The MENDOZA Order

[marcel]

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.

[David Merrill]

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.

[lorne]

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: 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 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.

[Sabo]

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?

[marcel]

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.

[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.

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?

[xparte]

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.

[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:

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.

[David Merrill]

No wonder MENDOZA is discouraging John from making any appeal. I tell you, this is what happens when you have a "judge" who knows full well that his oath is bogus and that John has no Recourse in the law. No bond.

The amusing part is that MENDOZA is actually giving the best advisement a non-judge in racketeering could give. Don't bother trying to find any honest judge in the federal judiciary. We might have been fooled a moment by Brett Michael KAVANAUGH simulating Justice REHNQUIST with valid wording on his oath.

It makes me wonder if BERGER (REHNQUIST's Witness) has a valid oath? Could somebody make the request?

FOIAONLINE.


P.S. I believe the big promoter of Redeeming Lawful Money is Congress at Section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act.

[marcel]

I will have a warren earl burger, no onions.

And where exactly can i sell my birthright? I don't see any for sale. It's almost like there's effort to paint this guy as a kook. And he's going along with it.