0 votes

Its Up To Us - 'Articles Of Freedom' - National Coalition - New Website!

Read it and dream...then take right action:


Arrangements are being made to bring Bob Schulz to Minnesota to speak to the 'liberty factions'.

Efforts to bring Bob to all the other States to speak will need to be done by all you enterprising people out there.

The word has to get out to all Americans via the people's media!

Please get involved and help us 'Restore the Republic'

Dr. Paul ignited this movement and now the people have the greatest chance to follow through 'non-violent' civic actions.

Let us take the torch and run with it!

We can only TRY!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Please spread the word about the Articles of Freedom.

Please spread the word about the Articles of Freedom. We will put the Government in check! Join the Delegates and a "goodly number of millions" of Americans in signing the Pledge http://www.articlesoffreedom.us/Pledge.aspx

Freedom is NOT free!

By the way, is it possible to read a copy of the AoF

without that absolutely annoying interface? I mean hasn't Bob ever heard of PDF?

If he wants to share this with the world, why not?

That applet behavior drove me nuts. I could not use my scroll wheel as normal, and the save to disk option doesn't do anything.

It made it very difficult to read.


I agree!

it should be a little easier for We to use.

PDF would be preferable to me too... but I'll read it nonetheless...

edit: ahhh now we sees it. in the drop down tab.

yes, there is a dropdown

pock the way that you want to read it.

Freedom is NOT free!

Thanks I found it.

Turns out the link in the OP took me to the FLASH version. Going to the main domain gives me the home page with the menu that gets you to different formats. (and that garish image of Geo. Washington. Not my favorite image of him, but decent art for art's sake anyway)


Garish, indeed.

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

Anisha, here are the reasons for my views about Bob Schulz

I wasn't able to dig up all of my old bookmarks. I guess I deleted them since I wasn't concerned with any of his stuff anymore, but I was able to find a few of them and some new stuff as well. It seems he hasn't changed much in his ways as some delegates to CC09 purport.

I will not go through minute details, but rather summarize the point and provide you with websites that go more in-depth for your own research.

For starters, let's deal with the definition of the word I used "charlatan"

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlatan

A charlatan (also called swindler or mountebank) is a person practicing quackery or some similar confidence trick in order to obtain money, fame or other advantages via some form of pretense or deception.
In usage, a subtle difference is drawn between the charlatan and other kinds of confidence people. The charlatan is usually a salesperson. He does not try to create a personal relationship with his marks, or set up an elaborate hoax using role playing. Rather, the person called a charlatan is being accused of resorting to quackery, pseudoscience, or some knowingly employed bogus means of impressing people in order to swindle his victims by selling them worthless nostrums and similar goods or services that will not deliver on the promises made for them. The word calls forth the image of an old-time medicine show operator, who has long left town by the time the people who bought his snake oil tonic realize that it does not perform as advertised.

I have six main points to bring to your attention why I think this definition fits Schulz.

#1 His past behavior with regards to the income tax

Mr. Schulz was tried and found guilty of tax crimes through his previous efforts. He was found guilty of running an illegal tax shelter via his, get this, "CHARITY" called We the People Foundation. That's right. WTP is not just any old civic non-profit group. Bob set it up as a "charity" and uses that non-profit status to avoid paying taxes. It is anything but charitable to anyone but Bob's pocket. It is a commercial enterprise selling tax schemes and information which he has been ordered NOT to do by the courts because they make false claims: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18096539/

and: http://www.quatlosers.com/bob_schultz.htm

That last site also lists others in the "tax movement" that vehemently disagree with Schulz on his reasoning against the tax. Bob may be right that there is something not right with the income tax, but his logic and reasoning about why and where is all wrong. The court has made that very clear to him. He of course claims the court is wrong and he will press on.

#2 His fraudulent use of an online petition as a vehicle to collect email addresses for spam.

He used emails taken in confidence from signers of an online petition about making sure military ballots were properly counted in the 2000 election and spammed those signers with invitations to a conference where he would peddle his illegal tax schemes: http://www.rxshuster.org/bob_schulz.htm

#3 His past behavior with regards to "regionalism" and his penchant for dangerous Constitutional Conventions.

