Saturday, July 30, 2005

“Perjury, deception: The act of my odyssey”

On July 26, 2005 I was in custody in the Fremont Court when I was called downstairs. Upon my arrival an unidentified FBI Agent met me. Who was handing me a copy of a Plaintiff’s Reply in support of Preliminary Injunction and a supplemental declaration of service by Matthew Ernst. In the declaration he states "on July 21, 2005, at approximately 4:00pm, I observed Inspectors from the Alameda County District Attorney’s office arrest dissident Kurt Johnson" and "I personally delivered to Johnson copies of the courts order granting temporary restraining order."
The Truth:
Mr. Ernst was the first to approach me and arrest me. He grabbed his asp while his female partner flanked me. Then he called in the Calvary. He flashed some papers in front of me about 15 feet away and said they were the above described. The lies sworn into the record are no big deal in the actual merits of the case, but reflect the troubling character I’m confronted with. If you will lie when facts lack merit what expectation of truth are reasonable when integrity is paramount? Perhaps truth is not the agenda here. You be the judge!

Write me:
Kurt Johnson
5325 Broder Blvd.
Dublin. CA. 94568
To be continued…


southernspoken said...

God said the Victory is His. So, let us rejoice in his Victory and proclaim the battle is over. He said call it as it is and not what it appears.

Starfish Prime said...

Expose these fraudulent cowards Kurt! GO GET EM! May God be with you and Scott through all of this.


mogel said...

Is Mathew Ernst parading as an "Expert Witness"

Mathew Ernst alleging that he saw Kurt Johnson get arrested when in fact he was the first on the scene to arrest Kurt Johnson & in fact first arrested him, is just the tip of the iceburg of the lies & exagerations of this man if he can be called a man.

Mathew Ernst affirms: "As set forth more fully below, DB has been, and continues to be engaged in an ongoing scheme to defraud financial institutions by: (1) recruiting and soliciting homeowners through false advertisements for mortgage elmination services; (2) charging fees for the sham mortgage elimination services; (3) recording fraudulent documents with County recorder offices purporting to affect title to, and interest in, real property, nationwide, and (4) soliciting new loans premised on such fraudulently recorded title documents, and transferring the loan proceeds to its own accounts." Later in the affidavit he lists several court cases that have NOTHING to do with his affidavit. Since when has any Court case in CA ever discussed the Dorean process specifically and adjudicated it to be a scam or a scheme or illegal? Since when has any Court case discussed the legitimacy or illigitimacy of the Dorean subrogation bond or discussed the doctrine of "agency by estoppel"? If the FBI truly believed that the bond was no good, why hasn't Kurt been charged with passing "fictitious instruments" & why hasn't the Office of Controller of Currency gotten involved?

Another point brought up is "the DG is not licensed or incorporated to do business." There is no consitutional law that can be passed to interfere with a persons right to contract or conduct business. Being registered so to speak or paying a licensing fee does not make a business legitimate. There is no law that says that a company MUST incorporate or even file a fictitious business name in order to operate.

"DG conveniently ignores the fact that the loan has already been paid by the lender to the initial seller of the property on behalf of the borrower." No DG is demanding proof of where did the funds to pay the seller come from? If the funds came from the borrowers promissory note being altered & turned into a negotiable instrument, then, this is a relevant material fact that needs to be admitted by the lender. As is said in the movie Jerry MaGuire, "SHOW ME THE MONEY". Let's look at the accounting records of the lender and have it audited by a CPA. They are challenging the notion that the lender risked their own assets & paid the Seller from their own equity. They are saying that the borrowers note provided the value that funded the loan. Two loans took place, not just one. Again the pont is full disclosure is needed, a word, "full disclosure" which has no meaning for Mathew Ernst.

"DG charges clients between $1,000 and $3,000 per loan to have the mortgage eliminated."
Obviously almost everyone knows that the DG doesn't get $3,000 per loan submitted, except Mathew Ernst, the so called "expert witness".

