Talk:Aaron Russo/Archive 1

Archive 1

America: From Freedom to Fascism

Dear fellow editors: I have moved the new information on the above-referenced film from the Aaron Russo article to the article on the film itself. I argue that the information on Russo's personal tax problems, when presented in the article on the film itself, is much more helpful to Wikipedia readers in evaluating the import of the film and in evaluating the motivation of the filmmaker. Also, the point about the film being screened "at" Cannes when, according to the referenced New York Times article, it was screened on the beach and was not actually part of the Cannes film festival, says a lot (in my opinion) if it's true -- so that information should be in the article on the film as well. Yours, Famspear 15:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Reversion of material on 6 August 2006

Dear fellow editors: Prior to my reversion of materials added by an anonymous user on 6 August 2006, the section on the film America: From Freedom to Fascism read as follows:

Russo directed, produced, and wrote America: Freedom to Fascism, a documentary that, among other claims, restates the arguments of the Tax Honesty Movement regarding the U.S. Federal income tax.

In an extremely biased review, The New York 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. This assertion is supported by the Texas Congressman, Ron Paul.

The documentary includes interviews with a host of people who are experts, scholars and whistle-blowers. All deny the legitimacy of the income-tax laws, including Irwin Schiff, who is now in jail because a judge refused to allow Irwin to introduce the law in the courtroom to defend himself. The judge stated that he would decide what the law was.

The movie is absolutely fantastic. It had many people in tears. One of the most revolting parts,in terms of what has become of our country, was a woman who was shot with a Taser gun by two police officers who had pulled her over and discovered that her license was "expired". Once she was shot and screaming in pain they pulled her from the car and threw her on the ground. The cops kept yelling for her to put her hands behind her back. Because of the electrical current from the Taser she was unable to and kept telling the cops she couldn't. So the cops "tased" her again. It was sickening to see our law enforment [sic] officers behaving as terrorist [sic] and basically torturing an American citizen. The lady, after being forceably handcuffed, asked what she was being arrested for, "your license is expired" was the reply.

First, I would argue that this material, to the extent it can be re-worked as encyclopedic material, should be shown in the article on the film itself, and not here in the biographical article on Mr. Russo himself (to avoid unneeded duplication of material).

The first paragraph, beginning with the words "Russo directed, produced, and wrote [ . . . ]" does not appear to be particularly objectionable.

Regarding the second paragraph, beginning with the words "In an extremely biased review, the New York Times notes [ . . . ]" is in my view objectionable. Wikipedia does not need to inform its users that the New York Times article is "biased." Readers are free to read the Times article themselves and make their own determination, if desired, about whether the article is biased. This paragraph can be modified, however, and saved in part.

Regarding the third paragraph, beginning with the words "The documentary includes interviews with [ . . . ]", the statement "Irwin Schiff, who is now in jail because a judge refused to allow Irwin to introduce the law in the courtroom to defend himself" is non-neutral point of view. The statement "The judge stated that he would decide what the law was" may well be correct, but is misleading without elaboration. Here's why.

In an American court of law, defendants are not allowed, as a general rule, to introduce their own version of what they contend the law is as "evidence" before a jury to defend themselves. Prosecutors also are not allowed to introduce "as evidence" their version of what they contend the the law is as evidence before the jury.

The general rule (with limited exceptions) is that "what the law is" is not "evidence." The prosecutor and the defendant are allowed to present to the judge (not to the jury in a jury trial) their contentions about what the law is. The judge then makes a ruling about what the law is.

What Mr. Schiff and a few other tax protesters have tried to do repeatedly (and usually without success) is to try to present -- TO THE MEMBERS OF THE JURY, not merely to the judge -- written materials such as copies of statutes, court decisions, and tax protester commentary. This tactic MAY in certain cases be allowed IF the defendant is merely trying to prove that he or she did not act with the mens rea requirement of "willfulness" in the sense of "awareness of an actually known legal duty." The defendant's argument is something like: "Hey, these materials show my understanding of what the law is, and these materials seem to indicate there's no law requiring me to file tax returns or pay taxes. Therefore, I was not aware that I was violating the law."