Around the same time that MR. Schulz was involved with his hunger strike over taxes, his past came to light that he was also involved in some dubious efforts in '97 to foist a State Constitutional Convention on New York in an effort to institute forced "regionalism" as envisioned by the Rockefeller Foundation for Government. Schulz does not deny his involvement in this, because he can't. There is too much evidence and too many people know about it. There is also some evidence that he intended to do this on the national level in '93. Under this system, the states would be obliterated, and the new unicameral legislature (no more House and Senate) would "redraw" the states as they saw fit. Bob sold and peddled these ConCons as a vehicle to "protect liberty" and then intended to let the Rockefeller boys "force" regional "governance" on the people of New York, and if he had his way, the entire nation.

You can find some introductory material about Bob's involvement in the ConCons here: http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/wolves/shultz.htm and another open letter here: http://iahf.com/usa/20010910.html

Maybe Bob was well meaning and just misguided about how dangerous this is. Maybe he thought he was doing good. However his behavior through all of this speaks otherwise. He sells the ConCon on one pretense, while secretly working with groups that are known to be hostile to liberty. As well, he quickly leaves, changes the subject or avoids where possible all scrutiny when pressed on this.

#4 The CC09 was not transparent, nor open and free debate.

Its agenda was predetermined as was the "product" you spout called the Articles of Freedom. Here are two articles describing why the CC09 was so dangerous:


Of course, he is entirely WRONG about an Article V convention, and about the tenth amendment, in fact, his own arguments against the CC09 are proof positive how dangerous a ConCon under Article V would be. I'm sure if he knew Bob's history with ConCons in New York, he might change his mind. If you can get through the drivel on the tenth amendment and the alleged wonders of Article V (just "trust us" - yeah right) there is some point on material about the problems with the CC09 in particular, and its approach. *he is dead wrong about the militia argument. However, the point here is Perception is Reality. If this wack-job has this perception, do you not think others perhaps in government or who are less educated might too?

Remember YOU cited the "alter or abolish" and "throw off" clauses of the Declaration to Support Bob. The term Continental Congress has very clear and unmistakable historical connotations. When the Declaration of Independence is used to defend and justify the use of a Continental Congress, the implication is without question. Most especially when the section you cite is centered around those two clauses. When paired with the actual language in the Articles of Freedom, the conclusions Mr. Williams (though in a very hot headed manner) draws are VERY easy for anyone to reasonably draw as well. CC09 was about insurrection and rebellion. Despite some cautionary language to the contrary in the document. That will not change perceptions established as a result of the use of the historical term and the Declaration as justification.

#5 The CC09 is nothing more than a continuation of the Petition issue.

It is clear from this article as you can find I'm sure in the literature leading up to the congress, that this is simply more of the same with respect to the petition for redress: http://articles.lancasteronline.com/local/4/244739

The language of the AoF is pretty clear. As well, it cannot in any way be a legally binding document upon the states or the national government. It is merely a more elaborate petition with the sought after "redress" included in the text. At best, this is really just a set of "wish lists" that he could make a website out of along with a "here's what you can do" section. And short of the calls for criminal activity with respect to taxes, it would probably work well if structured and laid out right. But do not be fooled, that was not any "legit" Congress, it had no authority or power of the states, issued nothing binding nor could it, was controlled top down, and its product is nothing more than a more verbose petition for redress, which Bob has already been shot down in the courts with. At best, it is a useless effort. At worst, an instrument of criminal activity.

#6 Bob Schulz continues with his illegal tax activity.

Others in the Tax Honesty Movement (as opposed to tax protesters) wonder why Bob is still not getting it through his head that he is barking up the wrong tree: http://www.americanradioshow.us/archive/AR20070728-1-32K.mp3
*link to mp3 audio file

Specifically to more present issues related to Bob's Tax activities, and how that relates to the CC09 from a former delegate, read here: http://www.teapartypatriots.org/BlogPostView.aspx?id=dbb5b58...

Most troubling for you Anisha and others who signed the Articles of Freedom, is the order that the court handed down to :

provide the government "the names and contact information of the individuals who have received the tax materials."[14] The Court of Appeals stated:
The district court found that defendants' illegal activities were harming individuals, who were exposing themselves to criminal liability by following the defendants' ill-conceived instructions. [ . . . ] Requiring defendants to provide the identity and contact information of the recipients of the tax materials enables the government to monitor the defendants' obligation under the injunction to provide a copy of the district court's order to recipients of the tax materials. Moreover, the district court found that the defendants' illegal actions were harming the government [ . . . ] Requiring defendants to provide the identity and contact information [ . . . ] enables the government to monitor whether the recipients of defendants' materials are violating the tax laws. Thus, we find no abuse of discretion with respect to the district court's imposition of the reporting requirements in Paragraph C of the injunction.

