Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 46

Thread: The MENDOZA Order

  1. #31
    And the Plaintiff is to file a response by Feb 22 and the Defendant has until March 8th.
    How's that for fair and equal. Is this so the black-robed attorney has time to share the filing with his brother at the Lodge?

    As for fake users and spies - they're everywhere. Infiltration and manipulation happens but just like Caitlin Johnstone I don't let it get to me. I enjoy the whole panopoly - take what's factual and ignore the rest.
    Last edited by marcel; 02-12-19 at 10:36 AM.

  2. #32
    John wishes for me to defend the law...

    That fits well. My gut says so too. But it may be more subconscious than conscious. He was doing it for money - the refunds.

  3. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    227
    MENDOZA made final judgment on March 25th - summary judgment for the Defendant, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. At least on Schlabach's 2013 claim.
    Document 25
    Document 26

    I see more problems with SCHLABACH's claim. From page 5:
    In his Form 1040, Schlabach claimed $54,084 in “[w]ages, salaries, tips, etc.” from IRS Form W-2; subtracted $54,084 in “[o]ther income” he purported to have “REDEEMED IN LAWFUL MONEY PER 12 U.S.C. 411 ab initio”; then claimed zero dollars in “total income,” “adjusted gross income,” “taxable income,” and tax liability.
    It's impossible for an employee grossing $54,084 to have $54,084 in net pay to redeem in lawful money. Schlabach's net pay (actual paycheck amounts) after SS, Medicare, FITW, & State tax deductions would be more in the neighborhood of $36,250. His self-assessment is substantially incorrect.

    And what is “REDEEMED IN LAWFUL MONEY PER 12 U.S.C. 411 ab initio” From the beginning? Beginning of when? Where are the copies of redeemed LM checks? Signature card? marked up copy of Notice & Demand? I see none in this claim. It's one thing to say you're redeeming lawful money and quite another to actually do it and back it up with proof. This is rule #2 of the the lesson plan - keep the record. SCHLABACH claim fails rules of evidence.

    Name:  Schlabach net pay.jpg
Views: 82
Size:  158.6 KB
    Last edited by lorne; 04-01-19 at 02:14 PM.

  4. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by lorne View Post
    It's impossible for an employee grossing $54,084 to have $54,084 in net pay to redeem in lawful money. Schlabach's net pay (actual paycheck amounts) after SS, Medicare, FITW, & State tax deductions would be more in the neighborhood of $36,250. His self-assessment is substantially incorrect.
    I'm confused by this statement, given your responses in other threads. If one is redeeming LM, why would you expect them to have FITW, or any of the others for that matter?

    Granted, I don't believe they're "wages", and shouldn't have been marked on the 1040; is that the issue you have with the assessment?

  5. #35
    We may have a new verb in our vocabulary.

    Filer: Oh no. Just realized I didn't include evidence of my redeemed lawful money.

    Dude! You Schlaback'd your tax return.

    Filer: I knoed.

  6. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    227
    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.
    Last edited by lorne; 04-03-19 at 07:06 PM.

  7. #37

  8. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    227
    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!

  9. #39
    Oh. You're saying that David Merrill is the glaring omission?

  10. #40
    My only noticeable and glittering contribution to a simplified truth was once complemented and briefly glimmered on the Quaternary Dinosaurs Bannister . Our failure to act, which generally attracts different legal consequences from our positive conduct David Merrill when all responses fail. The Quatloos were handed their greatest losses and Omissions.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •