Friday, August 17, 2007

Jailhouse Journey (August 10, 2007)

I felt I had to document these events just to see if you recalled them as I did. I haven't had the chance to discuss them with you because of our separation.

For me the evening started with my normal termination of my day: a climb onto my bunk above Scotty shortly after the 9 PM count. After some conversation and some music from my radio I was to sleep about 10. Hundreds of days have passed with you in our bed alone and me in this bed of evil alone. Making love to you a distant memory and yet a constant hope. I recall having strange dreams that were very much self aware. It was like I was wrestling with myself in all of these to accomplish something I'd never done before. Instantly these ended when I sat up in my bed. Now I know you are automatically picturing my body at a 90° angle but that was not the case. My legs and hands were in front of me but my hands were also to my side. I got weirded out immediately. I turned my head to get a view of things and there was my torso still flat on the bed sleeping. At first I thought dead but I could see the chest heaving. The uncertainty of this event kind of created a certain childlike fear and I pulled my knees to my chest in a fetal position. To my shock my legs rose out of the legs that remained upon the bed like my torso. Realizing now I was not attached to my body I chose to get off the bed. As soon as I thought it I was on the floor without climbing down. From there I could see both Scott and I sleeping peacefully. My next urge was to know what time it was. I think I needed some point of reference in all this strangeness. As I walked to our locked door I looked out the window into the dark community hall but because of the shadows could not see the clock. I thought if I could just move 10 feet or so I would be able to see. As soon as I thought it I was outside my locked door. I walked just a little and could see it was 1 AM. Everything was buttoned down for the night and my presence didn't seem to be noticed on the cameras or create any alarm. What did this all mean was a question I asked myself at this time. There was a sense of freedom even greater than being not incarcerated, living my normal life. I took the time just to walk and talk with God. You would think the confusing circumstances would make me questioning but that wasn't the case. It was more like having a sense of being closer to my friend than I had been in awhile and just enjoying the renewed intimacy. As I walked and talked I ended up walking right out of the prison. I actually stood under the stars. That was something that brought you racing to my mind. Call it freedom, romance, our walks at night or just deprivation the desire to see you was strong. Still I apparently was unnoticed. This made me think about travel. Do I walk, run, or hitchhike? How much time did I have? Was this a moment or the rest of my life? Well the questions answered themselves quickly. In an instant I was in our bedroom.

I was standing by the window with the full moon shinning through. Jacque noticed me but you remained asleep. The moonlight lit up your face in an angelic glow. I was literally breathless. It was a certain beauty about you I had not seen before. Though Jacque noticed me he didn't get excited he just looked at me, pitched his ears towards me, raised his head and gave a little doggie smile. The room was cluttered but gave me all the comfort of being my home. The clock by the bed said 3 AM. I couldn't believe two hours had gone by. I wanted to touch you but also just wanted to adore you. I chose just to gaze upon you. As I did I spoke of how much I love you and appreciate you. I said things like "you are a woman who by her love strengthens me to face any hardship. No matter the pains of battle your love comforts me. Your kiss is sweeter than life and your embrace a touch of eternity to my soul." As I spoke a smile came upon your face. It was like you were hearing me. I had a strange sense at this time that my time with you would be short so I sat on the bed and just prayed for you. I shut my eyes to concentrate and to cry. Suddenly I heard "My honey" and felt your touch. I opened my eyes and there you were sitting inside your flat body as I did earlier. Oh what joy absolutely consumed me at that moment. We hugged and kissed and cried and laughed. We chose to stand for a full embrace and upon doing so looked up and saw nothing but stars. The walls were there but the roof was gone.