While this was in regards to the previous tax case, if Bob is tried again for a repeat offense with the CC09 project, then he will be forced to turn over your contact info so the government can track you down and keep an eye on you. If you promote Bob's stuff on your own, YOU could end up in prison with him, should he be convicted for again peddling illegal tax information. At the least, as noted above by Mr. Williams on the Nolan Chart, the Articles of Freedom, concerning Income Taxes, #6 of the section of civic actions recommended states:

"Be prepared to withhold their income tax form the government"

They can get you for conspiring and telling others to commit a crime. Even if they don't get Bob, they can go after you once they get his contact database.

The DOJ filing, and Bob's losing the case, is clear evidence that he was selling false tax information.

In summation, Bob Schulz has been involved since 1993 in attempting to change our form of government in a surreptitious manner, engaged in fraudulent activities with a false charity as a tax shelter, fraudulently used an online petition to spam signers and involve them in his illegal tax activities, wasted peoples time and money on fruitless efforts he was told would be fruitless and why with the petition case, and continues to try to involve people in his illegal activities under false pretenses with the CC09.

He peddles false remedies that have no foundation in law, conducts business under false pretenses, was and still is (since he continues these activities) a snake oil salesman - a charlatan.

look, I don't know this bob

look, I don't know this bob schultz dude from bob hope, and you may be correct about his character (which is something else that falls next to the volume of bears defocating in the woods on my priority list)- but your defense of corrupt laws makes your mssg. bear more in common with a high-school social studies teacher than "Sam Adams". You espouse fear of the govt.- we are the govt. we own the govt.(as soon as the masses realize this the sooner the chicanery and monkey business of the fleecing of the USA will be corrected). you encourage people to be afraid of themselves, or is it the private i.r.s. corp. you consider worthy of fear, panic, hysteria, defeatism ?


evaluation of Samadams diatribe is on the mark. Thanks for pointing out the obvious, which apparently is not obvious to Sam.



the bob schultz character issue is next in priority to bear dumping as in bears' bowel movements are somewhat MORE important to me...


"While this was in regards to the previous tax case, if Bob is tried again for a repeat offense with the CC09 project, then he will be forced to turn over your contact info so the government can track you down and keep an eye on you."

OOOOO,I am shaking in my garden boots sam. I am pretty positive all of us on Daily Paul are tracked down and watched.

I am also watched by my celestials and I only trust in God's laws so they can do what they will to me if they wish.

As far as I am concerned it would be a pleasure and an honor to join Mr.Schulz in prison if need be. The 16th amendment was NEVER ratified. That is a fact. It is well documented now in the archives of the CC2009 for all the world to see.

Nothing would give me more pleasure and satisfaction then to be a 'political prisoner' not unlike my dear friend, Marc Emery who awaits extradition to the States from Canada for his 30 years activism to free Cannabis from the bankers.

But they will have to 'show the law' to my jury so I don't expect that will happen will it? Do you think?

You know, for someone who has chosen one of my favorite founding fathers, Sam Adams, you certainly lack his balls and courage. Is there some reason you chose Sam Adams?

I do not consider you a 'liberty' activist here on Daily Paul, sam.

You talk and think like some of my 'old' Liberal acquaintances. Those who like to play it safe, you know, as long as you don't have to take a 'real' stand on something and really have to stick your neck out for others sake.

I watched them sell out over the years because 'they were afraid'. Didn't matter that they betrayed their own sovereignty and Rights and helped to erode that of their neighbors.

But cowards will be cowards.

I didn't write that as any kind of threat or warning. I wrote

it to tell you why I called Bob that.

As for being a coward, the things I have done, and still do are anything but cowardly. If that described me, then I'd pack it all up, re-register as a republican, and vote for every neo-con on the ballot.

Anyone who knows me would never use that word to describe me.

I do not "sell out." I see Bob as toxic at worst, and pointless at best. The CC09 will go just as far as the petition case did - no where.

I do take a stand on many occasions. Perhaps you need to read all of my previous posts and comments. I've even gotten quite heated and vehement at times.

I don't hold anything back or play it safe. If that were me, you wouldn't have gotten all bent out of shape over my comments. I would have never made them.