Mathew Ernst infers that transferring legal Title to Scott is in violation in setting up a Family Trust since the trsutees have no blood relation to the beneficiaries. Huh?????? Are we to believe he claims to be an expert on Trusts too & the legal aspects of setting up Trusts? Did they teach that too him in FBI clown school?

"Without authority or legal or factual basis, this presentment package purports to require the lender to answer within 10 days or the lender will be deemed to agree that DG will act as the lender's agent & attorney in fact to correct title." Kurt says he has memorandum of law of 800 cases or 80 pages of info to support this legal authority. Didn't the FBI confiscate this evidence when they raided the office on Feb. 1, 2005 and aren't they under obligation to report this evidence too? Or can an FBI agent only present part of the facts in an affidavit knowing that other material facts exist? Isn't there a phrase for this? Oh yea, I remember now, it's called "not telling the full truth". In a word, "deception", taking a part of the truth & purposely not exposing the rest of the truth in order to distort & mislead.

"The only recourse a lender is provided is to cash a bond backed only by Johnson himself. In order to cash the bond, the lender must prove to the unilateral satisfaction of the Dorean Group that the lenders loan to the borrower is valid." The truth is the lender only in a nutshell needs to be honest, just answer the affidavit of truth, point for point honestly, and sign the enclosed bank affidavit provided in the presentment ( which is how we are told banks operate) and allow a certified CPA to audit the books of the lender, and follow the instructions on the back of the bond. There is no unilateral satisfaction here. The bond is not backed only by Johnson. The bond is backed by a letter of credit worth 150 Million & further backed by assets of a Swiss Trust Company worth 800 Million. The Trust company is the real surety backing here. Why does Mathew Ernst have so much trouble with telling the truth, the whole truth, so help him God?

"As has occured hundreds of times (200+) the borrower fails or refuses to make payments with the lender based upon DG's purported elimination of the loan. Consequently lender foreclose after missed payments." I would say the office workers in CA can affirm that there ISN'T 200+ cases of foreclosures they are defending. Is Mathew Ernst EXAGERATING OR LIEING AGAIN? WHAT IS THE PENALTY FOR PERJURY?

"On April 26, 2005, the DG was evicted from it's offices in Union City, CA for failure to pay rent (period). In response two days later DG filed a fradulent Grant deed claiming that Hanover Properties had deeded the property at 29460 Union City Blvd. to DG."
Why can't Mathew Ernst tell the full story that the FBI intefered in DB's contractual rights between the landlord to collaberate an unlawful eviction. Why can't Mathew Ernst bring up the fact that $300,000 + in funds were seized illegally by the FBI, funds that could have paid the rent due. Why can't Mathew Ernst tell the facts that the Dorean Group put $300,000 in improvements to improve the property where a garage was which is also a relevant fact. This amount of improvements exceeded any alleged rent that was due. If the FBI or County Attorney had any legal proof the property was taken unlawfully, this case would have been filed long before now in a criminal Court. Also, didn't the DG have an option to purchase that was also interfered with through their illegal eviction & why didn't the Federal Courts stay the eviction due to Scott's bankruptcy filing which seems to be the normal cause of action for almost all people that file?

Ernst also insinuates that filing a grant deed of the clients property to the trustee is part of the filing of "fraudulent documents". Since when is doing estate planning such as utilizing trusts been declared fraudulent documents by any Court in the land?