However, U.S. law requires that this kind of material NOT be shown to a JURY if, basically, the real reason the defendant (or prosecutor, for that matter) wants to show the jury the materials is to PERSUADE THE JURY ABOUT WHAT THE LAW IS. Under the U.S. legal system, neither the prosecutor, nor the defendant, nor the defendant's attorney, nor the bailiff, nor the court reporter, nor the court clerk, nor members of the jury themselves, are allowed to present materials TO THE MEMBERS OF THE JURY THEMSELVES on WHAT THE LAW IS OR MAY BE. Under our legal system ONLY THE JUDGE may instruct the jury on what the law is. Sorry, but that's the way it is, and that's the way it's always been. The members of the jury are not allowed to review the statute books and court decisions themselves and make their own conclusions about what the law is. Members of the jury are not even allowed (or should not be allowed) to look at Black's Law Dictionary. Allowing the jury to evaluate the law itself arguably would be a procedure that could result in a catastrophe for equal justice under law.

Under the U.S. legal system, what the jury does in a trial -- civil or criminal -- is to determine what are called "questions of fact," and not "questions of law." Did the defendant write his name on that particular lease document with the intent to authenticate that document and bind himself to make rent payments? Did the defendant take that particular gun and shoot that particular victim on such and such a date? And so on.

Thus, look at the statements again:

All deny the legitimacy of the income-tax laws, including Irwin Schiff, who is now in jail because a judge refused to allow Irwin to introduce the law in the courtroom to defend himself. The judge stated that he would decide what the law was.

The above statements tend to leave the incorrect impression that the judge did something wrong or incorrect from a legal standpoint, or that the judge's ruling was somehow unusual. The statements tend to leave the arguably false impression that Mr. Schiff somehow was not given his fair day in court.

Indeed, the judge may actually have been doing Mr. Schiff a favor by not allowing the jury to see Schiff's materials. Mr. Schiff -- like virtually all protesters -- tends to cite court decisions. All court decisions essentially contradict his own positions. For example, like many protesters Mr. Schiff has been known to rely on the Merchants' Loan case. Many protesters cite this case for the argument that only "corporate profits" can be "income" -- despite the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court in that case ruled that gain on the sale of stock by the estate of a dead person (a non-corporate taxpayer) is INCOME and is TAXABLE.

The paragraph beginning with the words "The movie is absolutely fantastic [ . . . ]" seems to speak for itself. This needs major re-working to make it neutral point of view.

Stay tuned. Yours, Famspear 01:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Footnote to my August 7th comments: The excised material also included the statement that the film "includes interviews with a host of people who are experts, scholars and whistle-blowers [ . . . ]" I'm not sure about the term "whistleblower," but I don't think Wikipedia can take a position in an article that that a particular person is an "expert" or "scholar" with respect to something as technical and complex as U.S. Federal income taxation, at least not in that way.

You could say, for example, that a particular person is being quoted as having a particular view on elementary particle physics and that, in connection therewith, that person has a Ph.D. in physics from Harvard. Or you could say that this Ph.D. in physics has published these specific articles on physics in peer reviewed scientific journals (naming the articles, with full citations). You could even say that such a person was designated by a court as an expert witness under the Federal Rules of Evidence in a specific court case, etc. (again, with full citations to the cases). Those kinds of statements might be VERIFIABLE for purposes of Wikipedia. The reader could then reach his or her own conclusion, if desired, about whether that person was an "expert" in that field. Yours, Famspear 15:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me Famspear, but are you a lawyer? It seems so and you've elaborated so much on that. Thank you for shedding some light. Yet one thing.

"Under our legal system ONLY THE JUDGE may instruct the jury on what the law is."

I couldn't agree more but since you've pointed out that this is a legal system... then shouldn't the judge instruct the jury on what the law is? And since there is no law, the judge should instruct so. Right?

What I mean is that do you just try to tell common people that "THEY DON'T KNOW THE LAW, IS THE JUDGE WHO DOES." (!?). Well I hope he DOES! And if he doesn't then he should be taught! Your whole arguement fails. (I mean it's correct that judge should give the law, but if he is wrong since there is no law, do you propose not to protest against the judge?) What exactly is your opinion on that? You bring an argument:

"that gain on the sale of stock by the estate of a dead person (a non-corporate taxpayer) is INCOME and is TAXABLE."