My own activities in life, as well as my writings here on the DP speak for themselves. In them you will find no "playing it safe" at all.

p.s. - I noticed you were quick to respond, so you obviously have either ignored everything I just posted, or you are still pondering it. Bob's fraud is well documented. It has been made known to you. Further support on your part is clearly blind. Do what you will. I don't care. I have met your call to justify my comment.

I was aware of all of this. Nothing new to me.

All that you posted here is evidence of one American man's courage of his convictions. He is nothing more than a wonderful example of the battles that a 'real' American must face if he is true to his word and walks his talk.

As you can see, he is still walking...and free!

I still hold you in contempt of slandering a patriot.

It isn't slander if it is true Anisha.

Bob never disputed his efforts with the ConCons or his push for regionalism or a unicameral national legislature. He never disputed his push to shift the origin of legitimate power from the people to the government.

You knew about him and his pushing the ConCons? You support taking the power of government out of the hands of the people and focusing it in the State to be dolled out as "leaders see fit?" You support state governments deciding home rule instead of the people? You support telling the people the ConCon is for one purpose when it is really for another? You support Obliterating the States as they are now, abolishing Congress, recreating it as a unicameral legislature, and give it the power to draw state boundaries and dictate how the nation shall be governed and divided?

If so Anisha, and by your statement above saying you knew all about this and that you still support Bob, then you stand in direct OPPOSITION to the principles in the Declaration of Independence that you quoted. Governments derived their just power from the consent of the GOVERNED. Supporting Bob's ConCon efforts means you disagree with that. It means you don't support the basic tennet of the Declaration.

You also knew about Bob setting up a petition website and then using those email addresses he collected under pretense of the petition for a totally unrelated purpose? That is FRAUD Anisha. He LIED by setting up that site and collecting those addresses for that petition. And then he engaged in SPAM, which is unwanted and unsolicited email communication. You support that?

You support Bob continuing to pursue tactics with respect to taxes that he KNOWS are illegal? And might I add WRONG. You didn't listen to that audio did you? Half way through, the host of the show explains exactly what the income tax does and does not apply to. And he later explains why BOB is WRONG on the voluntary argument. Listen to it. You will learn a lot.

So you support advocating people withhold taxes that they owe? That is exactly what is in the AoF. And that is exactly what Bob suggests. Like you, I don't agree that the tax applies to everyone no matter what. The law is very specific, (though quite obtusely) as to what Title 26 taxes apply to. Listen to that audio file. Listen to other shows on that archive page, including his new show http://www.davechampionshow.net. There is a right way to look at the tax code, there is the IRS way, and there is the wrong way. Bob has chosen the latter of the three. Mr. Champion will make that clear if you just bother to listen.

So Anisha I am calling on you to answer "once and for all" if you really did know of these underhanded and clearly fraudulent things Bob has done to people, and if you still support that behavior. You can support the issue Bob raised with CC09, we aren't talking about that. We are talking about Bob himself, and his obviously shady character. Do you support his efforts in the 90's to subvert the Constitution and negate the basic principles of the Declaration of Independence?

Answer Anisha. You owe it to those you are trying to convince to act with you.

Got anything else in your dossier , Herr samadamcsw?

Ist that all sie gestapo has on siez man?

I am disappointed wit you! I am thought that there would be some 'real' juicy evidences against siez mans character, but siez is quite boring...and old.

What else you haf? Anytink else?

Are you drunk? Why the sudden lack of ability with the

English language?

"Is that all I have?" YOU HAVEN'T ANSWERED ANY OF IT!

And no, I never "had it" I just found it on the net because you requested it. To be sure, I had read some of it before long ago when I first heard about Bob about 2002 or so. I don't know if what I found was the same stuff, or newer, but it was similar enough to what I remembered and so I posted it here. You are under some false impression that I kept a "dossier" on Bob Schulz just for the right moment when you would come along and talk him up. How preposterous. My time is too valuable for that, and I have already taken up too much of it on this thread.

You obviously have no rebuttal and are stuck. Fine. You don't want to answer my questions to back yourself up. No problem.

You sure talked a big game. You issued a challenge below all hot headed like. You posted several calls for my reputation to be denigrated because of it. You cross posted one of those to one of my threads. (against the TOS of this website) And you even started another thread calling me out to "account."

Then you must have found serenity because you edited some of those to be obviously much calmer.

Perhaps you just aren't at your best at 1am CST?