We began to love on each other sharing many kind words of edification. As we spoke we grew. Soon our feet were in the room but we were taller than the trees. You know how you always said there was a big you inside that little half-pint body? Well I've seen it now. We were able to see all the lights of the city. There was a bright light approaching us from the bay just above the tree-line. It looked like an airplane until it got closer and we could see the brightness of his face. It was a giant angel bigger than a 747 swooping down upon us. He picked us up one in each arm under each wing. As soon as he took us to flight we were back to normal size which made him even more gigantic. He took us higher and higher until we could see the entire bay area. While at this height he said "beloved couple you are loved of God and He has heard your prayers. See all those people down there God knows every detail of their lives but He knows and loves you. You are more precious to Him than all you can see." You looked at me kind of like that time in the visiting room when I took you on a journey. A tear appeared in your eye like God knew exactly what to say to speak to your heart. I smiled with endless joy. The whoosh of his wings was an amazing sound. A deep base you didn't think possible. With just a couple flaps we were above Mt. Tamelpias. He dropped us and we landed on a bench. There was no fear or sense of gravity like we know in the flesh. As we sat there he hovered like a circling buzzard. An old man approached us out of the forest with a large staff in his hand. He said his name was Samuel. I said "Samuel from the Bible, David's counselor?" "Yes that would be me" he replied. Why is such a great man sent to us? He said "actually the honor is mine. We have all been hearing God brag upon your trust of Him and the great battles you were prevailing in. God was concerned about your fatigue in the suffering and asked for a volunteer to come and strengthen you for the finish. It came down to David and I but David thought I should come. I was delighted. As I examined your record I can say I have not seen such courage since David and such love since David and Abigail. I have seen the forces arrayed against you and you have no idea how powerful you are in Christ. All hell is being rattled by your faith. I was told to lay hands upon you and prophecy. As you have figured out the prophecy over you and Dana has been fulfilled by your combined faith. Dana was merely a surrogate, a stand-in until God could arrange for your unity. Within 90 days your enemies will fail and you will come out to the fulfillment of all that was spoken. Be aware that your enemy will try very hard at the end to avoid your victory and your suffering will increase but continue to trust and your joy will be made full. You were right they will not bring you to trial for it had been decreed differently in heaven. Your provision will remain at just enough but will not be lack. Now kneel before me and I will anoint you and prophecy." We knelt and he set down his staff, took a flask of oil from a purse, anointed our heads, placed his right hand upon me and his left upon you, then he began to speak.

"The Lord has sanctified thee. He has joined thee. As He has promised that He would make you a treasure sought out in business, finance, love, and marriage, He adds to this promise the mantle of parenthood. From your flesh you shall bear a child but this is just a type of the office of parenting you will have in the spirit. You are a people's people. You love people. There is a tender caring nature within you. Those who seek you out shall discover your sheltering covering like a mother-bird's wings. As I wombed you through your parents, as I wombed you out of this world into my kingdom, I will womb others through your care. Daughter there is no knowledge like motherhood and it cannot be understood except by experience. I have chosen this time to impart this knowledge to you. As you raise this child in truth raise my children with the same loving care. I will give you wisdom, discernment, and direction in the choices you should make. Continue to trust me an I will give you a family larger than some nations. Your spiritual wards and my children will look to you for your parental concern and they will know how much I love them and how I will go to any length to be their provider. You will be a couple I use as a proof of my truth. Know no matter what trials and hardships you face they are temporary. No matter what spirit of robbery, lack or diversion comes against you know that I have joined you for such a time as this, for this generation and that no man shall be able to prevail upon you. You are loved and trusted with a very special ministry. Keep your eyes upon the Lord and your feet within His path and your imaginations will never be able to fathom the impact you are going to have upon people. You will receive your healing soon enough but not for yourself because my children will come to you with many infirmities and impairments. You will be my proof to them of my loving care and healing intention and power. Love each other as you have and continue to seek a greater love and it will be given you. You are noticed and discussed in the heavens as a boast of My Son. You are in My will and there you will remain for I will bless your comings and goings. Soon it will be known to you that the evil that was arrayed against you had no power except to bless you for they were My servant bound to My decree to bless you. Evil has its end. Before you take your next deep breath for endurance it will be over and you shall exhale my peace for yourself and the many that already are watching you. All My love dear children both you and those whom you'll parent."

Samuel finished by kissing our heads and then raised us to our feet. He said "I am a witness that the Lord never lies and that this word is true. It was a delight for me to be witness to this fine word with you. I say "Amen" and I will see you at the finish line. You're a giant couple with a big job to do." As he said this we grew to taller than the trees again and he grabbed his staff and walked off into the forest. The hovering angel swooped down upon us again and we were off. As we flew we were back to normal size.