I don't see how does it relate to the income of a living person? The estate of a living person and of a dead person is something completely different. How would you argue with the statement that "labour is an EXCHANGE between employee and an employer"? Can you elaborate more, yet a bit shorter? Thanks.--SalvNaut 03:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear SalvNaut: No, you are incorrect when you say there's "no law" (if by that you mean there is no law in the USA imposing the legal obligations to file Federal income tax returns and pay income taxes on compensation for personal services "exchanged" between employee and employer, whether called wages or salaries or whatever, and imposing civil and criminal penalties for willful failure to do so). So, obviously the judge is right and you are wrong.

You seem to be confused about the statement "that gain on the sale of stock by the estate of a dead person (a non-corporate taxpayer) is INCOME and is TAXABLE." You say you don't see how "it" relates to the income of a living person. You apparently are referring to the Merchants' Loan decision and the tax protesters' phony "corporate profits" argument. Therefore, you might want to consider reading Tax protester constitutional arguments (especially the section on "Taxing labor and income from labor") and Tax protester statutory arguments very carefully. The statutes and some of the court decisions on taxation of income of living people are listed in those articles. Yours, Famspear 15:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The Supreme court ruled several times that the Federal Income Tax act was unconstitutional. Is that worth mentioning? is it worth noting in and on wikipedia? is it worth noting that it is not ratified? is it worth noting that omitting information can be as serious as, and tantamount to lying? is not disinformation the same as lying/propaganda? Are we to live in a world that omits information and controversy? Do you fully understand the implications of creating, defending propagating such a world?

Schiff? what Schiff?

quote from the article "The Times notes that Schiff introduced into his criminal case the notes of his psychiatrist, who concluded that Mr. Schiff is delusional, believing he alone could properly interpret the tax code, as a way to avoid acknowledging reality." doesn't seem to make any sense [above question posed by user S Sepp on 8 August 2006]

The reference is to "Irwin Schiff" as mentioned in the immediately preceding sentence in the article. I'll pull the two sentences together in one paragraph. Yours, Famspear 21:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Erm, I guess I was tired. S Sepp 19:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a separate article on America: From Freedom to Fascism

More material was added to the Aaron Russo article on 18 August 2006 regarding his 2006 film release, America: From Freedom to Fascism, also known as America: Freedom to Fascism. I'm not sure if the material is appropriate, but I've moved it to the article on the film itself, to avoid duplication. The material can be evaluated there. Yours, Famspear 16:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment on “Reversion of material on 6 August 2006”

However, U.S. law requires that this kind of material NOT be shown to a JURY if, basically, the real reason the defendant (or prosecutor, for that matter) wants to show the jury the materials is to PERSUADE THE JURY ABOUT WHAT THE LAW IS. Under the U.S. legal system, neither the prosecutor, nor the defendant, nor the defendant's attorney, nor the bailiff, nor the court reporter, nor the court clerk, nor members of the jury themselves, are allowed to present materials TO THE MEMBERS OF THE JURY THEMSELVES on WHAT THE LAW IS OR MAY BE. Under our legal system ONLY THE JUDGE may instruct the jury on what the law is. Sorry, but that's the way it is, and that's the way it's always been.

I take issue with this. If the issue is willfulness based on the defendant’s interpretation of the law how can a judge tell the jury what the law is in his own words and deny the defendant from providing his interpritation along with the relevant sections? That assumes the defendant could have only interpreted the law as the judge describes it. If the jury can be confused by the defendant’s interpretation of the law along with seeing the law itself then certainly it’s reasonable to believe the defendant could also be confused by his own interpretation of the law. Surely, if 12 jurors can be confused with a judge sitting there explaining the law and the prosecution arguing the defendant acted willfully then certainly it's reasonable to believe the defendant was honestly confused and failed to act willfully. To say otherwise ignores common sense. In my humble opinion the mere fact that a judge would claim the law itself might confuse the jury is an admission that it’s likely that the tax protestor failed to act willfully. This of course assumes the tax protestor based his belief on what he has read within the law.