I acted in good faith and a sense of obligation to you and the other DPers reading this thread to justify my claim. I have done so and this is your reaction?

Stop wasting everyone's time. Get a grip.

I am 100% certain that should the time ever come I would be

the first one you would choose to have tortured in your fema camps like similar weak characters did to my family last century.

I will be sure to look you straight in the eye and laugh in your face!

Now you are just babbling.

"My" FEMA camps? I have no FEMA camps, and I will never go to one either. They'll never take me alive. I don't engage in torture, nor do I condone it.

As for what was done to ancestors, mine were treated rather poorly by British Canadians back in Nova Scotia, quite horribly actually, if that's how you want to play it.

My POINT is dear madam/sir,

is how dangerous it is when even ONE person LACKS the 'spirit' of the law and goes strickly 'by the book'. You get NAZIS or FASCISTS or COMMUNISTS along with their enforced political correctness.

I strongly recommend that you read the 18th century little booklet, Charles de Montesquieu's 'Spirit Of The Laws'

You are invited to go here, read, and bethink yourself:

Then, when the 'spirit' moves, you might wish to consider an apology to Mr.Schulz who for decades has spent most of his life consistently taking the government to court over violations to our Constitution.

Yes he has done many 'unorthodox' things in his life that many did not approve of, but the 'spirit' in which he did those things are understandable and forgivable. He was one man taking on a Goliath. Have you ever done that?

Can you not understand what it might be like to potentially be in the hairline of a snipers gun every day of your life for rocking the boat of the establishment all these decades???

Now, a real charlatan, which Bob is NOT, would have done all these things for his OWN selfish interest which he never has.

THIS IS A FALSE ACCUSATION ON YOUR PART because you clearly do NOT know him like so many of us do and followed his process.

He has many enemies for sure because what he has been doing shines the light on their darkness and their corruption.

That is why I insist you apologize for your slandering a true patriot. This man has bore the burdens of principle since the late 50's!!

I simply will not allow anyone to slander his good character and name.

You may disagree all you want with his methods for sure but don't you dare call him a 'charlatan' and that his intentions for CC2009 is 'insurrection'!

The great thing about America is the freedom to screw up, make mistakes, improve upon it and move on so long as the intentions are within our Constitutional law, what does it matter?

You noticed I said 'Constitutional'. The 16th amendment not being ratified by 2/3rds of the states IS NOT Constitutional. As far as he was concerned he did the right thing and good for him!

I think at this point we are talking past each other.

The "spirit" of the law is a double edged sword. It is just as important to keep intent in mind as it is not to ignore what the law actually says. After all, the "spirit" of the law cannot be determined if the actual language used is disregarded because it doesn't suit your cause.

"Spirit" of the law can be used just as much to correct a narrowly focused bureaucrat, as it can to light the path for tyranny. I'm sure Barack Obama could claim the "spirit" of the Constitution dictates slavery reparations. (I think he has even said as much) Be very careful with "spirit" of the law. Never lose sight of the actual text.

The best analogy I can think of this is to not focus on the forest and forget that it is made up of trees.

We've agreed to disagree on our own opinions of Bob. You stand by your position, and I stand by mine. Court documents prove his actions have most certainly benefited him personally at least in a financial sense. That is a matter of record. Make of that what you will or won't.

With respect to his intentions with the CC09, I do not know what they are. Looking at his past with this level of activity, I can only speculate in the negative. But that really isn't my point. My point is how it will be PERCEIVED by others. And I think I made it clear that it is highly probable that the perception will be the intent is something really dangerous. Maybe not from common folk, but the perception of the people who would really mess up your life - government. If you are willing to go that risk so be it.

On the point of the 16th amendment, the Supreme Court has stated quite clearly, that the amendment granted Congress "no new power of taxation." Thus the amendment is irrelevant to taxing the wages of the average American working in the private sector. Please, do yourself a favor and listen to the audio from Dave Champion. Forward to about 1/2 way till he is answering a letter about what is and is not taxable activity. He explains it very well. Also, check out his archives from that site as well as his new show http://davechampionshow.com He speaks many times about the tax issue. He points out why so many arguments lose in court and why. He's also had Dr. Ed Viera on to discuss this. (Ed was at CC09 I believe) I've been studying this issue since the early 90's myself, and this man makes the most sense I've heard yet. All the others I've looked at seem to not really have it quite together and always left me looking at the code and disagreeing with their assessment of it. Not so with Mr. Champion.

