me so much money to try to comply with it, etc. However, a few people take their feelings and emotions too far, and begin to delude themselves. Saying that the system is stupid, unfair, too complex, etc., is not to say that the tax laws are not valid. The statutes are right there for all to read, and there are no cases where courts have ruled any tax protester arguments to be valid. See Tax protester constitutional arguments and Tax protester statutory arguments. Let's maintain Verifiability, Neutral Point of View, and the other precepts of Wikipedia. Yours, Famspear 05:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Title is incorrect

The title of the movie is "America: Freedom to Fascism." I think Aaron Russo himself may have created this confusion as the movie seems to have been renamed sometime before release. 206.124.31.24 11:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It's confusing because the title has (I think) been shown both ways (both with and without the word "From") in the producer's own advertisements for the film. Here in Wikipedia, I think the related article's title has been changed and shown both ways at various times, as a result of this inconsistency. I suppose the official title would be whatever was shown in the film itself (I haven't seen the film). Yours, Famspear 14:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The release title is as I stated ("America: Freedom to Fascism.") --unless, of course, you think the author is wrong about his title too. 206.124.31.24 05:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't care whether the filmmaker is right or wrong about the title of his film, and I don't care about whether the filmmaker is right or wrong about the nature of the U.S. Federal income tax, the Federal Reserve System, etc. The filmmaker's views on these topics are not determinative of anything. I and the other editors of Wikipedia are trying to edit Wikipedia -- by following the rules, guidelines, etc., including Verifiability and Neutral Point of View. Yours, Famspear 06:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

That's odd, but I do believe you don't care. Your response regarding the title of the film puts your participation in the proper light. The title of the film is "America: Freedom to Fascism." The film's transcript says it. The film's web site says it. The web site's name is freedomtofascism.com. You call it whatever you want, just like you call the law whatever you want. There's a clear parallel, though in the case of the film's title, I'm not sure where you get your cut. 206.124.31.24 22:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, what I am saying is that here in Wikipedia, my personal feelings about things are secondary to the main mission: editing Wikipedia and following the Wikipedia precepts of verifiability, neutral POV, etc. Obviously we want the Wikipedia article on this film to correctly reflect the name of the film. It's just that I myself cannot in good faith make a change on the title, because I don't personally know what the correct title is. Those who have seen the film (seen the title on the screen, for example) do know, and perhaps can make the edit, if needed. (Actually, I'm not sure how you verify this, since presumably no one has a copy of the film on DVD, or whatever.)

As far as the law, no I am not "calling the law whatever I want." The law is knowable -- you can study the law using principles of legal analysis that apply to all areas, such as contracts, property, torts, procedure, criminal law, constitutional law, etc. But you have to know how to perform legal analysis. The same analytical rules that apply in those areas DO apply in tax law as well. For purposes of Wikipedia, tax protester web sites, blogs, etc., are not a reliable source of the law (tax law or any other kind). And you will never learn how to perform legal analysis by reading tax protester web sites or weblogs.

I encourage you to check out the Wikipedia guidelines, policies, etc., if you haven't already.

Lots of lawyers are editing here in Wikipedia. If and when my analysis of a particular statute, reg, court decision, etc., is off base, I am subject to be corrected by other lawyers. In addition, there are lots of non-lawyers who make good edits to law-related articles.

I see you still have not come up with any citations to the "eight Supreme Court cases" you mentioned. For purposes of Wikipedia, you cannot simply maintain, in an article, that there are eight Supreme Court cases where the Court ruled a certain way and yet not give a citation to the cases -- especially with all the other editors watching the article.

A basic tenet of Wikipedia is that non-experts are allowed to edit in fields of expertise. The corresponding reality is that non-experts are held to the same standards as the experts. If it's law, then you are held to the same standards of legal analysis as are imposed on the lawyers. Everyone is held to the same standard. If you add something to an article, you'd better be correct whether you're a specialist in the field or not -- otherwise you may see your edit disappear. In my view that's how it should be. Yours, Famspear 22:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

You may verify any apsect of data provided in the film via watching the officially released low-res (free to watch) version of the film on Google. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198&q= When in doubt, check it out. You may also buy a copy of the movie at the official website on DVD now for $19.95 http://www.freedomtofascism.com or you may watch a higher-res version online for a pay-per-view fee of $5. Sincerely yours, P-Tar. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.75.112.203 (talk • contribs) .

Phantom Supreme Court decisions

Dear anonymous editor at IP 206.124.31.24: Please do not add unsourced references to phantom Supreme Court decisions without first discussing them on the talk (discussion) page for the article. These kinds of issues (related to Tax protester arguments) have already been discussed at length here in Wikipedia, so you may want to participate in the discussion.

You may want to consider citing, here on this talk page, the Supreme Court cases that you believe stand for the principles for which you believe they stand. If you are simply relying on something you saw in the film or on tax protester web site material, you may want to look at the actual court decisions themselves, as many Wikipedia readers and editors have done. Thanks, Famspear 15:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Here are your "phantom" decisions:

Stratton Independence v. Howbert

Stanton v. Baltic Mining

Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad

Peck v. Lowe

Eisner v. Macomber

Southern Pacific v. Lowe

Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire

Doyle v. Mitchell

206.124.31.24 22:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear anonymous user at 206.124.31.24: Thanks. Although you haven't provided the full citations, you're in luck. All these cases have already been analyzed here in Wikipedia. The Court in these cases did not rule what you thought they ruled. Most of these cases are already mentioned at Tax protester constitutional arguments.

Do you know why the cases are already shown in Wikipedia? Think it's just a coincidence? Wikipedia is repeatedly bombarded with tax protester arguments "based" on these cases. The quotes from these cases are copied from tax protester web sites and pasted into other tax protester web sites (and into Wikipedia) on a regular basis. And 99% of the people who copy and paste this stuff either haven't read the actual, full verbatim texts, or don't know how to perform legal analysis.

Stay tuned. I'll post something on Peck v. Lowe and Southern Pacific v. Lowe right here in a little while (hopefully tonight). All the other cases are either in the above-referenced article, or (as is the case for Brushaber) actually have their own article.

Stay tuned. Yours, Famspear 23:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear anonymous user at 206.124.31.24: OK, here's some preliminary information on William E. Peck & Co. v. Lowe and Southern Pacific.

First, let's look at William E. Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165 (1918). This is one of many examples of cases that tax protesters cite -- apparently because they do not understand what they are reading! Particularly devastating for tax protesters is the statement in the text that the Sixteenth Amendment "does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects, but merely removes all occasion, which otherwise might exist, for an apportionment among the states of taxes laid on income, whether it be derived from one source or another." The Court in this case did NOT rule that there is no law requiring an American citizen to pay a direct unapportioned Tax on his or her labor. Indeed, the constitutionality of the tax in this case was UPHELD by the Court.

Now, regarding Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330 (1918). In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that where a shareholder receives a dividend representing earnings of a corporation realized by the corporation prior to January 1, 1913, the dividend is not includible in the gross income of the shareholder for purposes of the Federal Income Tax Act of 1913, Ch. 16, 38 Stat. 114 (Oct. 3, 1913). This was a case of statutory construction. The Court in this case did NOT rule that there is no law requiring an American citizen to pay a direct unapportioned Tax on his or her labor. The Court also did not rule that the income tax law didn't exist, or that the law was unconstitutional. Indeed, no issues regarding the constitutionality of the Federal income tax were decided by the Court.

While you are reading this material and the material at Tax protester constitutional arguments, you may want to consider studying the following articles:

Precedent

Stare decisis

Ratio decidendi

And paying particular attention to this article: Obiter dictum

Yours, Famspear 23:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and at the expense of appearing to rub it in, I should also point out that in William E. Peck & Co. v. Lowe and Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe, not only did the Court NOT rule that there is no law requiring an American citizen to pay a direct unapportioned Tax on his or her labor, but the terms "labor," "wage," and "salary" are not even found in the text of those decisions. Yours, Famspear 02:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't be rubbing it in. It would be showing your ignorance. The movie did not indicate these cases said there was "no law." Just a hint: See the film, then criticize. 206.124.31.24 04:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear anonymous editor at IP 206.124.31.24: Excuse me, but what we're talking about here is your edit to the article on 2 October 2006 -- wherein you inserted the reference to the "eight supreme court decisions." You specifically inserted the word "lower" right before the word "court." You also inserted the phrase "though this is in disregard to eight supreme court rulings listed in the film, which lower courts deliberately ignore". A reasonable person would conclude that your edit was intended to convey the false impression that although no "lower" courts have upheld the argument (that there is "no law," etc.), there somehow existed "eight Supreme Court rulings listed in the film, which lower courts deliberately ignore." Those were the words you inserted in the article.

Here is the text, with your own additions shown here in bolding:

As of late July 2006, Aaron Russo's biography on his website for the film stated: "The film is an expose of the Internal Revenue Service, and proves conclusively there is no law requiring an American citizen to pay a direct unapportioned Tax on their labor."[link to Aaron Russo's web page for film] [coding for footnote] No [here you deleted the word "Federal" and inserted:] lower court, either before or after the year 1913 ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, has upheld this argument [here, you deleted the words "which has been ruled" and inserted:], ruling it legally frivolous, though this is in disregard to eight supreme court rulings listed in the film, which lower courts deliberately ignore [ . . . . ]

And here is the link to the edit as you made it, on 2 October 2006: [2]

You changed the text from a statement that "no court" has upheld the argument (which is a correct statement) to a statement that "no lower court" has upheld the argument, with the clear -- but false -- implication that the lower courts have been somehow ignoring eight Supreme Court rulings, where, presumably the Supreme Court ruled the opposite way. As you are talking about the film, a person who has not seen the film might conclude after reading the text as you wrote it that the film itself indicated these "eight" cases stated that there was no law. Whether the film itself says that or not, your edit was misleading. The lower courts and the Supreme Court are in agreement on the point in question. Further, as stated above, the Supreme Court -- in the eight cases you finally cited here on this talk page -- did not in any way rule the way you indicated the Court ruled.