The crux of the issue which many judges disregard in many tax protestor cases is that the defendant is not telling the jury what the law is. By your own admission a defendant doesn’t have the power to say what the law means, so no matter what they might say it will not be the “law”. The defendant is merely providing the jury with his belief of what he thought the law means and no matter what he might say it will never amount to anything more than that. There is nothing that prevents a judge from explaining the true meaning of the law to the jury and making sure the jury understands that the defendant’s interpretation is incorrect. To deny evidence that possibly negates willfulness would be a violation of someone’s sixth amendment right.

In this case, if Cheek asserted that he truly believed that the Internal Revenue Code did not purport to treat wages as income, and the jury believed him, the Government would not have carried its burden to prove willfulness, however unreasonable a court might deem such a belief. Of course, in deciding whether to credit Cheek's good-faith belief claim, the jury would be free to consider any admissible evidence from any source showing that Cheek was aware of his duty to file a return and to treat wages as income, including evidence showing his awareness of the relevant provisions of the Code or regulations, of court decisions rejecting his interpretation of the tax law, of authoritative rulings of the Internal Revenue Service, or of any contents of the personal income tax return forms and accompanying instructions that made it plain that wages should be returned as income.

...

It was therefore error to instruct the jury to disregard evidence of Cheek's understanding that, within the meaning of the tax laws, he was not a person required to file a return or to pay income taxes and that wages are not taxable income, as incredible as such misunderstandings of and beliefs about the law might be.

CHEEK v. UNITED STATES, 498 U.S. 192 (1991). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.242.156.150 (talk • contribs) .

Dear anonmyous user at IP 24.242.156.150: Again, the verbiage in question that was removed from the article was:

All deny the legitimacy of the income-tax laws, including Irwin Schiff, who is now in jail because a judge refused to allow Irwin to introduce the law in the courtroom to defend himself. The judge stated that he would decide what the law was.

I think if you look at Mr. Schiff's own web site, you will see comments like these (presumptively copyrighted material, excerpted under the Fair Use Doctrine]:

Therefore, how did Judge Dawson prevent me from proving that no income tax law imposed a "duty" upon me, and that I knew of such a "duty" – thereby sparing the government the need of having to prove these first two elements of its burden, while preventing me from proving that none of the Government’s IRS witnesses had any legal authority to do what they testified they did. [ . . . ] How could I prove that no "law" imposed any "duty" upon me (and therefore I "knew" of such a "duty") if I could not bring up the law itself?[1]

I think the judge in the Schiff case concluded that Schiff's real purpose was not merely to try to prove Schiff's alleged "lack of willfulness" or "misunderstanding" of the law. I suspect the judge concluded that Schiff's purpose during the trial was to prove to the jury that there is no law imposing the income tax obligations on him, etc. -- in other words, that Schiff's real purpose was to convince the jury that Schiff's interpretation of the law was the correct interpretation. That's not permissible under the U.S. legal system. Leaving the excised verbiage in the article would have been misleading to Wikipedia readers as to why Schiff was not allowed to present evidence of "the law" to the jury. Yours, Famspear 21:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Concern about crappy sources

There is no reliable source that Aaron Russo is dead. I question whether he is actually deceased. The proffered source [2], seems to be a press release site where anyone can release a press release. It is unattributed and I do not believe it meets WP:RS. Furthermore, most of the remaining sources in this article are links to blog posts and likely do not meet WP:RS either. Quatloo 18:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I am also a bit nervous about the quality of the sourcing on this. I have been looking on regular, reliable news outlets but I have not seen anything yet. Famspear 19:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, as far as WP:RS goes, I think this works: [3]. However, Steve Gordon's blog, while not an RS that we need to be citing necessarily (although I think this is a borderline case, since Gordon is notable himself), is pretty likely to be right about this issue. Gordon managed Russo's 04 bid for the LP nom and in so doing traveled with Russo. They have since maintained a friendship. I find it very unlikely that Steve would say his friend was dead, and write a tribute to him--with tears--if he wasn't pretty sure. Again, we might not cite the Gordon source for this claim, but I think that shores up the TransWorldNews claim pretty conclusively. DickClarkMises 19:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with you, I do not think "TransWorldNews" [4] works at all. As I said above, it's just a press release site, and anyone can get a press release published. That press release is not even attributed to who wrote it. It's no better than -- in fact, it's worse than -- a blog post. It's anonymous and unverifiable crap. And no blog, even by a notable individual, is a reliable source for the purposes of WP:BLP. Quatloo 20:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong. A blog published by the subject of the article is almost always considered a reliable source for non-controversial information. See also reliable source for Russo's death cited below. DickClarkMises 21:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