But back to the 16th. Just an FYI, the present tax law located at USC 26 subtitle A (Income Tax) has nothing to do with the 16th amendment. It was for the most part, originally passed in 1909. (the 16th was allegedly ratified in 1913) That law was the Corporation Excise Act. (which should give you a big hint as to who it applies to) All the amendment does is clarify that "income" taxes are excises and so being a form of indirect tax, do not need to be apportioned. It does not create a third class of taxation which is direct but needs no apportionment. Subsequent revenue acts in the 50's 80's and beyond are all amendments to that 1909 act. And the scope, at least with respect to WHO it applies to has not significantly changed. Subtitle C (employment taxes) have been in existence since the civil war and were always Constitutional. This is because they only apply to government employees. This is quite clear in the code. (though the IRS likes to make you think otherwise) The two taxes are not the same. They are two distinct taxes, on two distinct things, and neither draws their base existence and legitimacy from the 16th amendment. The authority for excise taxes lies in Article 1 § 8 in the very first clause. Both Income and Employment taxes are excises, which are a tax on a privilege, in these cases, the privilege of profit from limited liability (income) and profit from the public treasury. (employment)

If you want to know more, first please listen to Mr. Champion's archives. Then read his printed abstracts on http://originalintent.org/education/ Then, if you want to discuss it more, I'd be happy to do so.

Again, we are on the same side of much of this. Let's find our common ground shall we?


I see you are more interested in tearing down an individual than tearing the chains that bind you. Is this what they call a troll here? You should not make it so obvious sir. Only a government agent would have so much supposed negative detail prepared in advance. I suggest You review the facts. Article 6 of the AOF is proven beyond any doubt if you would take as much time to review the footnotes as trying to discredit a messenger. Most of your foolish assertions die there in Mr Dickstein's unimpeachable evidence.Let me see you discredit him as well. Try Red BEckman and Bill Benson and you will have the trifecta. Give it your best shot. You must have DOJ dossiers on them as well, MR. samadamscw.
Sir, I signed the document and am not intimidated by the GEstapo. Go and report that to your boss. When you fear the government it is tyranny, when government fears the people it is freedom


Sam was quite gracious to you below.

After this comment of yours and your thread earlier (that has since been removed)where you made your debut here by making some ridiculous insinuation about someone based on them not joining the coalition, you have a lot of nerve calling anyone here a troll.

You haven't even been here a day yet and this is the second time I've seen you calling people names.

From yours and other comments and threads on this subject, it seems anyone who does not go along with the coalition is subject to bullying. :(


you haven't been following here.

This is NOT about bullying samadamcsw for NOT joining. Not at all.

This is a response to samadam slandering the good character of Bob Schulz.

I set this thread up for ACTIVISM and I find it repugnant that he thinks he can just slander someone without cause here.

He had his own thread promoting the Libertarian Party and that's fine, but I think it just common decency that I be allowed to promote my own ideas here without impunity from others.

Bob Schulz has been known for his 'unorthodox' ways and yes, it did get him into disapproval from others, but he never did these things for his selfish self interest, it was always with the intention to shed light on government corruption. This man has heroically spent over 50 years blazing a trail as a sometimes lone patriot.

I or loken would never, never, bully anyone into joining anything. Naturally that would be wrong.

Until he makes an apology here, I consider what samadam has done as slanderous.

Yes, I have been following...

...and I've seen some overbearing attitudes aimed at those who have not expressed favor toward the project. This has certainly not been limited to what has transpired with samadamscw.

Regarding the bullying of someone for not joining, loken posted a thread Wednesday (which was deleted) where, in his title, he insinuated that a certain someone (not samadamscw) was a GOP party hack, and his basis for the insinuation was this person not having joined the coalition. This business of trying to label someone for not going along with one's pet project, I would consider to be bullying.

For more examples of the overbearing attitude toward those not expressing favor toward the project, one need only refer to the thread asking why CC2009 has not gone viral.

Regarding samadamscw, what occurred over the last few days has struck me as sorta out of control...and I don't mean on his part because, as I indicated to him below, he seems to have handled himself quite well.

At any rate, he was asked to offer support for what he had said. He did as asked, offering quite a bit of support and going into much detail. I don't exactly see anything concrete refuting what he put forth, so I don't really understand the insistence that he apologize.