Whoosh, whoosh in two mighty flaps of his wings we were over the house. He said "Praise to the Most High." And dropped us. We landed right on the bed without any force of gravity. It was like a bird lighting upon a perch. The roof reappeared and we began to giggle with a childlike giddy joy. After a few moments we got our composure and you said you wrote me a song. As soon as you said it your flute was in your hand. The song started out in a way that sounded like waves of the ocean and then took on all the notes of love and cadence of walking on the beach with you. I don't know if it was my out of body state or your skill but every note professed a witness to me that I am well loved by you. After the song you wiped the tears from my eyes and we just talked. It was a liberated conversation released from all our suffering. The clock was now reading almost 5 am. One of the things you brought to my attention was a candle setup you had made. There was two candlesticks burning to almost gone and a 3 inch table candle unlit and new between them. You told me that you burned the two candles every night as a symbol of our separation while still keeping the flame of love alive. The middle candle you said was our unity candle and together our flames would unite. That sentiment moved me. I asked if we could light it now. Your response was "of course". We each took our separate candles and put our united flames to the wick. We snubbed out the old and absorbed the glow of the new. Just then you kissed me. Suddenly in bliss of your kiss I heard your mother's voice calling your name. Simultaneously a breeze came through the window, blew you back into your sleeping body and blew out our candle. Then your name was called again only just outside your door. I saw you wake, your eyes focus on the smoldering wick of our unity candle, and a smile appear on your face. The next instant I was sitting on my bunk inside my body halfway as though I was blown back by the breeze.

Wow, that couldn't be a dream, I thought, yet I was feeling very tired. I laid down and my body embraced me. I awoke about 7 am.

Answer me this one question as fast as you can, was the unity candle with a charred wick?


mogel007 said...

"Within 90 days your enemies will fail and you will come out to the fulfillment of all that was spoken. Be aware that your enemy will try very hard at the end to avoid your victory and your suffering will increase but continue to trust and your joy will be made full. You were right they will not bring you to trial for it had been decreed differently in heaven."

No trial & 90 days to the finish line?

An "out of the body" experience, or merely a dream? A hope or a reality, or just a great short story meant to inspire the faith & hope of a patient wife?

I suppose it doesn't really matter at this point to understand this fully, but most will have similiar questions or observations to figure out the purpose and written meaning of it all.

Tony Robbins, the great teacher of getting what you really want, always teaches "visualization" before "actualization". This story certainly fulfills and symbolizes your efforts to that end.

Until it is a "thus saitheth the Lord" statement, or a "so says Samuel" I will take this post to be just your faithful march towards the eventual finish line of success. Is there still a need to "follow the money trail"?

Maybe the current climate of the prosecution in disarray is another excuse to delay the trial even further into the future past Oct. 15th. As long as the prosecution is stopping or hindering a settlement or a resolution, they still have some control in the time schedule of events.

I'd truly like to fully believe that the prosecution is ready to collapse, but I'm not there yet in that visualization, although the climate is there for that event.

It may not be long, but doesn't the government profit from extending any resolution to all of this as long as possible?

mogel007 said...

Kurt said: "The dream from Doug, the book from Wes and this journey all spoke to an "Amen" on this one subject"

What is the "dream from Doug" all about? I don't think very many are familiar with this. Is this dream something that would be helpful for others to know about?

It's difficult to hear something on a subject in passing, that sounds very interesting, and not know anything about it.

mogel007 said...

"Last I will say this, you CAN'T imagine why I'm doing the things I'm ABOUT TO DO...."

"Can't" is a big word. Hopefully some can imagine, but certainly one is unable to, when the act(s) aren't totally clear here that you are referring to.

bankster said...

Interesting article as usual about the pending mortgage crisis, and that its soon to be resolved.

Whats REALLY interesting for those who care to read through the whole lengthy article, is that the government is ACTUALLY going to create High Yield programs??

Just that now they will be taxed, and wont need to be hidden offshore

Article also talks about a mortgage "debt foregivness" plan by the government.


bankster said...

Bush to Outline Aid to Mortgage Holders

neodemes said...

Just 90 more days! What a surprise!


The candle? Well, that was a symbol of your megalomania shining through.

~~The Swami~~~ said...

As I mentioned the other day, I'm trying to come up with the video that shows Neodemes trying out for "Up With People". While searching I found out that Neodemes auditioned to be the "Jack" character in the "Jack In The Box" commercials. Unfortunately for Bruce his head was too big and wouldn't fit in the mono grin white globe sphere. Imagine that.

mogel007 said...

Nemo said: "The candle? Well, that was a symbol of your megalomania shining through."

Naturally it follows that it would take a big man to accomplish a big task. I'm surprised you caught that Nemo.

Nemo, why do you keeping blowing out the candles? Do you think it's your own birthday or something?

Speaking of candles, and Old Testament personalities, Bruce, like Samuel the prophet, how's your wife, Jezabell, doing these days?

benburnhankey said...