Hint: Wikipedia editors do not need to "see the film" to criticize edits made to the article about the film here in Wikipedia. Verifiability, Neutral Point of View, and No Original Research. Yes, a film reviewer needs to see the film before he or she writes a review. Wikipedia editors, however, do not need to see the film to make edits to the article to keep the article in conformity with Wikipedia policies, guidelines, etc. This is about your edits to the article. Yours, Famspear 14:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The edit, as made, was correct. Hint: The article is about the film. 206.124.31.24 08:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Further, your assassination of the edit is (deliberately?) inaccurate. It did not say "no court." 206.124.31.24 08:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Still further, you should not imply that an attorney is a "reasonable" person. When law can be twisted to mean things other than plain english, "reasonability" has vanished. 206.124.31.24 08:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear user at IP 206.124.31.24: Sorry, but the edit as you made it was not only incorrect, it was unsourced. It even took you several days after the edit to come up with the list of cases you thought supported your edit, and that happened only after I prodded you. Even then, the court in those cases did not rule the way you said the court did, and you did not even provide complete citations. I had to point out to you where to find the cases in Wikipedia, and I even added a synopsis of a couple of them. And no, as we all can see you are quite wrong: my description of what you did is accurate. The phrase was "No court" and you inserted "lower" between those two words. Again, here is the link to the edit as you made it, on 2 October 2006: [3]

Regarding your comments that I (or perhaps, by "you," you meant the indefinite "one," as in "someone") should not imply that "an attorney is a 'reasonable' person" --whatever you meant by that comment -- and that when "law can be twisted to mean things other than plain english [sic], 'reasonability' has vanished" -- well, thank you for sharing your feelings with us. Yours, Famspear 22:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I have to correct myself: The original text actually was "No Federal court" and you changed it to read "No lower court." Your edit was obviously calculated to leave the false impression that the Supreme Court (a Federal court) had ruled one way while some "lower" courts had ruled another. Get the drift? Yours, Famspear 23:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your Carnac impression in which you claim to know what's in my head. You will obviously go to extreme lengths to protect the cult that is today's legal system. 206.124.31.24 02:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear anonymous user at IP 206.124.31.24: There is nothing in my commentary that represents anything close to going to "extreme lengths" to do anything. And there is nothing in my commentary or in the article about "protecting the cult that is today's legal system." The purpose of this talk page is to provide a forum for discussing ways to improve the article, including discussion of what should and should not be in the article, bearing in mind the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view (official policy)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability (official policy)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research (official policy)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources (guideline)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Using_online_and_self-published_sources (guideline)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources (style guide)

Yours, Famspear 02:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

What' you're doing is basically advertising for the cult. According to wikipedia standards, that's not allowed. 206.124.31.24 07:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear anon at IP 206.124.31.24: No, I'm not advertising for a "cult." I'm not advertising for anything. Verifiability, Neutral Point of View, No Original Research. Yours, Famspear 15:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's a cult:

http://www.adventuresinlegalland.com/index.php?/content/view/23/27/

206.124.31.24 18:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear user at IP 206.124.31.206: The link you listed above goes to an article contending that a bar association is a "cult." A bar association is an association of lawyers. Whether a bar association is considered by someone to be a cult or not is beside the point. Nobody here is "advertising" for a "bar association" or for lawyers or for any other so-called "cult." Some individuals from time to time insert material into Wikipedia articles that does not conform to Wikipedia guidelines, policies, etc. This talk page is about ways to improve the related article, and the discussion necessarily includes analysis of Wikipedia guidelines and policies, and how those guidelines and policies apply. Yours, Famspear 18:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

...which is exactly on point. Mixing cultist beliefs into an article about a film is inappropriate--given that you haven't even seen the film, which has been pointed out by several individuals. A great way to improve the article would be to refrain editing it if you haven't seen the film. 206.124.31.24 19:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, you will note that it's a cult by objective standards, not merely "considered by someone to be a cult." FYI, he is/was a lawyer. 206.124.31.24 19:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear user at IP 206.124.31.24: No, a good way to improve the article is to adhere to the aforementioned Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The point that Wikipedia editors do not need to see a film in order to edit a Wikipedia article about that film has already been addressed on this talk page. Wikipedians do not need to have been to Paris, or to have seen pictures of Paris, or to have had anything to do with Paris, to edit a Wikipedia article about Paris. Wikipedians do not need to have seen a kangaroo, or to have owned a kangaroo, or to have any personal knowledge of kangaroos, to edit a Wikipedia article about kangaroos. The Wikipedia policies, guidelines, etc., are quite enough.

You keep inserting comments here about a "cult" of lawyers, as though you believe this "cult" of lawyers has something to do with the editing of this Wikipedia article. Most Wikipedia editors are non-lawyers, and Wikipedians of both the lawyer and non-lawyer variety have been making useful, constructive edits to this and many other articles -- many of them very technical in nature. Here in Wikipedia, you do not have to be an expert or specialist to edit in an expert or speciality field. If you review this and other talk pages carefully, you may also discover that, in general, Wikipedians do not raise points on the talk (discussion) pages about other Wikipedians "lawyerness" or "non-lawyerness," and especially not as a substitute for talking about ways to improve Wikipedia articles. Please comment on the specific content of the article, not on the identities, or affiliations, or professional training, or other attributes, of Wikipedia editors. Yours, Famspear 21:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You may continue to repeat yourself. Mr. Goebbels found it useful, but it did not make a lie become the truth. The fact that you belong to a cult has everything to do with the article, as it's clearly your motive for actively aligning it with the cult's point of view. You should consider refraining from such activity. Remember, the subject of ad hominem attacks, such as that on people such as Schiff, brought the subject up. ;-) 206.124.31.24 21:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear user at IP 206.124.31.24: The fact that I belong to what you call a "cult" (i.e., the fact that I am a lawyer) has nothing to do with this article. You brought this up, not I, and about the only way you could know I am a lawyer would be by visiting my user page, not by reading the article or this talk page.

Regarding Irwin Schiff, and considering your comments about me personally, it's a bit ironic that you seem upset because you believe someone has engaged in an ad hominem attack on Irwin Schiff -- again, without identifying what you believe that ad hominem attack might be. Stating in a Wikipedia article that Mr. Schiff -- who has for years claimed to be eminently knowledgeable about Federal income tax laws -- has been convicted by several juries of violating those very laws, is not an ad hominem attack by Wikipedia or anyone else.

The edits in America: From Freedom to Fascism have nothing to do with Wikipedia editors "aligning" ourselves with the "cult's point of view," whatever that means. You may compare me to Joseph Goebbels all you want, and you may insinuate that you believe I am lying about something (without even identifying what that something is) all you want, and you may continue to suggest to no avail that I should refrain from editing -- but I and other Wikipedians will indeed continue to edit, and to repeat ourselves: Verifiability, Neutral Point of View, and No Original Research. Yours, Famspear 22:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You're talking yourself in circles. It was in regard to ad hominem attacks and credibility--which a cult member does not have when defending the cult, which leads nicely into what you call "personal" comments. Upset? Pshaw! Re: Schiff--read his wikipedia entry--apparently you wrote most of it, concentrating on his convictions...and of course, when judges forbid defendants from stating their case and tell instruct the jury that they cannot judge the law, it doesn't take the brightest individual to figure out how that will turn out. As for your edits--the POV is obvious. I've obviously made the mistake of exchanging comments with someone paid by the minute to expel hot air. I should have been more careful. History shows justice prevails. Your cult will fall. 206.124.31.24 04:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear user at IP 206.124.31.24: There are no ad hominem attacks on Mr. Schiff in the Irwin Schiff article. And yes, the comments by you here [4] and here [5] and here [6] are what a reasonable person would characterize as personal attacks by you, which violate Wikipedia rules.

And yes, it doesn't take the brightest individual to figure out that when Mr. Schiff could not get a Federal judge to instruct a jury that the jury could not be the judge of what the law is, Mr. Schiff was not going to get his own way in court on that point. Indeed, Mr. Schiff's very purpose was to try to get the jury to decide on what the law is, and specifically to try to get the jury to somehow "rule" that Mr. Schiff's arguments about tax law were correct. Mr. Schiff was incorrect as a matter of law -- both on the substance of the tax law itself, and on the law governing how our legal system works. As explained elsewhere here in Wikipedia, neither the jury, nor the bailiff, nor the court reporter, nor the court clerk, nor the attorneys, are allowed to rule on what the law is. Only the judge can rule on what the law is.

Instead of referring to other people's comments as "hot air," and instead of repeatedly expressing anger at the legal profession, which you repeatedly refer to as a "cult," and instead of announcing that the "cult will fall," and instead of standing on a cyberspace soapbox and proclaiming that "justice will prevail," please stick to commentary on how to improve the article. If "the POV is obvious" then you should have no problem pointing out specific examples of specific language in the article that exhibit non-neutral POV. Yours, Famspear 21:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Lack of understanding of legal system

Dear fellow editors: I am moving the following text (inserted in the article by an anonymous user) from the article to here:

The views represented in this film represent a lack of understanding of the American legal system. Russo and the persons he interviews repeatedly reference supreme court decisions [sic] in the twenties and thirties, not understanding that subsequent supreme court decisions take precident [sic] over previous decisions.

I pretty much agree with the thrust of the comments. However, I would argue that, as written, the comments are non-neutral POV.

Actually, the critique should really be that most of the court decisions actually are still the law -- most have not been subsequently overruled. The problem is that the decisions are just the opposite of what the filmmaker apparently claims they are in the film. There does appear to be a lack of understanding of the legal system in connection with the arguments made in the film -- at least "as reported" in the media (I haven't seen the entire film myself). Yours, Famspear 01:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Remove possible copyright violation

The following material labeled "Synopsis" has been removed from the article:

[quoted material deleted from this talk page on 27 Oct. 2006, due to copyright concern. Yours, Famspear 19:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)]

This appears to have been copied and pasted directly from the web site advertising the film, at [7]

Possible prima facie copyright violation. Yours, Famspear 14:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Post-script: I would also point out that even if this were not a copyright violation, we might also have the problem of non-neutral POV and "advertising" as well. Famspear 17:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Commentary by anonymous user removed from article

The following commentary (which had been inserted by an anonymous user at IP 74.137.132.56) has been removed from the article:

(NOTE: This whole section needs edited as it incorrectly portrays Russo as being deceptive about the film's viewing location. The website actually says: "CANNES, FRANCE – Aaron Russo’s incendiary political documentary which exposes many of the governmental organizations and entities that have abridged the freedoms of U.S. citizens had its international premiere at Cannes and won a standing ovation. The event, which was held on the beach and filled to capacity, was open to the public and drew a crowd of people who stood along the boardwalk to watch the film." If anyone believes he was referring to Cannes Film Festival it's only because they didn't want to read the truth.)