As to the issue of slander, it is not clear to me that what he has said is based on untruth, and even if his supporting information would prove to be inaccurate, I'm not seeing the ingredient of malice that would qualify this as slander.

Please understand that my post is not intended to be taken as a stand about Schultz one way or the other.

Quite honestly, what I find more disturbing than anything sam wrote is what BFrank said about the articles posted not being what the delegates passed. That he now uses the words "inspired by the CC2009" when referring to the articles and still says that they are not what was passed is unsettling.

(edit- After posting this reply, I see that you had posted an apology thread earlier. Anisha, I would like to commend you and say that I respect you tremendously for that.)

Thanks Jiminy.


No problem.

And thank you for your detailed post further above supporting your statement that you had been asked to defend.

I have to say you handled yourself well through that ordeal, too. Others might not have been so obliging with all the harassing/badgering that was going on.

I applaud that people made an effort to try to do something. Sometimes, though, well-meaning people can be let their passions get the best of them.

Glad you took the high road, and thanks for a peek at the other side of the story so that people can make a more informed, or balanced, decision if they are contemplating signing up.

Right back at ya.

That's my only goal here. To put it out there, and let people make up their own minds.

I applaud their efforts too, even if I disagree with their methods.

None of this was prepared in advance.

I just spent several hours putting it together. I spent that time, because I felt I owed it to Anisha and other readers to justify my comment concerning Bob.

I am no troll. I am not more interested in "tearing him down" than I am at preserving, protecting, and restoring lost Liberty. Anisha asked for justification. I gave it to her. According to you, simply giving evidence for my opinion of someone is therefore equal to wanting to be enslaved? How utterly ridiculous.

I didn't say article 6. (I don't recall the article #, 6 was the subpoint to a subpoint) But I have no doubt if it is about the tax issue as that is what I was referring to, that the 16th was not properly ratified. I know it wasn't. That won't take it out of the Constitution, and no sheriff is going to refuse to enforce any law passed under it. As well, contrary to what so many believe, the 16th did not give congress any new power it didn't already have. The existence of the present so-called income tax is not wedded to the 16th amendment. The only reason to repeal it is because so many people erroneously believe it gave power to pass an income tax. The Supreme Court has clearly and repeatedly stated OTHERWISE.

I have never heard of any of those gentleman except Bill Benson. With respect to him, other than the evidence of the non-ratification of the 16th, I don't think he got anything else right. But it has been a long time since I read his stuff, so I can't say off the top of my head exactly which points. Nor do I have access to it or care. I've done my homework on the issue. Perhaps you misunderstand me. You should read some of my older posts in tax threads here. I am anything but an apologist for the IRS or the income tax. That being said, there is a proper way to go about dealing with the issue, and then there are outright criminal ways. Bob has chosen the latter. I choose to deal with taxation in a non-criminal manner. No, I do not believe the income tax is imposed on many people who are duped into paying it. But not for any of the reasons that Bob and his cohorts suggest. And the court record PROVES that Bob and his friends arguments are WRONG.

Listen to the mp3 link I posted above. Start about 1/2 way through, and the host, Dave Champion, goes into a brief explanation of the nature of the Title 26 taxes in response to an email from a listener. How he describes things are pretty much the way I see them. And then you will see, how very close you and I are on this issue. A minute or two later (after dealing with another email on executive orders) Dave discusses Bob Schulz baffling insistence on legal theories that have been proven wrong and are plainly so.

No, I don't have DOJ dossiers on anyone. I don't work for the DOJ. I simply quoted from another website, that I found when doing a search on Bob's name. It was from a delegate to the CC09, and he was quoting court cases.

I don't have a boss to report anything to. (man you two are so silly with that)

Yes, I agree with your final sentence 100%. And I don't fear the government. I am confident that my approach to these issues is 100% within the law. Bob has PROVEN his approaches are NOT.


I remind you any statute or law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void form its inception.


Yes, I agree, could you be a little less cryptic? Which law in

particular are you talking about? Is it the Revenue Acts that make up Title 26? Because there is nothing in there, of which I am aware, that is repugnant to the Constitution.

How those laws are interpreted and enforced on the other hand IS repugnant to the Constitution.

There is a world of difference there. Go listen to that audio file and you'll understand. If you want to discuss Mr. Champion point for point, I'm game. But if you aren't going to deal in specifics, I do not have time for this any longer.