However the tell tell sign that Mathew Ernst is a clown is right here in this statement:
"I am advised however, that the UCC does not apply to agreements between lender and borrower involving real property." Huh? Since when is an affidavit suppose to be advise from 3rd parties? Isn't an affidavit suppose to be personal knowlege of facts and facts only, or it's not a real affidavit by heresay? If it's heresay, can we assume that the justification to support a temporary restraining order was based upon false evidence? If the temporary restrainng order was based upon false evidence, what does that say about the competence of the Court & Judge Alsup? UCC does NOT apply to agreements between lender & borrower??????
Let's see what the UCC talks about on this subject to see if it relates TO CONTRADICT MATHEW ERNST'S STATMENT, EXPERT WITNESS EXTRAORDINAIRE:

UCC Section 2-609 Right to Adequate Assurance of Due Performance
UCC Section 3-104 Negotiable Instruments
UCC Section 3-302 Holder in Due Course
UCC Section 3-203 Tranfer of Instrument - Rights Acquired by transfer
UCC Section 3-303 Value and Consideration
UCC Section 3-305 Claims and Defenses and Recoupment
UCC Section 3-308 Proof of Signatures
UCC Section 3-407 Alteration
UCC Section 3-603 Tender of Payment
UCC Section 9-105 Definitions (Secured Transactions)
UCC Section 9-107 Request for Accounting

I could go on, but I think I made my point. When is an affidavit, not an affidavit? It's when you can see the tip of the iceburg & know that there's more to the iceburg that is being visually represented.


dgwondering said...

Byron let's hope your not running the defense team.

douglasc said...

dgwondering, there is also a hope that when people post generic opinions, they can validate them with actual facts...

Starfish Prime said...


Can't see the forest for the trees..

Can't smell your own shit on your knees..


diggs said...

douglasc said...
dgwondering, there is also a hope that when people post generic opinions, they can validate them with actual facts...

I am still trying to find papagragh 29 on pg 9 from mogel's previous post?

Starfish Prime said...

The Federal Reserve Act of 1913, also called the Glass-Owen Bill, established the Federal Reserve System in the United States. The bill was proposed as a result of hearings held by a Congressional committee, headed by Representative Arsène Pujo of Louisiana, charged with investigating the control of the U.S. economy by influential bankers. The bill was passed by the Senate on the evening of December 23, 1913 by a vote of 43-25, with 27 Senators absent or abstaining. President Wilson signed the bill into law an hour after its passing. Under the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 all federally chartered banks were required to join the Federal Reserve System.

The Federal Reserve System is an independent central bank. Although the President of the United States appoints the chairman of the Fed and this appointment is approved by the United States Senate, the decisions of the Fed do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive branch of the United States government.

According to the United States Constitution, the U.S. Congress has the power and responsibility to coin money and set its value. In the 1913 Federal Reserve Act, Congress delegated this power to the Federal Reserve. The constitutionality of this type of action has been controversial many times in the United States, most notably in the early 19th century when Congress chartered the Bank of the United States. Although the constitutionality of the Federal Reserve system has not been a topic of recent judicial or legislative controversy, it has been the target of some who strongly distrust the delegation of power to an unelected and what they see as an unaccountable body.

The Federal Reserve System consists of twelve Federal Reserve Banks:

Boston, Massachusetts
New York, New York
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Cleveland, Ohio
Richmond, Virginia
Atlanta, Georgia
Chicago, Illinois
Saint Louis, Missouri
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Kansas City, Missouri
Dallas, Texas
San Francisco, California

All banks chartered under the National Banking Act of 1863 were made members of the Federal Reserve System, while others could join. A Board of Governors appointed by the President of the United States supervised the system.

Starfish Prime said...

Money creation and fractional reserve banking
Money creation: The regulation of the creation of new money in the economy by commercial and central banks.

Fractional reserve banking: The common practice by banks of retaining only a fraction of their deposits to satisfy demands for withdrawals, lending the remainder at interest to obtain income that can be used to pay interest to depositors and provide profits for the banks' owners.

Criticism of fractional reserve banking
The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please view the article's talk page.
According to critics, "fractional reserve banking" amounts to fraud and theft, and central banking is the method by which this fraud and theft are cartel-ized and institutionalized.

Originally, a bank was a warehouse, a safe place to store valuables, especially gold and silver money. A fee was charged for the service, and warehouse receipts were issued as a claim ticket on the valuables stored. Because everyone knew that these receipts were "as good as gold", the receipts themselves began to be traded as money.