No, you are quite wrong as this involves a living or recently dead individual (BLP applies to both). See the section on self published sources (which includes blogs), where I quote, Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP. [5] Quatloo 21:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Also I should mention that one cannot self-publish the news of one's death, what with being dead and all. Quatloo 21:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Right, but I wasn't talking about this case. I was just contradicting your general claim above that no blog, even by a notable individual, is a reliable source. That is false. A blog by a notable individual that posts non-controversial information about that person is indeed sometimes accepted as a reliable source. See WP:BLP#Reliable_sources, which states, blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. I was offering a counterexample to your claim above, that is all. That is why I specifically said, A blog published by the subject of the article is almost always considered a reliable source for non-controversial information. I am quite aware that dead people do not post about themselves, and the AP piece published by the Mercury makes all of this moot, anyway, since they are clearly a reliable source that obviates the need for the Gordon piece or the TransWorld piece. DickClarkMises 22:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I was referring to third-party blogs as is the case here. Russo's blog (if he even had one) is not used here. There are four blogs used as references in this article, none of which are Russo's. None of them are acceptable as sources. And no blog is ever acceptable as a source for someone's death. Quatloo 23:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Except in cases of suicide, I presume? :) DickClarkMises 23:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

No, an unsuccessful suicide (permanent injury or brain death) or nearly successful suicide (death delayed by 24 hours or more) would call in question whether there was in fact a death and if so, the date of death. Quatloo 02:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The lack of reliable sources is a problem, but it could just be that he is only marginally notable, and mainstream press isn't picking it up. Eventually there will be an obituary, and that will be reliable enough. - Crockspot 21:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

This individual is not marginally notable. Quatloo 21:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

He's not Michael Moore is what I mean. I never heard of him until you posted on the BLPN. Crockspot 02:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Boom. Reliable source: [6]. DickClarkMises 21:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

There you go, case closed. - Crockspot 02:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Added link to Associated Press story. Famspear 03:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Go to prisonplanet.com if you want a source mister fearspam oops famspear —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.85.69.10 (talk) 03:10, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Defintely need better and more extensive sourceing. Lord Metroid 16:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear anonymous user at IP199.85.69.10: "prisonplanet.com" as reliable sourcing for an encyclopedia?????? Uh, I think that under Wikipedia rules and guidelines, the Associated Press just might be considered quite a bit more reliable that "prisonplanet" for an assertion on the passing of Mr. Aaron Russo. Yours, Famspear 16:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Alex had lots of contact with Aaron himself so there are lots of first hand information recorded by Alex Jones so I think for this case prisonplanet and infowars actually might be quite good sources. Lord Metroid 21:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately first-hand information that is self-published is third party BLP information and cannot be used at all. Quatloo 21:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear editor Lord Metroid: Interesting point. I'm just saying that as a general proposition, Wikipedia editors are going to consider the Associated Press to be light years ahead of "prisonplanet" as a reliable source for news. I'm not sure why IP199.85.69.10 mentioned "prisonplanet" when we already had the Associated Press, as though perhaps the Associated Press story was somehow not reliable enough under Wikipedia guidelines and we needed "prisonplanet" of all things to bolster it. I'm saying that the fact that somebody might have "first hand" information on Mr. Russo does not necessarily make that information more reliable (or even more accurate) -- for purposes of citation in an encyclopedia -- than a story from the Associated Press.

That doesn't mean that a major news organization cannot be wrong. I saw a Reuters story just the other day referring back to Hurricane Rita in 2005 as having made land fall at the Texas-Louisiana border "near New Orleans", or words to that effect. The storm did make landfall near the Texas-Louisiana border, but that is over 200 miles from New Orleans. In terms of physical distance, it would be like being in New York City and saying to someone, "Hey, I'll meet you right in front of the Empire State Building, near Washington DC." I suspect few people in New York City would consider the Empire State Building to be "near" Washington DC, in any meaningful sense.