Remarks by Chairman Ben S. Bernanke At the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City's Economic Symposium, Jackson Hole, Wyoming

August 31, 2007 Housing, Housing

Finance, and Monetary Policy

Over the years, Tom Hoenig and his colleagues at the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City have done an excellent job of selecting interesting and relevant topics for this annual symposium. I think I can safely say that this year they have outdone themselves. Recently, the subject of housing finance has preoccupied financial-market participants and observers in the United States and around the world. The financial turbulence we have seen had its immediate origins in the problems in the subprime mortgage market, but the effects have been felt in the broader mortgage market and in financial markets more generally, with potential consequences for the performance of the overall economy.

In my remarks this morning, I will begin with some observations about recent market developments and their economic implications. I will then try to place recent events in a broader historical context by discussing the evolution of housing markets and housing finance in the United States. In particular, I will argue that, over the years, institutional changes in U.S. housing and mortgage markets have significantly influenced both the transmission of monetary policy and the economy's cyclical dynamics. As our system of housing finance continues to evolve, understanding these linkages not only provides useful insights into the past but also holds the promise of helping us better cope with the implications of future developments.

Recent Developments in Financial Markets and the Economy I will begin my review of recent developments by discussing the housing situation. As you know, the downturn in the housing market, which began in the summer of 2005, has been sharp. Sales of new and existing homes have declined significantly from their mid-2005 peaks and have remained slow in recent months. As demand has weakened, house prices have decelerated or even declined by some measures, and homebuilders have scaled back their construction of new homes. The cutback in residential construction has directly reduced the annual rate of U.S. economic growth about 3/4 percentage point on average over the past year and a half. Despite the slowdown in construction, the stock of unsold new homes remains quite elevated relative to sales, suggesting that further declines in homebuilding are likely.

The outlook for home sales and construction will also depend on unfolding developments in mortgage markets. A substantial increase in lending to nonprime borrowers contributed to the bulge in residential investment in 2004 and 2005, and the tightening of credit conditions for these borrowers likely accounts for some of the continued softening in demand we have seen this year. As I will discuss, recent market developments have resulted in additional tightening of rates and terms for nonprime borrowers as well as for potential borrowers through "jumbo" mortgages. Obviously, if current conditions persist in mortgage markets, the demand for homes could weaken further, with possible implications for the broader economy. We are following these developments closely.

As house prices have softened, and as interest rates have risen from the low levels of a couple of years ago, we have seen a marked deterioration in the performance of nonprime mortgages. The problems have been most severe for subprime mortgages with adjustable rates: the proportion of those loans with serious delinquencies rose to about 13-1/2 percent in June, more than double the recent low seen in mid-2005.1 The adjustable-rate subprime mortgages originated in late 2005 and in 2006 have performed the worst, in part because of slippage in underwriting standards, reflected for example in high loan-to-value ratios and incomplete documentation. With many of these borrowers facing their first interest rate resets in coming quarters, and with softness in house prices expected to continue to impede refinancing, delinquencies among this class of mortgages are likely to rise further. Apart from adjustable-rate subprime mortgages, however, the deterioration in performance has been less pronounced, at least to this point. For subprime mortgages with fixed rather than variable rates, for example, serious delinquencies have been fairly stable at about 5-1/2 percent. The rate of serious delinquencies on alt-A securitized pools rose to nearly 3 percent in June, from a low of less than 1 percent in mid-2005. Delinquency rates on prime jumbo mortgages have also risen, though they are lower than those for prime conforming loans, and both rates are below 1 percent.

Investors' concerns about mortgage credit performance have intensified sharply in recent weeks, reflecting, among other factors, worries about the housing market and the effects of impending interest-rate resets on borrowers' ability to remain current. Credit spreads on new securities backed by subprime mortgages, which had jumped earlier this year, rose significantly more in July. Issuance of such securities has been negligible since then, as dealers have faced difficulties placing even the AAA-rated tranches. Issuance of securities backed by alt-A and prime jumbo mortgages also has fallen sharply, as investors have evidently become concerned that the losses associated with these types of mortgages may be higher than had been expected.

With securitization impaired, some major lenders have announced the cancellation of their adjustable-rate subprime lending programs. A number of others that specialize in nontraditional mortgages have been forced by funding pressures to scale back or close down. Some lenders that sponsor asset-backed commercial paper conduits as bridge financing for their mortgage originations have been unable to "roll" the maturing paper, forcing them to draw on back-up liquidity facilities or to exercise options to extend the maturity of their paper. As a result of these developments, borrowers face noticeably tighter terms and standards for all but conforming mortgages.