This material belongs on this talk page, not in the article itself. Yours, Famspear 15:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the user that posted that is right. He wasn't referring to the film festival at all. Also, I don't see the relevance of this to the film or why it would even be in this article. This might have something to say about Aaron Russo himself, but not the film. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.206.43.5 (talk • contribs) 20:15, June 22, 2007 (UTC)

Indepedent reports include the number of people at the showing somewhere around 40. If that was "filled to capacity", it must have been a rather small screen. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

FEDERAL RESERVE ISSUES IN THE FILM

I dont see how you can NOT have a section on the Federal Reserve system. Seeing as how the film spends a vast amount of time discussing the Federal Reserve, the issues raised by the film absolutely do belong in this article. Don't just delete entire sections without discussing it. If you believe there is a problem with NPOV, by all means edit it. But dont just delete it!--Fedz-Reg-rex 22:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I have made some modifications to the material to reflect what I assume was the intent of editor Fedz-Reg-rex, with some changes to (hopefully) make the material more neutral. Basically, I assumed that all the statements were assertions made by the filmmaker, and modified the language to make clear that these were such assertions. I have not seen the film itself, so I am just going on the language as it was inserted by editor Fedz-Reg-rex. Yours, Famspear 00:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Ref

Point 13 of this is mentioned in the film. --Striver 08:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Review Choices

This article cites four reviews of the film (it had cited a fifth, but I deleted that because it wasn't saying what the New York Times said about the film, but instead claimed that the Times "notes that early in the film Mr. Russo, asserts that every president since Woodrow Wilson and every member of Congress has perpetrated a hoax to tax people’s wages and issue them dubious currency." A statement which 1. seems to imply that the New York Times agrees with the statement, 2. doesn't show us w, and 3. isn't what the review says.[[8]]

That said, I have a problem with the review section as it stands. Three out of the four reviews cited (none of which are especially noteworthy sources) are positive; however, the film currently has a 22% rating at Rotten Tomatoes [[9]], with zero out of ten "Cream of the Crop" reviews supporting the film. Should the reviews cited be in line with the reviews it received in general? Nedlum 05:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually the average rating is 4.4/10 which puts it much closer to even. Its also impossible to use such a rating as any kind of litmus test of the opinion of the entire public or critics at all on this film. Compiling such a standard would be original research unless a reliable independent site did it.--Crossmr 23:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've added a second negative film review. I think that overall the reviews for this film are in fact predominantly negative, but I also think we may be approaching critical mass here .... Yours, Famspear 21:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Why are there any reviews at all being posted??? These reviews come from media outlets, and they are inherently biased. Journalists' opinions are too worthless to be included in this article, which is about a serious documentary. The opinions of economists should instead be put here. I'll start with Milton Friedman, who said "money is much too serious a matter to be left to the central bankers" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.115.230.118 (talk • contribs). on 10 January 2006.

Dear user at IP 69.115.230.118: Well, the article is primarily about the film, not about the things discussed in the film (in other words, it's an article on America: From Freedom to Fascism and not an article on "taxes" or "banking" or "spy chips" or "big brother government", etc.) Most film reviews probably do come from media outlets, and most film reviews may be, by definition, "biased" in some sense or another. Also, film reviewers tend to "like" or "not like" many films they review, so the reviewers almost always draw conclusions and state those conclusions in the reviews (essentially advising the reader in so many words that this was a "great film" or an "OK film" or a "really bad film," etc.).

That having been said, the article obviously is full of material about what is presented in the film, and it would be difficult to have an article about the film without talking about its main subjects.

I think your comments seem to imply an interesting question. In a Wikipedia encyclopedia article about a film, which is appropriate: (A) discussion of the subject matter of the film (including Milton Friedman type stuff), (B) discussion of the film as an art form (e.g., film reviews), or (C) both? Yours, Famspear 23:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem using Reviews when the film is a fictional, entertainment-based presentation. This documentary, however, is true and is centered on the idea, not the presentation. The people writing these reviews make a living watching Hollywood movies, they aren't exactly qualified to judge the subject matter at hand. Or rather, they are no more qualified than you and I. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.174.156.176 (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

Well, no, this "documentary" film is actually riddled with falsehoods (assuming that the proponents of the film are accurately reporting what is said in the film). Some of the falsehoods are exposed in the article itself. I'm sorry, but as a group, people who write film reviews and who are in the business of doing so -- and who make a living watching films -- are if anything presumptively more qualified to review films (documentary or otherwise) than members of the public at large. The article contains references to some reviews where the reviewers liked the film, and other reviews where the reviewer did not like the film.

There is no Wikipedia rule that requires that a film reviewer be qualified to "judge the subject matter at hand" (e.g., banking systems, taxation systems, big brother government, etc.) in order to be qualified to render a film review that can be quoted or summarized in Wikipedia -- even if that film review contains the reviewers own uninformed, biased conclusions about technical matters discussed in the film.

Think about it this way: there is no requirement in Wikipedia that editors of articles on the Federal Reserve System have advanced degrees in banking, or economics, or finance (or any formal education at all for that matter). There is no requirement that Wikipedia editors of articles on Federal income taxation have law or accounting degrees, or be licensed as attorneys or CPAs, or having any expertise in taxation. There is no requirement that Wikipedia editors of articles on elementary particle physics have formal education in physics or science in general, or even that they have the first clue.

Just as an aside, the Wikipedia article is primarily about the film, not primarily about the various technical subject matters of the film. In other words, although the article almost necessarily addresses the "pro and con" of taxation, for example, the article does so in the context of the film and how the film addresses the subject. The filmmaker, it seems, cannot have it both ways. That is, he cannot (A) claim to have produced a documentary (presumably with the intent of conveying some "truth") and (B) also reasonably expect that reviews -- and encyclopedia articles -- about the film will not delve into the underling subject matter of what he has presented in his film, including a critique of what he has presented as being "truth" -- and how he has presented it.

There is no Wikipedia requirement that an article about a film (whether presented as a "documentary" or not) cannot refer to film reviews of that film merely because reviewers do not have expertise in the subject matter of the film -- or merely because reviewer are biased. Yours, Famspear 15:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

No criticism? At all?

Surely in a two hour documentary there should be plenty of room for nitpicking, no? Was there some prior consensus that this article shouldn't have a criticism section? -NorsemanII 03:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If you're a fascist, then by all means, bitch and moan.

-G —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.117.157.7 (talk • contribs). on 10 January 2007.

I'm definitely in agreement here. Any Wiki article about a book, TV show, or documentary that is presenting supposed factual information should have a Criticism section, if such valid criticism has been raised. Within the first few minutes of the film, I know there are glaring factual errors that can be verified by anyone. The Woodrow Wilson "quote", passed off as ONE SINGLUAR QUOTE, is in fact a combination of THREE quotes, only TWO of which can be traced to something Wilson actually said. I'm going to create a Criticism section, and elaborate on this point.

HeretiKc 22:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I looked again and your were completly wrong, nice try. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.56.210 (talk • contribs) on 13 February 2007.

Why the title of the section changed from "Factual Errors/Criticism" to merely "Criticism"? I'd argue that "factual errors" is the more accurate description of the section? HeretiKc 05:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear HeretiKc: I had changed it to just "Criticism" because I thought just calling it "Criticism" sounded more neutral. My theory is that including verbiage like "factual errors" in the heading implies that Wikipedia itself is taking a position on whether there are "errors" (which we shouldn't do) -- as opposed to merely describing criticisms where Wikipedia simply reports on primary, secondary and tertiary sources pointing out what they contend are the errors in the film.

If the film really says what the article says the film says, there are obviously (in my humble opinion) some major factual errors in the film, especially regarding tax law. But the errors are not labeled as "errors" in the article.

For example, when Russo reportedly says that the Internal Revenue Code is not a statute passed by Congress, the text and footnotes of the article directly contradict that statement -- but without specifically stating that Russo made a factual error. The article simply points out the enactment clause in the actual text of the statute, and the fact that according to the United States Statutes at Large, the Code is indeed a statute.

I was just sort of carrying that same idea over to the heading for the article on Criticism. Essentially, my idea was: don't take a position -- in the heading itself -- that there are factual errors in the film; instead, just describe in the body of the text what the primary, secondary, and tertiary authorities say (including, but not limited to, what those sources say are factual errors in the film).

Any thoughts? The change I made was just a quick, intuitive one, and I'm not going to lose any sleep if you change the heading back to the way you had it. Speaking of sleep, it's late where I am, and I need to get to bed right now! Catch you later. Yours, Famspear 05:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Phantom film critic and his review

There is a gushing review of the film attributed to "CBS critic Todd David Schwartz". Who is he? A search of Google failed to find him. I was able to find a press release attributed to him at [10]

The masthead states: CBS Radio; Todd David Schwartz; Contributing Arts and Entertainment Critic; “The Paul Mitchell show,” CBS Radio. For broadcast August 11, 2006.

So what’s the “Paul Mitchell show”. The only things I can find using Google turned up a radio show host who has been deceased for several years, and reviews attributed to Todd David Schwartz or T. D. Schwarts, all of which occur after the Paul Mitchell is already listed as the “late Paul Mitchell”

KPSI-AM Palm Springs, the Paul Mitchell show

“In the '90's, Stan became a regular contributor to the "KPSI Morning Show", which was hosted by the late Paul Mitchell” the Stan mentioned took over the show in 1998, apparently after that particular Paul Mitchell died. The copyright is 2003, well before the above news release [11]

"4 stars! DO NOT MISS THIS!" -- T.D. Schwarts "The Paul Mitchell Show" CBS Radio

I am removing the review. If someone else can source this individual and the review reliably, then put it back in. As stated in Wikipedia:Verifiability The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it. Brimba 23:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Posts Removed That Attacks Aaron Russo's Character

Altough this was discussed before, there are a number of posters clearly out to discredit this film and attack Aaron Russo personally. The film is not about Aaron's history of paying taxes and nothing related to this should be included in what is supposed to be an objective write up about the film. Noone on Wikipedia has the right to judge someones intent and make such assumptions about Aaron's motives for making the film.

The post about the opening showing was removed as it is a clear attack and implies dishonesty on Aaron's part. The film was simply shown in the same town as a popular film festival. You can't read into Aaron's motives on this. Others for example may see this as a clever marketing tactic. But in either case it has nothing to do with the substance of film itself and is material for another article. There is a real lack of information here about the film itself. Let's keep this article about the film and not a place to showcase the critics from the New York Times. People can go to the New York Times if they're interested in their criticism of the film.