So, I'll grant that the mere fact that the Associated Press or Reuters are considered more reliable than, say, "prisonplanet" does not mean that those sterling news organizations are always correct. Yours, Famspear 21:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a great and reliable and official source for deaths. That is the SS death index...http://ssdi.rootsweb.ancestry.com/. Since all we are talking about is officialdom and not reality, since we are all spirits, he isnt really dead, just in another plane, we can categorically state that he is officially and reliably dead. NO question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.243.5.185 (talk • contribs) on 29 April 2008

Off topic question

HOW can a jury decide if a person is guilty of breaking a certain law if they cant see info on what the law is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.38.33 (talk • contribs) (on 30 August 2007)

Some of this is already discussed earlier on this talk page. Under the U.S. legal system, the jury is given written information on what the law is when the jury begins deliberating a verdict. This information is contained in a document called the "jury instruction" or the "charge to the jury." In a criminal case, this information generally includes, for each charge, a description of the law on which elements must be proven (beyond a reasonable doubt) in order for the jury to find the defendant guilty. The law as described in these written instructions is determined not by the bailiff, or by the court reporter, or the court clerk, or the attorneys, or by members of the news media, or by people watching the trial, or by the prosecutor or the defendant. The law as described in these written instructions is determined by the judge. Famspear 11:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Rockefeller Claims

Why is there no mention (aside from a link) of this [[7]], it's *extremely* relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.241.59.192 (talk) 21:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Nicholas Rockefeller is entirely fictitious. He does not exist. Please forget everything you ever heard about him. (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.131.111 (talk) 08:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If nick rockhead is fictitious then how do explain the following links then hey??? [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]

Yeah I suppose you're right, Aaron Russo is just a "lying conspiracy theorist nut job racist anti-semitic extreme left wing extreme right wing anarchist un-American pig". This wiki entry and the talk page comments are so full of shill comments and establishment propaganda. The guy is a TRUE Patriot, unlike any of you folk who result to lying and ad hominem attacks. Don't hide behind the name calling and labeling such as "extremist" or "extreme wingist" (either right or left - who cares) or republican vs democrat drivel. Just deal with the facts, that nick rockefeller exists and that he is a very powerful individual who is privy to some very top level international intelligence that the ordinary folks off the street would never have access to. Here is his bio from http://www.nicholasrockefeller.org/ "His clients include several multinational companies and many succesful technology ventures throughout the world. His securities practice includes litigation before the United States Supreme Court and a number of his transactions have been featured in leading periodicals. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the International Insitutute of Strategic Studies, the Advisory Board of RAND, the Pacific Council on International Policy, the Committee on Foreign Relations in Los Angeles, the Western Justice Center, and has served as a participant in the World Economic Forum and the Aspen Institute. He is a member of the Board of Visitors of the Law Schools of the University of Oregon and Pepperdine University and is active in the affairs of his alma mater, Yale University. He recently chaired a panel at the United Nations on E-Commerce and is a co-author of "Economic Strategy and National Security."

This man would definitely have knowledge of future political events and big business deals when you consider that dick cheney the Iraqi war profiteer (think haliburton) was the director of the CFR [14] - You Tube video entitled "Dick Cheney ex-director of CFR talks to David Rockefeller"

Refer to the wiki entry on "PNAC" and the "New Pearl Harbour" and "Council on Foreign Relations" The CFR make BIG decisions for the future of the world, YES they set foreign and domestic policy at their meetings!

Wake up and do some REAL research! --Cantsi Wontsi (talk) 02:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't care I just don't want to be chipped. Oh my god you people can be tricked but I don't want my life being controlled by a Police state with verichip and... Oh hell I'm just going back to Uncyclopedia. --Obamaspam (talk) 01:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio reverted

The contents of this article were replaced on 14:11, August 25, 2007 with material copied verbatim from http://defendindependence.org/ARM/AaronRussoBiography.HTML. I have now reverted back to the version without the copyvio. There have been a number of changes to the material in the past two years, and any edits of value should be redone. Sorry for the inconvenience.   Will Beback  talk  03:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Next time, instead of reverting an article to what it was two years ago, just do us a favor and remove only the copyrighted content. Eugeniu Bmsg 01:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)