Bankers noticed that on any given day, only a small fraction of the warehouse receipts were redeemed for money, so the unscrupulous among them began printing counterfeit receipts, i.e. receipts that were not matched by an actual deposit of gold or silver. The bankers were then able to either spend the counterfeit receipts themselves, or loan them out and charge interest. Thus the total supply of money could be enlarged very easily, and was an obvious method to enrich the unscrupulous bankers, say critics. The cost of this enrichment was saddled on everyone else, who now found their existing money to be worth less and less as the overall supply of money grew greater and greater.

The more counterfeit receipts that were printed and circulated, the more people would show up to redeem them in gold or silver, the more the actual bank reserves would be depleted until, at some point, the bank would be bankrupt and legitimate depositors would be left holding receipts that were irredeemable. A situation where depositors showed up to the bank in large groups to demand their money became known as a “bank run” or a “run on the bank”. Clearly, the legitimate depositors were victims of fraud and theft, while whoever printed counterfeit receipts was guilty, assuming the story to be true.

Critics of central banking, sometimes dismissed as "conspiracy theorists", enlarge the story to include several competing banks. Each bank begins issuing its own warehouse receipts, now known as “paper money”. Paper money is called "fractional money" when only a fraction of the total supply of money is backed by a precious commodity. Bank owners have a strong incentive to create as much fractional paper money as possible, because it is an effective method of self-enrichment. However, if bank #1 creates significantly more paper money than bank #2, then bank #2 will end up holding a large amount of bank #1’s paper money. Eventually it will wish to redeem this for real gold or silver, thus bankrupting bank #1.

The problem then, as bankers saw it, was to design a system where all competing banks could expand their money supplies in unison. As long as bank #1 has claims against bank #2 that are equal to the claims that bank #2 has against bank #1, then the claims simply cancel each other out. That way, with equal amounts of outstanding debt, in principle all the bankers could enjoy spending an endless source of new and additional paper money, without having to redeem much of anything.

As critics and conspiracy theorists tell it, many attempts at banking cartels were implemented, where supposedly competing bankers conspired with one another to print equal amounts of paper money. These cartels were ultimately in vain, because of the ever-present counter-incentive to break the cartel, print less paper money than the competing bank, and end up with the ability to withdraw real gold or silver from the competitors vault, possibly bankrupting them in the process.

The only way to orchestrate the expansion and contraction of credit and money on a large scale is to make it a matter of law. Private citizens must be forced to accept a single type of paper money in payment of debt or contract, and paper money must be irredeemable for anything of real value. When paper money has been completely separated from any commodity, it is known as "fiat money" (money by decree). Central governments in all industrialized nations have now achieved just such a situation, in partnership with the large commercial banks. Skeptics point out that government leaders would also have a strong incentive to bring about pure fiat money, because it would enable those leaders to spend additional revenue without having to raise taxes directly.

Proponents of the Austrian school of economics conclude that manipulation of the money and credit supply is the cause of the boom-bust business cycle. Some even go so far as to claim that major wars would be impossible without central banking, because citizens are unlikely to support such costly endeavors when they are made to pay for them up front.

New money is created by the issuance of new debt, and injected into the banking system from a single central location, thus ensuring precisely the symmetrical, uniform expansion of the money supply long desired by the bankers. Critics, skeptics and conspiracy theorists argue that the monopolistic power to create new money costlessly, “out of thin air”, is in fact the power to transfer real wealth away from consumers, and place it squarely in the hands of those with the money monopoly, i.e. the central government itself, the large commercial banks, and government contractors.

The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please view the article's talk page.
The Federal Reserve System is the focus of criticism and conspiracy theories. Criticism of the federal reserve include what may be general criticism of a central bank system, for example that it cartelizes the banking industry and monopolizes the creation of money. And what may be specific federal reserve criticism, that it profits illegally, and causes inflation.