Please everyone be objective and let's all be adults here despite our personal feelings about the film. Wikifairnesstest 01:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of posters here, including myself, who are intent on providing sourced & verifiable information regarding the claims made by Mr. Russo. If we failed to provide the significant data that contradicts Mr. Russo's claims, we would be doing a disservice to Wikipedia's readers. Otherwise this article would simply be another soapbox for Mr. Russo.

Mr. Russo's history regarding paying income taxes—and, most importantly, the fact that the government has moved against him for failing to do so—is directly relevant to Mr. Russo's claims of authority on tax law. The fact that he has had tax liens imposed against him for not paying income taxes contradicts his claim that the income tax doesn't exist.

The paragraph about the Cannes film festival did not read anything into Mr. Russo's motives—it simply described what happened, without saying anything about why Mr. Russo did it. It is left up to the reader to decide whether this was a dishonest or whether it was a "clever marketing ploy."

The paragraph that references the New York Times article is also relevant, because it directly addresses a central claim of Mr. Russo—that there is no law imposing an income tax. It's hard to think of anything more relevant to that claim than the actual law that does impose the income tax. The fact that the paragraph uses a New York Times review as a source is not relevant. The paragraph is not citing the New York Times' opinion about the film, but rather the facts the paper provides about what claims Mr. Russo's is making. — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 01:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Wikifairnesstest: With all due respect I disagree completely with the assertion that no one at Wikipedia has the "right" to judge someone's intent and make assumptions about Mr. Russo's motives. Everyone who reads Wikipedia, and everyone who edits Wikipedia, certainly does have "the right" to judge Mr. Russo's intent, or the intent of any other person. Evaluating the intentions, good or evil, of other people is something that everyone does -- and there are simply no moral or legal restrictions at all on the right to judge Mr. Russo's intentions.

The material about the opening is not an attack on Mr. Russo (or the film) in quite the sense in which I suspect you might be thinking. The material evolved into its present form as a result of false information that had been inserted in the article. An apparent Russo supporter inserted the following material in the article on Aaron Russo on 16 January 2006:

Mr. Russo, as writer, director and producer, is entering "America ." in the May 2006 Cannes Film Festival.

By mid-July an apparent Russo supporter had changed the verbiage to read:

Mr. Russo, as writer, director, and producer, entered America in the May 2006 Cannes Film Festival, where it received a standing ovation.

Remember, the festival was held in May of 2006. On 31 July 2006, editor NawlinWiki changed the article to clarify that the film was not actually entered at the Cannes Film Festival. I then moved the bulk of the material on the film from the Aaron Russo article to the article on the film itself.

Mr. Russo marketed the film as a "documentary," not as slanted propaganda against Federal income taxes, and not as a slanted tirade against the Federal Reserve System, etc., etc. Yet various reviewers who have seen the film report what amounts to a substantial bias on the part of Mr. Russo with respect to the subjects covered in the film. Information about possible bias of the filmmaker in the case of a film touted as a "documentary" is like information about the possible bias of a witness in a court proceeding; the information is always relevant for the simple reason that evaluation of the credibility of the filmmaker (or witness), including in particular the filmmaker's motive and intention, is crucial in evaluating what that filmmaker or witness has to say.

This material goes to the credibility of the promotional effort for the film, which in turn relates to the credibility of the filmmaker -- an important aspect of evaluating a film touted as a documentary. Truthful information that is reasonably related to (1) Mr. Russo's credibility about the film, and (2) his credibility with respect to the film's promotion, probably belongs in the article on the film.

You say: "The film was simply shown in the same town as a popular film festival. You can't read into Aaron's motives on this." Really? Why not?

Are you saying that Mr. Russo just accidentally happened to be at Cannes, France during the one time of the year when the film festival occurs, and that he also just accidentally happened to show the film on the beach during the time the festival was running, and he also just accidentally happened to mention -- in the promotion for film -- that the film was shown at Cannes?

Personally, I do not fault Mr. Russo that much for this tactic; I don't see that it's such a terrible thing. Each Wikipedia reader is free to judge for himself or herself what all this means. Yours, Famspear 03:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

What's the point of a criticism section if the only thing it's being criticized for are quotes? 71.75.161.147 14:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That implies to me that there is nothing else to criticise, other than nitpicking at quotes - and it's probably right ;) 201.235.101.126 05:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that a criticism section would just be way too substantial to post. There's so many holes in the arguments in the first half hour of this movie, I don't know where to start. A lot of the criticism I would add would just be copypasta from Tax protester constitutional arguments and Tax protester statutory arguments. It'd be easier to just link to those articles; does anyone have any objections to that? -Fendersmasher 05:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I do feel that a more thorugh criticism of this film is necissary. However, this being an encyclopedia, it should not be 1st hand.

Here's some criticism. The editing of the conversation between the director and Congressman Ron Paul at about 1h06m into the film is fucking horrendous. There's absolutely no way to deduce from that interview what Ron Paul was actually trying to say. All you get is the director's opinion intercut with a few insubstantial lines from Congressman Paul. The whole thing just ends up looking like a Daily Show interview. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.42.233.90 (talk) 05:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Could be, but this kind of evaluation is original research unless another source has come to the same conclusion. Cool Hand Luke 05:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

note 5

The "sic" for Vieira's spoken quote in note 5 was misleading. Assuming the misspelling came from a transcript of the film it should be either be clearly stated that the misspelling is that of the person doing the transcript and not Vieira himself or avoided altogether. His pronunciation of "Macomber" in the film seems reasonable. As it stood it smacked of a biased attack on his credibility as an authority on the subject.--Darwin 886 22:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear editor Darwin 886: The Macomber misspelling was part of some material inserted by an anonymous user a while back at this edit:[12]. The use of the Latin sic in this context does not "smack" of a biased attack on the credibility of Vieira. I know, because I'm the one who added the Latin. To "smack" in this context means "to have a trace, vestige, or suggestion" as in "a proposal that smacks of treason" Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 1095 (8th ed. 1976). My position is that nothing can truly "smack" unless the putative "smacker" intended that something to "smack." There can be no trace, vestige or suggestion of a "biased attack on his [Vieira's] credibility as an authority on the subject" unless I myself consciously intended one at the moment I inserted the Latin. There is a difference between my intentionally implying (or not implying) something by inserting a Latin word, and someone else inferring something when reading the material later.

I believe your main point, however, is a good one. A reader might infer (correctly or incorrectly) that Vieira was misspelling the word "Macomber" -- when presumably he was only speaking the word in the film (possibly even pronouncing the word perfectly) and the misspelling was made by the transcriber. I wasn't really thinking about wrinkle that when I inserted "sic." (Indeed, at the time I made my edit many months ago, I probably wasn't even really thinking about whether this verbiage was from a transcript generated by the producer of the film or, alternatively, from a transcript provided by an anonymous viewer of film. Thinking about it now, I suspect it was the latter.)

I'm not sure what "the rule" is or should be on the use of the Latin sic in this kind of situation, and unless we obtain further clarification from somewhere, your edit stands (at least at as far as I'm concerned). Thanks for your help editing language that could have been giving some readers an incorrect impression. Yours, Famspear 03:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

PS, For the record, here's where I made my edit:[13] Yours, Famspear 03:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear readers: In my commentary above, where I said "I wasn't really thinking about wrinkle that when I inserted 'sic'", my verbiage should actually have read: "I wasn't really thinking about that wrinkle when I inserted 'sic'" (i.e., switch the order of the words "wrinkle" and "that"). I must have been tired when I wrote that piece. Yours, Famspear 18:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, my name is Andres. The fact is that the law is whatever those who control the army wanted to be. If the tax payer money is being used to fund an illegal war by an illegal president maybe you should be also mentioning those details Mr. Lawyer. You are being too impartial on this ECICLOPEDIA ARTICLE. The article should describe the movie and that’s it, let the viewers decide for themselves if the movie is right or wrong. Remember, you are a lawyer, not the law. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.225.251.14 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Adding labels or templates without discussing on talk page

An anonymous editor at IP 68.97.228.190 has added various labels at the beginning of the article, which have been removed by other editors. I added a welcome to the user's own page, with some commentary including the following:

Regarding your addition of three templates to the above-referenced article, as you can see the labels have been reverted by other editors. Instead of adding such labels, you probably should consider discussing your suggestions about an article in the talk (discussion) page for the article. For example, the labels you attempted to add essentially state that the article is not written with a neutral point of view, or that it may have a personally invested tone, or that the factual accuracy is disputed, or that the article may be unduly influenced by biased opinions, or that the article needs a real world perspective. Because you have not discussed any of these concerns in the talk page for the article, the mere addition of the labels in the article itself would not appear to be appropriate. This article has been extensively edited and discussed by and among numerous Wikipedia editors for about a year, and the present state of the article represents a community consensus about how the article should read. Because consensus can change, however, you are encouraged to read the prior comments on the talk page and to discuss, on the talk page, any changes you believe would be appropriate.

Oh, just as a follow up, I note that one of your edit summary comments was that you do not have "time to nitpick everything in the article, the general message is biased against the film, this needs to be neturalised [sic]." First, the fact that you believe the "general message" in the article is biased against the film America: From Freedom to Fascism does not necessarily mean that the article is in fact biased, or that the article lacks a neutral point of view for purposes of Wikipedia. Second, when you review the Wikipedia policies and guidelines you should find that Neutral POV does not require that the article be written in such a way that the reader comes away without a clear sense of how the majority of relevant experts view the subject of the article. Neutral POV does not require that Wikipedia give equal weight to minority or fringe viewpoints rejected by the majority of experts in the relevant field of knowledge, and minority and fringe viewpoints should be identified as such. If for whatever reason you feel you do not have time to "nitpick everything in the article" by discussing with other editors on the talk page to work for consensus, then the short cut of merely adding labels at the top of the article probably is not going to be considered appropriate.

Yours, Famspear 21:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and at the expense of appearing to beat a dead horse (which I sometimes do), here is some relevant rule on "drive-by tagging," which is what this is about:

Drive-by tagging is not permitted. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Attribution, and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort.[14]

Yours, Famspear 22:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

External links

On April 18, Newcwriter removed from the External links section of this article the link to the page Income Tax: Voluntary or Mandatory?, by Jonathan R. Siegel, providing the edit summary comment "There are numerous errors on the linked page, which is low quality and misleading. A better 'counter voice' link is needed."

