It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Net censorship?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 16 2003 @ 10:53 AM
Someone doesn't like our message," a constitutional activist has concluded after his streaming web-based broadcast urging Americans not to pay taxes to the federal government until it addresses a series of "grievances" got knocked off the air.

Bob Schulz, founder of the constitutional education organization We The People and planner of numerous tax-reform protests ń including a personal 20-day hunger strike ń to press the federal government to prove the legality of the income tax, suspects his latest endeavor may have been intentionally thwarted.

posted on Jan, 16 2003 @ 02:11 PM
It probably has to do with bandwidth on the server.

His stuff has been around for years and years and years and years and is just... lame. I've seen briefs filed by his followers trying to claim that the court was illegal since there was a fringe around the flag. Another one claimed that the teddy bear the judge kept in chambers to comfort frightened kids was actually bugged and sending out mind control waves.

(yes, they REALLY filed this stuff in legal briefs.)

posted on Jan, 16 2003 @ 04:14 PM
Hmm...not paying taxes because you have "greivances" seems a bit like chopping off your arm if your mom doesn't give you the cookies

"I'll chop it off I swear!"

no signature

posted on Jan, 16 2003 @ 08:05 PM
I don't know about the tedyy bear thing (heresay), but the fact that the gold fringe on the flag indicates that the flag set executive jurisdiction is just that - fact.

I've never heard of this guy and have not clicked through to the story yet, but speaking as a constitutionalist not affiliated with this guy (or anyone else at this time) I can assure you that the flag has more meaning than just something with which to decorate one'c car. The fringe has meaning, as well as how a flag is displayed. The flag sets jurisdiction, and if the flag displayed in a courtroom is not a flag of peace but an executive flag, or maritime or wartime, what do you think that does to your rights? If the citizen is ignorant and wanders into such an environment expecting to retain his rights, who is a responsible for that ignorance? Not the government, as there are so many signs and clues for the semi-lucid to pick up it isn't even funny.

new topics

top topics

log in