Some critics say that the name was intentionally chosen to deceive and fool the U.S. citizens into acceptance. There are a variety of conspiracy theories about the Federal Reserve, some alleging that Federal Reserve employees conspire against the government, some alleging that the federal government conspires with the Federal Reserve, or that banks conspire with the Federal Reserve against the federal government. The most popular theories are:

to make a profit by "skimming" a small percent of the $11 trillion U.S. economy. Although the Federal Reserve does charge member banks for its services, it claims to give the proceeds back in the form of dividends to the banks and the government. Various conspiracy theories claim that either reserve employees or secret persons steal this money. ([2])
to redistribute wealth through the sales and purchase of the U.S. national debt (currently about $7 trillion). ([3])
to fix currency exchange rates with other country central banks throughout the world to generate $1 billion a day in profits
to cartelize the banking industry
to monopolize the creation of new money
to redistribute wealth through the process of inflation.
A criticism that is less frequently used is that the U.S. Congress is given by Article 1, Section 8, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures." Critics of the system assert that the transfer of this power to a private corporation is unconstitutional.

Some of these critics say that the U.S. Congress was tricked by the world elite into creating the Federal Reserve System in 1913 for the purpose of money control through inflation (invisible taxation of the masses), extremely high and profitable interest rates, and outright taxation through the creation of liens and bonds paid for by U.S. citizens. These critics argue that, through unconstitutional changes in law, the words income (corporations) and wage (people's paychecks) were redefined. Taxation enforcement (Internal Revenue Service) could now force U.S. citizens to pay taxes, and fees and fines under penalty of law, possible arrest and imprisonment.

Other critics, e.g. Austrian School economists, conclude that the Federal Reserve and the federal government partner to confiscate wealth from those who earned it. Newly created money can be spent by the government purchasing real goods and services, thus diverting resources away from those who would have otherwise consumed them, and devaluing existing money. This, according to the Austrians, amounts to a "hidden tax". Newly created money can also be loaned by banks, who are then owed interest payments, money which can then be spent on real goods, again consuming resources which would have otherwise been consumed by others. Because paper money is intrinsically worthless, printing new money can only redistribute existing wealth rather than actually creating new wealth, according to this branch of economics.

Another presentation of the "hidden tax" idea is that if a government borrows 1 million dollars, it can allow inflation so that when its time to repay that money a million dollars is worth far less. Economic policy is generally to fight inflation, although certain critics believe that the government and fed do not fully attempt to fight inflation for this reason.