As you know, the financial stress has not been confined to mortgage markets. The markets for asset-backed commercial paper and for lower-rated unsecured commercial paper market also have suffered from pronounced declines in investor demand, and the associated flight to quality has contributed to surges in the demand for short-dated Treasury bills, pushing T-bill rates down sharply on some days. Swings in stock prices have been sharp, with implied price volatilities rising to about twice the levels seen in the spring. Credit spreads for a range of financial instruments have widened, notably for lower-rated corporate credits. Diminished demand for loans and bonds to finance highly leveraged transactions has increased some banks' concerns that they may have to bring significant quantities of these instruments onto their balance sheets. These banks, as well as those that have committed to serve as back-up facilities to commercial paper programs, have become more protective of their liquidity and balance-sheet capacity.

Although this episode appears to have been triggered largely by heightened concerns about subprime mortgages, global financial losses have far exceeded even the most pessimistic projections of credit losses on those loans. In part, these wider losses likely reflect concerns that weakness in U.S. housing will restrain overall economic growth. But other factors are also at work. Investor uncertainty has increased significantly, as the difficulty of evaluating the risks of structured products that can be opaque or have complex payoffs has become more evident. Also, as in many episodes of financial stress, uncertainty about possible forced sales by leveraged participants and a higher cost of risk capital seem to have made investors hesitant to take advantage of possible buying opportunities. More generally, investors may have become less willing to assume risk. Some increase in the premiums that investors require to take risk is probably a healthy development on the whole, as these premiums have been exceptionally low for some time. However, in this episode, the shift in risk attitudes has interacted with heightened concerns about credit risks and uncertainty about how to evaluate those risks to create significant market stress. On the positive side of the ledger, we should recognize that past efforts to strengthen capital positions and the financial infrastructure place the global financial system in a relatively strong position to work through this process.

In the statement following its August 7 meeting, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) recognized that the rise in financial volatility and the tightening of credit conditions for some households and businesses had increased the downside risks to growth somewhat but reiterated that inflation risks remained its predominant policy concern. In subsequent days, however, following several events that led investors to believe that credit risks might be larger and more pervasive than previously thought, the functioning of financial markets became increasingly impaired. Liquidity dried up and spreads widened as many market participants sought to retreat from certain types of asset exposures altogether.

Well-functioning financial markets are essential for a prosperous economy. As the nation's central bank, the Federal Reserve seeks to promote general financial stability and to help to ensure that financial markets function in an orderly manner. In response to the developments in the financial markets in the period following the FOMC meeting, the Federal Reserve provided reserves to address unusual strains in money markets. On August 17, the Federal Reserve Board announced a cut in the discount rate of 50 basis points and adjustments in the Reserve Banks' usual discount window practices to facilitate the provision of term financing for as long as thirty days, renewable by the borrower. The Federal Reserve also took a number of supplemental actions, such as cutting the fee charged for lending Treasury securities. The purpose of the discount window actions was to assure depositories of the ready availability of a backstop source of liquidity. Even if banks find that borrowing from the discount window is not immediately necessary, the knowledge that liquidity is available should help alleviate concerns about funding that might otherwise constrain depositories from extending credit or making markets. The Federal Reserve stands ready to take additional actions as needed to provide liquidity and promote the orderly functioning of markets.

It is not the responsibility of the Federal Reserve--nor would it be appropriate--to protect lenders and investors from the consequences of their financial decisions. But developments in financial markets can have broad economic effects felt by many outside the markets, and the Federal Reserve must take those effects into account when determining policy. In a statement issued simultaneously with the discount window announcement, the FOMC indicated that the deterioration in financial market conditions and the tightening of credit since its August 7 meeting had appreciably increased the downside risks to growth. In particular, the further tightening of credit conditions, if sustained, would increase the risk that the current weakness in housing could be deeper or more prolonged than previously expected, with possible adverse effects on consumer spending and the economy more generally.

The incoming data indicate that the economy continued to expand at a moderate pace into the summer, despite the sharp correction in the housing sector. However, in light of recent financial developments, economic data bearing on past months or quarters may be less useful than usual for our forecasts of economic activity and inflation. Consequently, we will pay particularly close attention to the timeliest indicators, as well as information gleaned from our business and banking contacts around the country. Inevitably, the uncertainty surrounding the outlook will be greater than normal, presenting a challenge to policymakers to manage the risks to their growth and price stability objectives. The Committee continues to monitor the situation and will act as needed to limit the adverse effects on the broader economy that may arise from the disruptions in financial markets.

