They do, afterall, control both sides of the argument. So it would seem to me, on the basis of the omission of the information presented in George Mercier's "Invisible Contracts", that said information is either false or it has been purposefully left out of the "Tax Freedom Movement" altogether, which would suggest that the "Tax Freedom Movement" itself is an establishment front. How likely is it that someone could be that close to the Rockefeller family, and simply "refuse" their demands to stop pursuing information that criminalizes them? My guess would be that all those who refuse such demands do not live another day, and all those who accept such demands are not told to "come to the other side," but are told what they will and will not disclose in regards to the Federal Reserve and the Income Tax. He said that during his campaign for Governor of Nevada, Rockefeller tried to befriend him and bring him over to "the other side," offering him a position on the Council on Foreign Relations and other such things. How is it that his researchers did not find this information?Ģ) In a talk that I saw Russo give to an audience, he mentions his relationship to Nick Rockefeller.
Invisible contracts george mercier movie#
So there are two possibilities here to consider:ġ) Aaron Russo was not aware of this information regarding the contracts that make the income tax legal.Ģ) Aaron Russo was aware of this information, but chose not to use it in his movie for whatever reason.Īnd here are 2 things that lead me to believe that option number 2 might be closer to the truth:ġ) This information is easily available by doing a simple Google search. And if he did, did Russo edit this part out? I have received no reply from Griffin so far on this matter. He wrote back saying "You had me worried there for a minute." I wrote him back and asked him specifically if he was aware of this information and if he presented it to Aaron Russo when he was interviewed for Freedom to Fascism. I told him it was the simple omission of said information from his site.
He responded and asked what that I had read led me to believe that he wasn't aware of this. I told him that based on what I'd read on his web site, I assumed that he was not aware of the information presented in " Invisible Contracts" and I gave him this link to read it. if a regular dude like me can find and understand this information, how is it that it evaded every single one of the "tax law experts" that Russo interviewed? I actually have had some correspondence with G Edward Griffin on the matter.
It matters not if the tax itself is legal or not, and the lower courts have-on a regular basis-ignored the Supreme Court's decision that the 16th Amendment gave no new powers of taxation to the Federal Government. These contracts all include language that requires you to pay the Federal Income Tax. Same thing goes with your driver's license. When you opened your bank account, did you read all of the fine print and then read all of the fine print on all of the documents referenced in the original fine print? I doubt it. The income tax is enforced by a myriad of "invisible" contracts that 99% of all Americans have signed, mostly without their knowledge. But regardless, if you break this contract, you are liable to pay damages to the other party involved.
Invisible contracts george mercier free#
For instance, a non-disclosure agreement violates your first amendment rights to free speech. How is this possible? Simple-it's contract law, as is evidenced by George Mercier's " Invisible Contracts".Ī contract does not have to be constitutional to be legal. It is not constitutional, but it is perfectly legal. I think Aaron Russo's film America: Freedom to Fascism is an excellent exposé on the Federal Reserve, the Income Tax system, and the near-future plans of the NWO.
0 kommentar(er)