Possible Reforms for the Federal Reserve System
The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please view the article's talk page.
Abolish the Discount Rate. Presently the Federal Reserve guaranties a line of credit to troubled banks at very low interest rates. Because government does not offer low interest rates to individuals that face financial troubles, the discount rate is a form of corporate welfare.
Abolish the FDIC. Banks operate by borrowing short term loans and issuing long term credit. This is inherently unstable, risky, and akin to gambling. By the government guaranteeing deposits, they are externalizing banking risks onto the general public. The other problem with the FDIC is that it lacks the ability to cover aggregate insured deposits (no more then a couple percent). In an actual crisis, the Fed would have to bail out the system, thus causing inflation.
The Federal Reserve should not hire from the private banking sector and should prohibit former Fed member from entering the private financial sector after working at the Fed. This is said to be a conflict of interest: the insane are running the insane asylum. Banks can reward Fed employees with lucrative private sector jobs, which is a conflict of interest. As the Fed is supposed to regulate the banking industry, a large number of former bank employees working for the Fed is an example of synergy, if not collusion.
There would be no 'no bank is too big to fail'. This is a present Fed policy to bail out the biggest banks in trouble. What this does is encourage control of banking by big banks, and externalizes risk to the public to be bailed out through taxes or indirectly through inflation.
Integrate seigniorage and monetary policy of coins, notes, and Fed deposits. Why?: Presently the Federal Reserve controls the issues of federal reserve notes and bank accounts at the federal reserve. For historical reasons, the treasury controls the issuance of US notes and coins. It makes no sense to split the two between the Treasury and the Fed.
The Fed would not issue shares or voting rights to member banks. Why?: As a public institution it is wrong for a small for-profit segment of society to have undue influence at the expense of others.
Private bankers should not have private access to the Federal Reserve employees that the public does not. This allows an unfair lobbying advantage for banks, and gives them unfair clues as to what future federal fund rates will be.
Abolish the Federal Reserve Dividend. The 6% dividend is an attractive source of income for banks because it is risk-free and a predictable source of income. The public through the Federal Reserve should not be subsidizing dividends for private banks.
Remove corporate debt protections for banks. Corporate protections allow banks to externalize risks and internalize profits. So even if depositors lose their deposits, under the present system, the bankers could keep their mansions. This system rewards them: heads the bankers win; tails the bankers break even.
Enable equal access to virtual M0. Presently only private banks can obtain federal reserve accounts at the Federal Reserve. This allows private banks to markup this access to individual borrowers and depositors. A solution would be to allow any individual the ability to have an account at the Federal Reserve.
Increase the number of certified sellers and buyers to the open market. This would be to insure the public gets a fair deal on open market transactions. Of late, the number of 'primary dealers' has fallen, and is now down to roughly 22, which is not competitive enough.
The Fed should not restrict its open market purchases to US debt. This is because the government lacks the ability to acquire the information needed to determine aggregate investment and this is best left up to private individuals. An individual could get a much better return paying off their 20%+ credit card debts, than investing (through the Fed) on government securities.
Remove float. Why?: Because it gives an unfair advantage to banks, because they have access to this money creation while individuals don't.
Remove Fed independence (perhaps make it sub-department of the treasury). This is needed to make it more accountable to the public.
Aggregate banking solvency should not be a consideration in determining monetary policy. By lowering the federal funds rate to accommodate the banking industry in downtimes, the public is subsidizing and encouraging bank risk, which is corporate welfare.
Foreign banks should cease to hold federal reserve accounts, federal reserve notes, and dollar denominated assets. Dollar hegemony is a holdover from the '40s when the US, through its control of the gold supply, its influence on the many post WWII governments it setup, agreement with Arabs to sell oil only in dollars, and through the Bretton Woods agreement. This arrangement is giving these countries below market interest rates on their assets and makes the US vulnerable to sudden market corrections.
Abolish Treasury Tax and Loan accounts. Under the guise of maintaining stable interest rates, the treasury deposits tax receipts into select private banks. This is in affect a below market rate loan to these special select banks, and an indirect inflation tax on the public.
Abolish Capital and Reserve requirements. These requirements allow banks to cartel their operations, and give the public a misleading idea of how banking works.
The Fed would receive its operating budget from congress. Why?: To ensure the Fed doesn't overspend, and gives congress better oversight over Fed activities.
Make the Fed more transparent. This would allow more public oversight of what is supposed to be a public institution. It would also allow the public access to critical fed information at the same time that financial insiders hear about it.
Abolish research operations of the Fed. The Fed is wasting a lot of money on information that can never be adequate in determining monetary policy.
The Fed should not help countries out in dire trouble. This externalizes risk and really ends up helping the big private banks that made loans to these countries.
The Fed should stop using money market rates to determine monetary policy. This causes reverse cause and effect, where the government relies on the market for price signals, therefore the market controls through its signals, monetary policy. For example, many like Milton Friedman have argued that primary dealers are engaging in churning, as Fed volume in trades actually dwarfs the actually annual change in security assets.
The interest collected by the Fed should be used for public projects and not given to its private controlling interests.
Further reading
Griffin, Edward G. (1998). "The Creature from Jekyll Island:A second look at the Federal Reserve". American Media. ISBN 0912986212.
Greider, William (1987). Secrets of the Temple. Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0671675567; a book intended for lay readers explaining the structures, functions, and history of the Federal Reserve, focusing specifically on the tenure of Paul Volcker
Epstein, Lita & Martin, Preston (2003). The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Federal Reserve. Alpha Books. ISBN 0028643232.
Meyer, Lawrence H (2004). A Term at the Fed : An Insider's View. HarperBusiness. ISBN 0060542705; focuses on the period from 1996 to 2002, emphasizing Alan Greenspan's chairmanship during the Asian financial crisis, the stock market boom and the financial aftermath of the September 11 attacks
Rothbard, Murray N. (1994). The Case Against the Fed. Ludwig Von Mises Institute. ISBN 094546617X.
Who Owns and Controls the Federal Reserve?