I restored the link, and asked for Newcwriter to describe these errors. He subsequently deleted the link again (while adding a link to an IRS page), providing the edit summary "Link cut, replaced with IRS page! The "a law professor 'comments' on the tax issue..." is dubious. I will try to list all the errors and share them with you."

I restored the link again (though I will not revert a third time). Under the guidelines listed in Wikipedia:External links, Professor Siegel's page is an appropriate link for the external links section:

Wikipedia articles can include links to Web pages outside Wikipedia. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks); or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article (such as reviews and interviews).

The page in question is a review of the film—it provides meaningful, relevant information about the claims made by Mr. Russo. It would be appropriate to remove the link if it was a "site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research." I cannot find any errors in Professor's Siegel's explanation of the income tax laws—and he provides abundant, verifiable support for his arguments, such as links to the laws imposing the income tax.

To Newcwriter: since you've said you've found numerous errors, and are willing to list them, why don't you list them here? We can than discuss whether we should delete this link from this article. — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 04:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear user Newcwriter: Stating in a Wikipedia article that "a law professor comments" about a topic that is inherently legal in nature is not a "dubious" use of language. Law professors do comment about legal stuff, and they are eminently credentialed and qualified to do so. You may personally disagree with Professor Siegel's interpretation of the income tax laws, but his material is neither low quality nor misleading. Sorry. Famspear 14:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Newcwriter: I did not place the link (or the comments) in the article. That was done by another editor. There is no "onus" on me. You are proposing a change in the wording describing the link, and you seem to be insistent that your wording must prevail, even though you say you will work out how to use the talk facility (the talk or discussion page for the article) "later." The onus to support your proposed wording change is on you, not on me or on editor Mateo SA. The link and the language describing the link have been in the article for some time. My objection is not so much with your proposed wording change as it is with the lack of a coherent explanation as to why your proposed wording is better than the previous wording, the lack of an explanation of why you feel the current wording is "dubious" or misleading, and your apparent inability to discuss this on the talk page even after two fellow editors have attempted to interact with you. Putting comments on the talk (discussion) page for the article is no more complicated that making changes to the article itself. It's the same physical editing process, so it shouldn't take any time at all to figure out how to interact on the talk page with Wikipedia editors.

Again, generalized comments in an edit summary that seem to amount to nothing more than a sense that you don't like what Professor Siegel says -- without discussing on the talk page for the article -- don't come across well. Just as an aside, I would note that you are going to be very hard pressed to demonstrate substantial errors in Professor Siegel's analysis, and you might as well be aware of that up front.

You are new to Wikipedia, so I will point out that Wikipedia works on the concept of consensus among editors. That means working with other editors to achieve compromise in some cases. Anyway, welcome to Wikipedia, and happy editing! Yours, Famspear 16:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Link removed

My objection to the link and the comments on the link do not relate to the issue of tax, rather the issue of film analysis. Whilst Siegel has some expertise with regard to the tax issue, he clearly has no understanding of film analysis.

As Siegel peppers his analysis of the tax issue with personal value judgements, I feel a less hysterical link is called for and so offer(ed) the IRS site as a more reasonable counter voice. In short, Siegel could and should offer his opinion on the tax issue without resorting to hysterical, value judgement film analysis. Newcwriter 18:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Newcwriter: Thanks for your comments. I take it from your comment that because, in your view, Professor Siegel has "no understanding of film analysis," the article should not contain the link to his page. The inference I draw is that you feel that a link is proper only if the author of the linked material has some "understanding" of "film analysis" and not merely expertise in the law -- the actual subject matter (apparently) of a large part of the film. It seems as though you are implying that you believe there should be a Wikipedia rule somewhere that says that a Wikipedia article about a film that contains claims about the validity or invalidity of a law should not contain a link to an article by a law professor who points out the legal fallacies in those claims -- based on the theory that the professor must also "understand" something called "film analysis." Please show us the Wikipedia rule on that.

I also notice that you twice use the word "hysterical" in referring to Siegel's material. Please provide an excerpt or quote from the "hysterical" Siegel language to which you are referring.

I am also wondering about your use of the term "value judgement." Are you implying that "value judgement" is not appropriate in doing film analysis? If so, why? Why do you believe this somehow relates to your deletion of the link?

Please identify examples of things about "film analysis" about which you believe Professor Siegel has "no understanding," and show us the Wikipedia rule, guideline or policy that would support your argument that Wikipedia should not link to his material because he lacks that "understanding." Yours, Famspear 19:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

PS: Part of what I am driving at is that I don't perceive that Siegel is trying to write a formal film "analysis" -- the kind of thing that might appear in a place where film reviews or analyses are published. I don't see him as holding himself out as writing a "film analysis" in that sense. Neither do I see him holding himself out as having expertise in film analysis. I see Professor Siegel as commenting on the substance of the legal issues raised -- which is of course his area of expertise. Also, I see no "hysteria" in his writing. My argument would be that a link to his web page is eminently appropriate. Yours, Famspear 22:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Famspear, thanks for your comments. To begin, he writes for some time about Tom Cruise and then oddly links Cruise with Aaron Russo for no apparent reason. He appears to have done so based on his personal opinion that they are both nuts! From an analytical sense linking two films, celebrities etc would be reasonable if there were any relevance to the film in question. The link by Siegel however appears to be zeitgeist hysteria and bears no relation to the piece. Even linking, say, Eddie Murphy (Trading Places) would have been less surreal. He then goes on another rant by offering odd gems such as “Most people are not Lawyers”.

I do not wish to critique the entire piece as I really could spend the rest of my life doing so. No disrespect to Siegel but any first year film student offering up such comments would inevitably fail, even with detailed and well researched information on the tax code. This is especially disappointing and irritating as the information regarding the tax code appears valid. I am no expert regarding that, moreover I live in the UK and so have no personal interest in the American income tax issue.

On a point of pedantry the comment within his second sentence alone “the movie embraces far-out, fantastical conspiracy theories” would be considered a value judgement. Although I do accept some film critics of the same opinion would simply add the dubious caveat “Some people may claim…” to get around this issue. Moreover the ‘pro film’ link, although again clearly one-sided, does have some basic understanding of film analysis. Siegel’s page is one of the worst examples I have seen. So much so it was this which lead me to join Wikipedia in the first place.

My point, which I believe is valid, is that Siegel should have stuck to his own area of expertise with regard to the film instead of writing a poorly considered film analysis. As a relative outsider viewing the page for the first time, my opinion of Siegel was wholly negative. To be honest the guy sounded even more surreal that some of his opposite numbers in the pro film camp. I’m afraid I disagree with your claim he was not writing a film analysis as he clearly does get carried away with himself.

My objection to the link does fall within Wikipedia guidelines. “Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article”. As the IRS site contains all the relevant information contained within Siegel’s page, this is not a unique resource. Indeed much of the tax information within Siegel’s page appears to have come from the IRS site. Also, “Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research” is reason to object. As the tax analysis is peppered with personal conjecture, mixing fact with opinion, the site also falls under these guidelines. All opinion or all fact is ok, to mix both is confusing and misleading.

I did initially offer a compromise regarding the link. If the comments make clear the analysis of the film is a personal view I have no issue with the link being included. To make clear, by personal view I refer to Siegel’s odd analysis of the film not his obvious expertise in tax law.

As the link has again been reposted anyway I fear my whole explanation is lost, but for your personal interest I thought I would explain my position in any case. Kind regards. Newcwriter 02:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Newcwriter: Well, I see from your comments that perhaps you really do seem to evaluate Professor Siegel's piece as an attempt by Siegel at a "film analysis" in, apparently, the way that a film student would think of film analysis, rather than as a law professor's analysis of the legal issues raised in the film, expressed in terms for a general internet readership, which is how I had always viewed the piece.

I cannot judge his piece from the perspective of film analysis, as I have no formal training in that. Judged from the standpoint of legal analysis -- which is why (I believe) the link is there, his analysis is sound. It's not intended as a formal legal brief or memorandum; it appears to be intended to be read and understood by non-lawyers (i.e., by most people). Indeed, the first sentence of his second paragraph is: "Some comments on the income tax aspects of the movie follow below." I don't see Siegel claiming that he is writing "film analysis" in the sense that I think you're using that term; nor is Siegel writing a film review in the sense of a film review one might find in a New York or London newspaper. Siegel is instead laying out, in layman's terms for general readers, the legal status of the legal arguments in the film -- something virtually no film student not formally trained in the intricacies of legal analysis could effectively do. And if Professor Siegel's analysis sounds like it comes from the IRS web site, that might be because the IRS studies the same law that the law professor studies. (Trust me, neither I nor Professor Siegel need to obtain our material on the legal status of tax protester arguments from the Internal Revenue Service web site of all places!)

Your statement that "Siegel should have stuck to his own area of expertise with regard to the film instead of writing a poorly considered film analysis" is in my opinion off base. It appears that Siegel did indeed stick to his area of expertise: the law. He presented his material, however, to be read by a general readership, not for other legal scholars. I contend that your implied argument -- that Siegel's work should be judged not as legal analysis but as "film analysis" -- is simply incorrect. Siegel is under no legal or moral obligation to restrict himself in the way you apparently believe he should have, and Wikipedia guidelines certainly do not disqualify a link to his material in this context.

The statement that "the movie embraces far-out, fantastical conspiracy theories" may indeed be seen as a value judgment.

So what? You seem to express an aversion to someone making a "value judgment" here, and it's unclear why you feel this aversion, or why a value judgment should somehow disqualify Siegel's piece from being linked in the article. Perhaps a "value judgment" is something they teach you in film school to avoid when doing film analysis. The term value judgment is somewhat vague, but in the broadest sense the legal system (of the United States, at least) is by definition in the business of making value judgments. Further, the film apparently does embrace far-out, fantastical conspiracy theories. Indeed, fantastical conspiracy theories are a hallmark of tax protester arguments, so it's not surprising that a film promulgating those arguments would push or include such matters. You may want to review articles such as Tax protester conspiracy arguments, Tax protester constitutional arguments and Tax protester statutory arguments for a flavor of some of the kinds of things tax protesters in the United States come up with.

Wikipedia has a rule about Neutral Point of View (NPOV). However, the rule on NPOV does not require that "value judgments" -- including opinionated views -- be excluded from Wikipedia. Wikipedia allows for the reporting of wildly opposing, strongly held, strongly expressed previously published viewpoints of third parties. NPOV instead refers to the way those views are characterized in Wikipedia. In other words, if Wikipedia were to summarize Siegel's viewpoint in a Wikipedia article, Wikipedia would make it clear that the viewpoint is Siegel's viewpoint -- without taking an express "Wikipedia position" that "Siegel is correct" or "Siegel is incorrect."

