The MENDOZA Order

[lorne]

Yes, I was going to say I don't know where this guy is coming from but, after searching he appears to have some history as an enrolled agent; if this is the same guy.

As a side venture, Schlabach encouraged investors “to shield their investments from taxes” by setting up “pure trusts” sold by another company, Heritage America.
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/200...-is-coming-up/

Reminds me of the Jon Lovitz character from SNL.
IRS: Why do you feel you have no taxable income?
J: I was um... I was doing what those guys in Colorado do. You know the ones who haven't paid income taxes in years.
IRS: Demanding lawful money?
J: Yeah, that's it - Remanding lawful money. Yeah that's the ticket.

[ag maniac]

[lorne]

There is a Tax Protester Dossier entry for SCHLABACH over here http://tpgurus.wikidot.com that indicates he is an enrolled agent. I believe that site is maintained by the quatlosers. They have entries for all the big names ... but look who is noticeably absent!

[marcel]

Oh. You're saying that David Merrill is the glaring omission?

[David Merrill]

There is a Tax Protester Dossier entry for SCHLABACH over here http://tpgurus.wikidot.com that indicates he is an enrolled agent. I believe that site is maintained by the quatlosers. They have entries for all the big names ... but look who is noticeably absent!

Thanks for putting that together. His behavior was telling me so.

Funny feeling... being a glaring omission.

[lorne]

Yes, another glaring omission to go along with the other GLARING OMISSION.

You've been on the scene well over a decade now yet they do not classify you a Tax Protester, another patriot nutjob with a wacky theory. After all, who needs a tax protest when you can simply stop endorsing private credit and owe no tax. This is tacit acknowledgment by the quatloser that your interpretation of remedy found at Section 16 of the Federal Reserve act is correct.

[David Merrill]

Yes, another glaring omission to go along with the other GLARING OMISSION.

You've been on the scene well over a decade now yet they do not classify you a Tax Protester, another patriot nutjob with a wacky theory. After all, who needs a tax protest when you can simply stop endorsing private credit and owe no tax. This is tacit acknowledgment by the quatloser that your interpretation of remedy found at Section 16 of the Federal Reserve act is correct.

There are so many lines of logic and reason all pointing to the same conclusion - remedy is sound. Ten Docs later we have made no progress with non-judge MENDOZA:

Altering or amending a judgment under Rule 59(e) “is an ‘extraordinary remedy’ usually available only when (1) the court committed manifest errors of law or fact...

I might reach out to John and try discerning what he is thinking. He finally drives the "judge" to say something quite revealing:

The Court certifies that an appeal of this Order could not be taken in good faith.

Is MENDOZA warning John that he cannot consider this in any other light but for central banking in public law? That his principal is and shall remain esoteric? See the Ninth Degree in the Rosicrucian Handbook.