Starfish Prime said...

Starfish Prime said...

If you highlight the whole line it will fill out more than you think you need (such as the post time..etc.)..COPY IT ALL ANYWAY AND THEN PASTE IN THE ADDRESS LINE AND ONLY THE FULL LINK WILL SHOW.. (MAGIC!)

Starfish Prime said...

HERE IS WHAT "THE FED"'S DESCRIPTION OF ITSELF IS. (getting both sides out there)..-J

Who owns the Federal Reserve?
The Federal Reserve System is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution. Instead, it is an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects.

As the nation's central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority from the U.S. Congress. It is considered an independent central bank because its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms. However, the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by Congress, which periodically reviews its activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute. Also, the Federal Reserve must work within the framework of the overall objectives of economic and financial policy established by the government. Therefore, the Federal Reserve can be more accurately described as "independent within the government."

The twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system, are organized much like private corporations--possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year.

Return to questions

How is the Federal Reserve funded?
The Federal Reserve's income is derived primarily from the interest on U.S. government securities that it has acquired through open market operations. Other sources of income are the interest on foreign currency investments held by the System; fees received for services provided to depository institutions, such as check clearing, funds transfers, and automated clearinghouse operations; and interest on loans to depository institutions (the rate on which is the so-called discount rate). After paying its expenses, the Federal Reserve turns the rest of its earnings over to the U.S. Treasury.

Why did Congress want the Federal Reserve to be relatively independent?
The intent of Congress in shaping the Federal Reserve Act was to keep politics out of monetary policy. The System is independent of other branches and agencies of government. It is self-financed and therefore is not subject to the congressional budgetary process.

Since the Federal Reserve has considerable discretion in carrying out its responsibilities, to whom is it accountable?
The Federal Reserve's ultimate accountability is to Congress, which at any time can amend the Federal Reserve Act. Legislation requires that the Fed report annually on its activities to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and twice annually on its plans for monetary policy to the banking committees of Congress. Fed officials also testify before Congress when requested.

To ensure financial accountability, the financial statements of the Federal Reserve Banks and the Board of Governors are audited annually by an independent outside auditor. In addition, the General Accounting Office, as well as the Board's Office of Inspector General, can audit Federal Reserve activities.

Are the Federal Reserve System and Reserve Banks ever audited?
The Board of Governors, the Federal Reserve Banks, and the Federal Reserve System as a whole are all subject to several levels of audit and review. Under the Federal Banking Agency Audit Act (enacted in 1978 as Public Law 95-320), which authorizes the Comptroller General of the United States to audit the Federal Reserve System, the General Accounting Office (GAO) has conducted numerous reviews of Federal Reserve activities. In addition, the Board's Office of Inspector General (OIG) audits and investigates Board programs and operations as well as those Board functions delegated to the Reserve Banks. Completed and active GAO reviews and completed OIG audits, reviews, and assessments are listed in the Board’s Annual Report (before 2002, the reviews were listed in the Board's Annual Report: Budget Review).

The Board's financial statements, and its compliance with laws and regulations affecting those statements, are audited annually by an outside auditor retained by the OIG. The financial statements of the Reserve Banks are also audited annually by an independent outside auditor. In addition, the Reserve Banks are subject to annual examination by the Board. The Board's financial statements and the combined financial statements for the Reserve Banks are published in the Board's Annual Report.

mogel said...