Here, we aren't even including Siegel's views in the article at all; we are simply linking to his own web page containing Siegel's own legal analysis. The fact that Siegel is expressing his own viewpoint -- and the fact that the way he does it does not conform to what you apparently believe is the proper form for "film analysis" -- does not disqualify the link to his material under Wikipedia rules.

Your statement that you are afraid you disagree with my claim that Siegel was not writing a film analysis, as he clearly does get carried away with himself (to paraphrase your words) is interesting. Should I take it from that statement that you believe that had he not gotten "carried away with himself," his work would have qualified as simply a "legal analysis," and that since he did (in your view) "get carried away" the work must instead really be "film analysis"?

Regarding your comments about Siegel's material on Tom Cruise and Aaron Russo, here is the Siegel material about which I believe you are speaking (copyrighted material, excerpted under the Fair Use Doctrine):

Some comments on the income tax aspects of the movie follow below. But first, a basic, general point. Don't take your legal advice from Aaron Russo. That would be like taking medical advice from Tom Cruise. Not a good idea.

These men are entertainers. Both of them are very good at what they do. Tom Cruise is a fine actor. I particularly liked his performance in Rain Man. But that does not make him a doctor. Americans have the good sense to understand this. Most people realize that Mr. Cruise is sadly mistaken with regard to theories of mental health care. He has rejected conventional psychiatry and embraced bizarre theories that appear to have something to do with his chosen religion (the Church of Scientology). I think most people understand that, if someone you loved had a mental health problem, you would want to get advice from a competent doctor, not from a confused actor like Mr. Cruise.

The same reasoning applies to Mr. Russo.[15]

Personally, I do not read this as Siegel saying that Mr. Cruise is "nuts." I read this is as Siegel pointing out that people in show business (like Cruise and Russo) are not necessarily competent to advise the public on matters not within their areas of expertise (hint: tax law, banking law, etc.) You may be aware or unaware of the problems Tom Cruise has had in the United States on this matter, and you may agree or disagree with him. I assure you that lots of people in the United States who know about the publicity problems Tom Cruise has had in recent years (no offense to Mr. Cruise intended here) know exactly what Professor Siegel is talking about, and can easily recognize what should be an obvious connection to what Siegel is saying about Russo and Russo's film.

Aaron Russo marketed his film as a documentary, not as entertainment. Professor Siegel is pointing out that although Russo marketed the film as a documentary, the general public should probably not take Russo's word on tax law, any more than the public should take Cruise's word on health matters.

Finally, you again refer to Siegel's work as "hysteria." Hysteria has been defined as "a psychoneurosis marked by emotional excitability and disturbances of the psychic, sensory, vasomotor, and visceral functions" or "unmanageable fear or emotional excess." Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, p.565 (8th ed. 1976). Again, here is the link to his article.[16] Personally, I see no "hysteria" in Siegel's article; I believe you are overstating your case. Yours, Famspear 04:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Weird verbiage regarding tax liens

An anonymous editor inserted the following language in the article:

However, title 26 of the Internal Revenue Code stipulates that a lien placed upon property only obligates an IRS agent to turn it over to the government, not for the original owner to turn it over to an IRS agent.

This verbiage was correctly removed by another editor. First, the verbiage was unsourced. Second, the verbiage as written could not even be properly sourced, as there is no such "stipulation" in the Internal Revenue Code (title 26 of the United States Code). Third, the verbiage is very possibly prohibited original research (incorrect "research" at that). Fourth, the verbiage is pretty tangential to the subject of the article. This article is not about the nature and scope of the Federal tax lien on the filmmaker's property. The reference to the filmmaker's tax problems is there for the purpose of illustrating a possible motivation for the filmmaker, including a possible source of filmmaker bias regarding his own feelings about the validity of Federal tax laws. This is not the place to get into the intricacies of Federal tax lien laws. Yours, Famspear 22:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

PS: Here are some places that do properly get into some of the intricacies of U.S. Federal tax liens. For some general information about the Federal tax lien, see [17]. For some information on how the Internal Revenue Service has the legal power to seize assets (that is, to levy on assets) subject to a Federal tax lien without having to go to court and the Brian v. Gugin doctrine, see [18]. Yours, Famspear 22:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Title of the film

Both IMDB and the film's official website (see last sentence) call the documentary "America: From Freedom to Fascism." However, the intro of this Wikipedia article simply calls it "America: Freedom to Fascism." I'm changing the intro to reflect what I think the correct title is. If someone disagrees, please explain. - Walkiped ^{(T | C)} 23:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

No disagreement here. This has already been covered in discussions on this talk page, or in the edit summaries. The filmmaker apparently marketed the film titled both ways (with and without the word "From"), and you could therefore could arguably consider both titles to be correct. Famspear 00:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I thought we title articles based on the title card, which reads "America: Freedom to Fascism Volume One." Tim Long 23:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section written very poorly

Significant amount of material... but who claims these critiques... the author? I mean... thats what I am lead to believe, seeing as there is only one source given, and only one reference point... at the end of the whole section...

Seriously... this shit would not fly in ANY OTHER article. 71.74.13.103 07:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Propaganda

Why does every film boasting an honest political opinion have to be labeled "propaganda"? Is that what it's synonymous with nowadays? It doesn't sound forceful or misinforming enough to qualify as propaganda. It does happen to use a few quotes out of context, but almost every documentary isn't 100% accurate. The article also may lean toward an anti-libertarian and pro-income tax POV. Should we remove the category?71.204.43.208 01:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This one is propaganda. The "facts" have almost all been refuted, some in reliable sources, which is unusual in fringe documentaries. However, perhaps the category, as a whole, should be deleted. See WP:CfD for details on that process. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Show us all some reliable sources that prove without question that the claims in the film have been refuted, rather than just providing a link to wikipedia's definition of reliable sources. --Cantsi Wontsi (talk) 03:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I changed, "regarding tax protester arguments" to "criticizing the growth of government power" because many people who pay taxes make the same arguments as Russo, not merely a fringe group of tax protesters. Russo nearly won the Libertarian Party nomination for President in 2006, and very few Libertarians are tax protesters. Mpublius 16:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

American police state

The United States incarcerates a larger portion of the population than any other country, so it reasonable to state that it is a police state. Mpublius 19:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mpublius: Assuming that your statement --about the "larger portion of the population" -- is accurate, it is (in my opinion) a dubious ground for stating that the United States is a "police state." More to the point, the issue is not whether it is "reasonable" to say, in a Wikipedia article, that the United States is a "police state." Personally, when someone says "police state" I think of something like Nazi Germany in 1944 or something like that. In term of the level of "police statedness", there is hardly any coherent similarity between the United States in 2007 and Nazi Germany in 1944.

The issue is whether saying that in Wikipedia would violate any of the rules -- specifically, the rules on Verifiability, Neutral Point of View, and No Original Research.

For example, if I were to insert into an article the phrase "the United States is a police state" based on my own reading or my own belief, that might be considered "original research." Not allowed. Additionally, another editor might view the statement, at least in that form, as non-neutral point of view. Third, if I fail to give a reliable, previously published third party source for that statement, another editor might view it as violating the rule on Verifiability. Any of those three rules could justify the removal of that statement -- regardless of how strongly I might consider the statement to be "reasonable".

However, on close inspection, I realize that your edit does not specifically say that the United States is a police state, so I'm not going to re-edit your verbiage, at least not at this time. I was mainly reacting to your description of the reason for your edit. Thanks, Famspear 20:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Mpublius (talk · contribs) has not provided a citation for his statement, but even if it is true, the video inferred that it is a police state. It is a violation of a neutral stance to make such a statement, given that it is original research on Mpublius' part. See geographical bias. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I added some links to articles that document the American police state, some of which compare it to Nazi Germany. Wikipedia editors must adhere to a neutral point of view, and cannot promote the cause of American jingoism without violating WP:NPOV. Wikipedia cannot promote the interests of any particular country, even if a majority of editors are Americans. Mpublius 19:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Most of those links were decidedly unreliable (blogs, etc.). The internet is an enormous collection of information, fantasy, and opinion—you can find sites asserting just about any opinion; the fact that they do is irrelevant to us here at Wikipedia. More to the point, the links—and the bald statement that there is an "American police state"—are not relevant to this article or appropriate for Wikipedia. We are writing about the movie, America: Freedom to Fascism, not about whether the U.S. is a "police state". Even if we were discussing the concept of a police state, it is not appropriate for Wikipedia to take a stand on whether the U.S. fits the definition.

Mpublius's statements about NPOV and "jingoism" are absurd. We do not adhere to NPOV by making a claim that endorses a particular POV. I've removed the unreliable sources and edited the sentence to make it clear that the statement about the "police state" is Russo's, not Wikipedia's. — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 05:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The term police state is a term for a state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic and political life of the population, especially by means of a secret police force which operates above the normal constraints found in a liberal democracy. A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism and social control, and there is usually little distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive.

The classification of a country or regime as a police state is usually contested and debated. The classification is often established by an internal whistleblower or an external critic or activist group. The use of the term is motivated as a response to the laws, policies and actions of that regime, and is often used pejoratively to describe the regime's concept of the social contract, human rights, and similar matters.

The most important constraint upon government in a liberal democracy is the cost of adjudicating criminal guilt and incarceration. Over 97% of the prisoners in the U.S. are denied a trial, and instead receive a negotiated sentence. As a result, Americans are incarcerated at a rate many times higher than in liberal democracies. In fact, the incarceration rate is substantially higher than other police states, too. There can be no reasonable doubt that America is a police state. Implying otherwise is belittling the film and violates WP:NPOV. Mpublius 21:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The statement "[O]ver 97% of the prisoners in the U.S. are denied a trial, " is just wrong. That they may negotiate a sentence and/or plea is a way of streamlining justice when the facts are not in question. It may be misused, even frequently misused, but that statement is just wrong. I don't feel a need to comment further, except to note that Amnesty International seems to agree with you, but the question of whether the US is a police state is not appropriate for this article. 22:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs)

Dear Mpublius: I just want to reprint what you wrote above:

There can be no reasonable doubt that America is a police state. Implying otherwise is belittling the film [America: Freedom to Fascism] and violates WP:NPOV.

Mpublius, please think about what you are saying.

First of all, the article does not imply that America is not a police state. If the article were to blatantly state that "America is not a police state" -- without attributing such a statement to a source -- that could indeed violate the Wikipedia policy on Neutral Point of View. That's not the problem here.

The problem is that the material you yourself inserted (in the article and here on this talk page) pushes the point of view that America is a police state -- and this is "supported" by linking to various web sites, some of which appear to be pretty loony, that probably are not considered reliable third party sources for an encyclopedia.

Second, whether America is a police state or not is probably pretty much a question which is resolved in the form of a statement of someone's personal opinion. Whether America is or is not a police state, the statement -- that there is no reasonable doubt that America is a "police state" -- is so laughable, so over the top, that the statement is not worthy of serious consideration. Yours, Famspear 23:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The Police state article says, "the South African apartheid system was a police state while being nominally a democracy." The United States incarcerates a larger portion of the population than the South African apartheid regime. It is biased to not state that America is a police state, since that is the subject of the film. Mpublius 16:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mpublius: It is biased not to state that America is a police state? Because of the incarceration rate in the United States versus that of South Africa?? That's it? That's your rationale? Famspear 18:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Tasered Woman

Russo used the police video (at approx. 1h:27min) of incident where some woman in Florida was tasered because of her driving licence (as he said). It looks like it was more complicated and eventually not so relevant (her violations were more severe and she allegedly was ignoring them). The video is on YouTube, titled "Boynton Beach, FL Traffic Stop - Part 2: The Taser" (for the discussion bellow the video and other links). If anyone wants to merge it into the Criticism, (s)he can. Kriplozoik 08:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Issues: Ron Paul and WP:SYN

This very long summary makes no mention of Ron Paul's somewhat prominent placement in the movie, but much of this should be trimmed. It's useful to cite sources that show that these kinds of arguments are incorrect, but much of the article seems to be original research in the form of synthesis. It is true, for example, that terms "wage" and "salary" do not appear in the text of Eisner v. Macomber, but I don't think this analysis has ever been applied to this movie before (or at least there's no secondary source proving it). Similarly, the first block of the "criticism" section does not appear to rely upon a single sourced criticism of the movie, but instead appears to originally attack the accuracy of quotes and so forth.

Don't get me wrong. I think this movie is a silly show by a late crackpot, but wikipedia is not the publisher of original research. Cool Hand Luke 06:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Synthesis would be taking source A and its conclusion A and source B and it's conclusion B and then having the Wikipedia editor himself or herself use those sources to reach conclusion C -- a conclusion not found in source A or source B. Apparently, the film mentions Eisner v. Macomber to support some sort of silly assertion that wages are not taxable. The article mentions the film's use of Eisner v. Macomber in that way. As the term is used in Wikipedia, "original research" probably would not cover also stating the easily verifiable fact that the Court ruling Eisner v. Macomber does not mention wages. This is simply use of a primary source; it's sourced-based research. Parenthetically, I would note that Wikipedia allows the use of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources.

The proper use of primary sources in Wikipedia can sometimes be mistaken for "original research," simply because the term "original research" as the term is used outside Wikipedia is a broader term than is used within Wikipedia. For example, outside Wikipedia, if I read a court case and summarize its holding or holdings (without reading any secondary sources), that could be considered "original research" in the sense that it's "legal research" and it's my "original" work (i.e., it's not merely summarizing what someone else wrote about the case). But in the Wikipedia sense, it's not original research; it's simply reading a primary source and summarizing what that source said, as long as it's done without drawing my own conclusion or coming up with my own novel theory.

Analogy: Someone, in an Wikipedia article, inserts the statement that the U.S. Declaration of Independence stands for the proposition that cell phones are a menace to society, citing an actual statement to that effect in some silly movie. It would not be "original research" to use the text of the Declaration of Independence itself as a primary source to also state, in the Wikipedia article, that the Declaration's text mentions nothing about "cell phones." You aren't drawing a new or novel conclusion, and you are adhering to your primary source (the Declaration of Independence). In Wikipedia, you don't need to find a "secondary source" that specifically states that the Declaration does not mention cell phones. In other words, the direct use of primary sources is not necessarily "original research." Yours, Famspear 12:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, the Wikipedia rule on original research also does not prohibit the use of the antecedent verbiage in the article:

an individual named Edwin Vieira asserts that "The definition of income in the Constitution was given in the Eisner versus Macomber case. And it turns on gains or profits that are made from some activity. So the Supreme Court has rules. Income is not wages. It's not labor. It's gain from corporate activity." The Vieira quotation does not disclose the fact that neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor any other Federal court has ever ruled that wages are not income or that income means only gain from corporate activity. The terms "wage" and "salary" do not appear in the text of Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920).

Here, the Wikipedia editor inserted material including a quote from the film by someone named "Edwin Vieira." If the Wikipedia original research rule prohibited Wikipedia from mentioning that no Federal court has ever ruled that wages are not taxable, or that Eisner v. Macomber does not mention wages at all, merely because our source for those statements is a primary source, then you couldn't even mention the Vieira quotation either -- for the simple reason that the source for the quotation is the film itself. In other words, a Wikipedia editor apparently viewed the actual film, and copied Vieira's words from the film (which is direct use of a primary source) rather than obtaining the quotation from some secondary source such as a published movie review that might have happened to give the Vieira quotation in the course of reviewing the film.

Again, merely accurately summarizing what a primary source has said about a particular subject - or as in this case even stating that a primary source contains no statement on a particular subject (e.g., wages are not even mentioned in Eisner v. Macomber, much less the subject of any "ruling"), is not necessarily "original research" as that term is used in Wikipedia. Instead, it is source-based research involving the use of a primary source -- which is allowed in Wikipedia. Famspear 15:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

There's more than one way to misinterpret the film's subject, and the fact that you can't provide prior criticism suggests (a) it's not important (WP:UNDUE) and (b) it's possibly a misinterpretation. We should not put such analysis in an editor's discretion because Wikipedia is a tertiary source. The quote dissection is clearly synthesis. Please take a look at the instructive example at WP:SYN where the example article merely cites a verifiable primary fact about what the Chicago Manual says. If no one else has used these sources to reach these conclusions, that's the essence of original research. We should stick to what the NYT and others have said and not strive to make a comprehensive point-by-point refutation of individual quotes. You're free to publish this research elsewhere. Cool Hand Luke 15:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Cool Hand Luke: I respectfully disagree with your position that the quote dissection is "synthesis." I would argue that it's clearly direct use of a primary source, and not only is not "synthesis," but is barely analysis at all. Here's why.

By way of background, the Vieira nonsense on Eisner v. Macomber was inserted by one editor, while the citation to Eisner v. Macomber -- showing what the Court did not say -- was, if I recall, inserted by another editor (me, if I recall) to avoid undue weight.

Let me illustrate with an admittedly silly fact pattern.

Suppose a Wikipedia article on the subject of computers includes quotation from a previously published third party source article, entitled "Shakespeare's Views About Computers" in the "Journal of Literary Comment About Computers" that gives the statement: "William Shakespeare, in his play Henry V, indicated that Dell computers are better made than HP computers." Assume that this is an actual statement in a previously published "reliable" source, etc., etc., and that this statement is quoted in the Wikipedia article on computers, and is properly footnoted, etc.

Now, suppose that there are no other secondary sources that talk about Shakespeare's views about computers in any way.

I would argue that it is NOT "original research," for purposes of Wikipedia, to ALSO state in the Wikipedia article that the text of Henry V does not mention computers in any way, and to cite directly to Henry V as a primary source. Doing that -- presenting two apparently contradictory things -- is not "synthesis" as that term is used in Wikipedia. It is simply sourced based research -- done in two steps, by (1) citing a secondary authority (the article "Shakespeare's Views About Computers") that includes one quote, and then (2) citing a primary authority (the actual text of "Henry V") with the correct statement (and easily verifiable statement, with today's computer search engines) that the text of the primary authority simply does not contain a certain statement or verbiage.

By contrast, an example of "Synthesis" would be using the text of "Henry V" and the texts of other plays by Shakespeare to try to come up with Wikipedia's own position or theory on what Shakespeare supposedly believed about computers, or what he believed about Dell computers, or HP computers. Notice that in our example, by citing the ABSENCE of certain language in Henry V, Wikipedia is not taking its own position about what Shakespeare's views about computers were -- or were not. Wikipedia is simply providing accurate information about what the actual, physical text of one of his plays says -- or in this case, does NOT say. I would argue that this is barely "analysis" at all, much less "original research" or "synthesis."

Likewise, I would argue that by stating that no Federal court has ever ruled wages to be non-taxable, we are not ourselves creating any new idea. Here, Wikipedia is not performing a "synthesis" or presenting its own new or novel view of what the courts have ruled.

Whether a point by point refutation in the article is a good idea or not, I would argue that the article should not, by default, give undue weight to the kooky arguments presented in the film. You simply cannot present just one side. That means that if the article is to present what people argued in the film, the article also needs to also what other sources, including primary sources, have actually stated.

However, should that entire section in that footnote (the Vieira quote and the rest) simply be omitted? Maybe the whole thing contributes little to the article?? Yours, Famspear 16:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The film should not have so much about its kooky ideas; much of this article should be cut period. In many cases it would suffice to say that his arguments have been thoroughly refuted, I just don't see the editorial need for fresh synthesis of minute details. But you must acknowledge there's a lot of synthesis here. The quotes of Woodrow Wilson, for example. This is not even a large point in the movie, but we go on at length, applying outside analysis toward the film. Surely you can see the similarity between this passage and the Chicago Manual example of synthesis.

On related, we should have a citation for "no Federal court has ever ruled wages to be non-taxable;" this is central to the movie and has actually been commented on by others. We should not apply research to the garbage about some quote attributed to a woman by a fanboy at frame 42:31:06. Stating contrary evidence immediatly after a position is synthesis because is does draw a conclusion. We avoid it not only for fear of getting it wrong (and honestly, the film is clearly wrong on almost all points), but also for fear of undue weight. If Shakesphere had something interesting, compelling, or otherwise notable to say about computers, someone would have commented on it; there is no need for this tertiary source to do novel research to present conclusions based on primary sources. The fact that no one has commented on this woman's ludicrous claims is telling; it's not really importatnt. Next time something like that is added in, we should just remove it. Cool Hand Luke 17:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Also note that in an article about the movie itself, the movie is a primary source. Cool Hand Luke 17:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear editor Cool Hand Luke: I agree with you in part.