Diggs: Try this again:

If it doesn't open up, I know I can send you the link by sending it by way of email to you that will open up:

Email me at:



tcob247 said...

stankfish says....."May God be with you and Scott through all of this."
Then says......."TCOB IS A FUCKIN IDIOT!! Can't smell your own shit on your knees.."
God must be proud of you son.
By the are awesome at copy and paste...a real bright bulb.

Is there a moderator in here that allows this filthy garbage to spew his venom. What must they edit if not that???

truthtooth said...


truthtooth said...

I have been reading about mortgage elimination so I was directed to this blog.

Everything that I have read as well as just from logic points to this being a scam.

I guess that the fact that the two founders are in jail speaks loudly.

truthtooth said...

fish guy needs to curb his language,

gtazman said...


Thanks for the link to Ernst’s egregious perjury.
I found the CPA report to be exactly to the point of DGs position.
My interest and satisfaction of the cause was provided by Tom Schauf at Check it out


Letterman said...

truthtooth said...


I went to that web site and I can't believe what I read. Can it be true that banks, politicians and judges are all in on this? Are all of them in on it and we are the suckers? What can we do?

Where's my towel? said...

It's so obvious - you buy the materials so that you can learn the bankers' secrets! What I don't understand is - why has this remained a secret for so long? Has not one person had the courage until now to say something? Or have they all been silenced before the word got out?

gtazman said...

Where's my towel,
It is all true. The hard part is to get the word out. Individuals that have used Schauf's methods have both won and lost against the bankers. Dorean is the first that has made mortgage challenge a reality for the many.

truthtooth said...


If it is true then isn't it unrealistic that any group can penitrate their organized system?

I mean really do you think that the bankers, lawyers, judges and politicians are going to admit that TDG or any advisary is right?

They make the laws and uphold them. Even if TDG is correct then wouldn't they just ammend the rules to fit them?

truthtooth said...

A friend of mine paid the $3,000 fee and got clear titlethen he got sued by the mortgage company when the mortgage company called the note due in full.

They lost their home to foreclosure?

Letterman said...

Truthtooth said,

I went to that web site and I can't believe what I read. Can it be true that banks, politicians and judges are all in on this? Are all of them in on it and we are the suckers? What can we do?

12:11 PM

Your post came up 40 minutes after mine. It takes hours to read Tom's website. When you finish reading the entire sight you will believe. And if you're really interested get the books. Tom is the Guru.

Starfish Prime said...


I am not the best Christian in the world..but I know I'm not going to hell....NEXT!

I will try to clean up my language.

Heaven, Hell, Purgatory?? Hmmm.. visit Myrtles Plantation in St. Francisville, LA. That will make a believer out of you that life does go on (but maybe not as we think...)

tcob247 said...

can somebody translate what starshine just said
he must be talking in code
maybe a John Birch thing

tcob247 said...

pretty quiet here today
wonder how Jurt is doing with his fast

tcob247 said...


Starfish Prime said...

fuck off tcob

tcob247 said... much for watching your language
Do you own a dictionary????
What a loser

Get-A-Free-House said...

How would you like to own a custom-built house at a 42% to 100% discount? Find out how today by visiting

Online Incomes said...

Nice blog, keep up the good work!
I have a blog/site toodebt consolidation home equity loan
It's a free information site on on home equity loans and refinancing. It can help you save money if you are in the market for a loan.
You should check it out if you have the time :-)

Ray said...

You've got a very informative blog.

I've gotten some good information here, so I've bookmarked your blog and will return often for the latest. If you have time, check out my hud mortgage reverse site.

Thanks and all the best in the future.


Joe Berenguer said...

I just came across your blog and wanted to
drop you, Blogger, a note telling you how impressed I was with
the information you have posted here.
If you have a moment, please visit my site:
insurance center
It covers insurance center related contents.
I send you warm regards and wish you continued success.