This article has long been a battleground for people pushing tax protester nonsense, anti-Federal Reserve System view, and general anti-government views, with other Wikipedia editors trying to keep some sanity here. Maybe the article has quieted down recently. Whether I agree with you on every point or not, do you want to take a shot at the article on the points you have raised? If you do, I would say go for it. Yours, Famspear 19:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I hope to do with this soon, even if it requires me to watch it again (ick). My first impression is that the article almost entirely omits arguments that the documentary stresses at length. Although we mention the Sixteenth Amendment, the movie uses it as a major turning point for when a supposed silent coup occurred. Third-party commentators on the movie have singled this argument out as absurd (which it is) and we have a nice section in this article that neatly explains it. Similarly, it seems like Ron Paul was on the screen for a good amount of time and even endorsed by Russo who called him one of Washington's only honest politicians (or some such). The movie's last spiel on national IDs is similarly not covered in much depth.

I just found it incongruous that some screen quotes were being picked apart while other substantive parts of the movie seemed to be ignored.

I'm sorry for my tone. Scanning through the talk page, it's obvious that this article has grown up around ad hoc additions by tax protectors and other sympathizers. Cool Hand Luke 03:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear editor Cool Hand Luke: No problem. I've seen only a snippet of the first part of the film. Sounds like you have a better handle on what's in the film. Yours, Famspear 05:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Factually Dubious

Removed statement that the film is factually dubious, as that fails to meet Wiki's NPOV rule. That statement would be constrived as an opinion. Evidence provided throughout the film that should dissuade any doubts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.149.36.130 (talk • contribs) on 14 December 2007.

No, the movie is highly dubious, and sources cited note how many of the arguments are utterly without merit and may earn tax protesters fines for frivolity. Cool Hand Luke 20:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I have seen only parts of the movie, but from what I have seen and research, the movie is laughable. It's a poor excuse for a "documentary" - especially on the silly tax protester arguments that are presented. However, the Lisa Wangsness article that was cited does not specifically address that point, so I've modified the language re-inserted by editor Cool Hand Luke.

Actually, I would like to see the re-insertion of some of the humourous movie reviews of this "film", but I'm not going to press that point. Famspear (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see that editor Cool Hand Luke has clarified that the "dubious" language was not intended to apply to the Wangsness article. Famspear (talk) 21:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the article highlights the dubious aspects of the film very well (largely thanks to you), so that tidbit should be in the lead. I should be like a summary of the article. Cool Hand Luke 21:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I have added a footnote showing text from one of the movie reviewers. If you look at the language this movie reviewer used, "factually dubious" is actually mild in comparison. If anything, "factually dubious" elevates the movie's credibility a bit. Famspear (talk) 22:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

How is this documentary factually dubious? Give some reputable links to prove this. Where is the evidence that Russo owed $2 million on tax liens? Also for the shill who wrote the following: "I have seen only parts of the movie, but from what I have seen and research, the movie is laughable. It's a poor excuse for a "documentary" - especially on the silly tax protester arguments that are presented. What makes you such an expert and authority on the issue when you have only seen parts of the film? How can you honestly critique it, when you haven't watched the film in FULL, and haven't interviewed all the people Russo did, including ex IRS officials that back Russo claims throughout the film?

And another thing if you have only seen parts of the film, then obviously you don't really have much interest in the topic, yet very strangely enough, you have a burning desire to post on wikipedia slandering the late Russo's reputation by inferring he is a crackpot and a liar. Why do you automatically go on the defense for the IRS and slander its opposition, without having adequately researched the claims of the opposition, which includes ACTUALLY watching the documentary to see the claims made against the IRS in the first place?

Do I smell hypocrisy? Do I smell a rat?

What are your qualifications, and what's your real agenda, apart from wanting to entirely control the information flow in wikipedia? Because I don't think you could be called an honest editor or reviewer. Remember, film critics actually watch the films they critique, and with a film that is making the serious sort of claims this one is, it is even more important to watch it in FULL, very carefully, and then go out and systematically confirm or deny the claims made in the film, making sure that your information is 100% accurate, and your sources reputable. If you are not able to do this, then you are in no position to criticize the late Aaron Russo's work, and any negative comments you do make, are merely ad hominem in nature. --Cantsi Wontsi (talk) 03:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear user Cantsi Wontsi: Virtually every question you have raised has already been covered on this talk page, but I'll address some of your comments.

The evidence that Russo owed $2 million on tax liens is already cited in the article (unless it's been removed and I missed the deletion). The evidence may be correct, or it may be incorrect. It comes from a reliable source. If you have some information from a reliable source that contradicts this published news report, you are free to cite it as well.

Nobody is "going on the defense for the IRS [Internal Revenue Service]." This is not about defending the IRS, and this article is not about the IRS. This is about improving the article on the film. The film does make various preposterous and demonstrably false claims about the U.S. Federal income tax law. The article cites the film's claims; the article also cites (and quotes directly from) the actual text of the United States Statutes at Large, the official U.S. Government Printing Office publication which -- by law -- is legally conclusive in a court of law as to the actual verbatim text of statutes enacted by Congress.

As odd as it may sound to a newcomer, the "qualifications" of Wikipedia editors are not particularly material. In Wikipedia, you and I are not required to have expert qualifications (or any qualifications at all) to edit articles -- even articles on expert subjects. For that reason, you may notice after you have been here a while that it is somewhat unusual for editors to even mention their own qualifications on the talk pages for articles. If, however, either an attorney's license or a CPA license were required to edit a Wikipedia article that even mentions any aspect of U.S. Federal tax law, then I would be qualified to edit the article on this film, and someone with neither credential would not be allowed to edit this article.

Such credentials are not required. Further, many editors without expert credentials do a fine job of editing articles on highly technical subjects like taxation. (Sorry, but you brought up the issue of "qualifications," not I.)

It may also be considered bad form to contend that editors whose talk page comments or article edits you don't like have some sort of secret "real agenda" -- at least until you have given your fellow editors a chance to "disprove" themselves, so to speak, by showing bad faith.

Yes, perhaps some editors would love to be able to "entirely control the information flow" in Wikipedia and indeed in the entire world. That, fortunately, is not even physically possible.

On my statement that "I have seen only parts of the movie, but from what I have seen and research, the movie is laughable. It's a poor excuse for a 'documentary'" etc., those are my personal opinions. The statement was made only on this talk page, and only in response to something someone else wrote. It's not part of the article itself. I'm not using that opinion as a basis for any edits made to the article. A reasonable person could infer from the tenor of my comment (that I had seen only parts of the film) that I am not writing a review of the film -- where a professional reviewer would indeed be expected to have seen the entire film.

As strange as it may sound at first, neither I nor anyone else needs to see the entire film in question to edit the Wikipedia article on the film. Again, we are not reviewing the film (as in the case of a film reviewer, who would be expected to view the entire film before publishing a review). Instead, we are editing the Wikipedia article on the film. There is no Wikipedia rule that an editor must see a film before editing a Wikipedia article on that film, or before making comments on the talk page.

Further, in my case, as you noted, I specifically qualified my comments by saying that I have not yet seen the entire film. Neither I nor any other editor needs your permission to comment on the film on the talk page or edit the article, and all editors certainly are "in a position" to critique the film -- as unfair as that may seem.

Negative comments I might make about the film itself on this talk page for the article about the film are not "ad hominem" attacks. Arguing ad hominem essentially means "appealing to a person's feelings or prejudices rather than his intellect." Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 14, G. & C. Merriam & Co. (8th ed. 1976). An ad hominem attack is one "marked by an opponent's character rather than by an answer to his contentions." Id.

An ad hominem argument would be something along the lines of saying: "The film 'America: Freedom to Fascism' is bad because director Aaron Russo never sent his mother a birthday card and didn't return his library books on time" or something along those lines (and let's assume for the sake of argument that those silly comments were true about Russo and that they described serious character flaws). An ad hominem attack is an irrelevant attack on "the man" where a critique of the material is what is called for. Arguing that the film is bad because the filmmaker did not think about his mother enough, or that he did not respect the property rights of the public library, would not be relevant where neither "personal fault" was material to the subject matter of the film.

By contrast, let's suppose someone were were to say: "Aaron Russo may be biased about the Federal income tax law he attacks in the film because Russo has had his own Federal income tax problems" (and again let's assume that he did have such tax problems). This might not be an ad hominem attack, as explained below.

Russo's personal tax problems are logically relevant to assessing the possibility that his motivation for making the film was unduly affected by his problems -- which motivation, in turn, could become fair game for discussion in an article on the film. That does not necessarily mean that he was biased, and it does not necessarily mean that he was not biased. It just means that his personal tax problems are logically relevant in assessing the possibility that he was biased.

Some of the things Russo is documented to have believed about taxation (such as the goofy idea that the Internal Revenue Code is not a statute enacted by Congress) might (or might not) have colored the way he made the film. This film was touted as a "documentary," not as "fiction" or "entertainment." This means that Russo's own credibility is an important, relevant factor used in evaluating the film itself. Credibility here has multiple components: Competence (and Russo claimed no law degree) and impartiality (which relates to his motivation and his personal legal problems with taxes). Just as is the case for a witness in a court of law, once the credibility (that is, the believability) of the filmmaker becomes relevant (either in terms of competence or impartiality), an inquiry into and commentary about the filmmaker's personal competence with the film's subject matter (including tax law) and his possible motivation for slanting the story, etc., might also become fair game. Again, this does not necessarily mean that Russo was biased, and it does not necessarily mean that he was not biased.

Regarding your personal assessment as to whether you think that I or other Wikipedia editors may be "honest," etc.: Attacking other editors with whom you have had no prior dealings, instead of critiquing the material itself might be considered by other editors to be an ad hominem attack by you. We are here to edit Wikipedia, using the rules of Verifibility, Neutral Point of View, and No Original Research. Please review the rule on assuming good faith and the rule against personal attacks and comments against fellow editors. Famspear (talk) 04:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced commentary

The following unsourced commentary by a user at IP 64.81.139.235 has been moved from the article to here:

None of these critics address the core issue of "Why do we allow a private bank to make money out of thin air and borrow it to us at interest when we have the constitutional authority to do so ourselves and without interest?" They simply try and pick apart everything else when this is at the core of the movies message.

Add discussion below, if desired. Famspear (talk) 20:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it seems accurate. If some RS actually says that, it might be allowable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)