Beginnings: Mortgage Markets in the Early Twentieth Century Like us, our predecessors grappled with the economic and policy implications of innovations and institutional changes in housing finance. In the remainder of my remarks, I will try to set the stage for this weekend's conference by discussing the historical evolution of the mortgage market and some of the implications of that evolution for monetary policy and the economy.

The early decades of the twentieth century are a good starting point for this review, as urbanization and the exceptionally rapid population growth of that period created a strong demand for new housing. Between 1890 and 1930, the number of housing units in the United States grew from about 10 million to about 30 million; the pace of homebuilding was particularly brisk during the economic boom of the 1920s.

Remarkably, this rapid expansion of the housing stock took place despite limited sources of mortgage financing and typical lending terms that were far less attractive than those to which we are accustomed today. Required down payments, usually about half of the home's purchase price, excluded many households from the market. Also, by comparison with today's standards, the duration of mortgage loans was short, usually ten years or less. A "balloon" payment at the end of the loan often created problems for borrowers.2

High interest rates on loans reflected the illiquidity and the essentially unhedgeable interest rate risk and default risk associated with mortgages. Nationwide, the average spread between mortgage rates and high-grade corporate bond yields during the 1920s was about 200 basis points, compared with about 50 basis points on average since the mid-1980s. The absence of a national capital market also produced significant regional disparities in borrowing costs. Hard as it may be to conceive today, rates on mortgage loans before World War I were at times as much as 2 to 4 percentage points higher in some parts of the country than in others, and even in 1930, regional differences in rates could be more than a full percentage point.3

Despite the underdevelopment of the mortgage market, homeownership rates rose steadily after the turn of the century. As would often be the case in the future, government policy provided some inducement for homebuilding. When the federal income tax was introduced in 1913, it included an exemption for mortgage interest payments, a provision that is a powerful stimulus to housing demand even today. By 1930, about 46 percent of nonfarm households owned their own homes, up from about 37 percent in 1890.

The limited availability of data prior to 1929 makes it hard to quantify the role of housing in the monetary policy transmission mechanism during the early twentieth century. Comparisons are also complicated by great differences between then and now in monetary policy frameworks and tools. Still, then as now, periods of tight money were reflected in higher interest rates and a greater reluctance of banks to lend, which affected conditions in mortgage markets. Moreover, students of the business cycle, such as Arthur Burns and Wesley Mitchell, have observed that residential construction was highly cyclical and contributed significantly to fluctuations in the overall economy (Burns and Mitchell, 1946). Indeed, if we take the somewhat less reliable data for 1901 to 1929 at face value, real housing investment was about three times as volatile during that era as it has been over the past half-century.

During the past century we have seen two great sea changes in the market for housing finance. The first of these was the product of the New Deal. The second arose from financial innovation and a series of crises from the 1960s to the mid-1980s in depository funding of mortgages. I will turn first to the New Deal period.

The New Deal and the Housing Market The housing sector, like the rest of the economy, was profoundly affected by the Great Depression. When Franklin Roosevelt took office in 1933, almost 10 percent of all homes were in foreclosure (Green and Wachter, 2005), construction employment had fallen by half from its late 1920s peak, and a banking system near collapse was providing little new credit. As in other sectors, New Deal reforms in housing and housing finance aimed to foster economic revival through government programs that either provided financing directly or strengthened the institutional and regulatory structure of private credit markets.

Actually, one of the first steps in this direction was taken not by Roosevelt but by his predecessor, Herbert Hoover, who oversaw the creation of the Federal Home Loan Banking System in 1932. This measure reorganized the thrift industry (savings and loans and mutual savings banks) under federally chartered associations and established a credit reserve system modeled after the Federal Reserve. The Roosevelt administration pushed this and other programs affecting housing finance much further. In 1934, his administration oversaw the creation of the Federal Housing Administration (FHA). By providing a federally backed insurance system for mortgage lenders, the FHA was designed to encourage lenders to offer mortgages on more attractive terms. This intervention appears to have worked in that, by the 1950s, most new mortgages were for thirty years at fixed rates, and down payment requirements had fallen to about 20 percent. In 1938, the Congress chartered the Federal National Mortgage Association, or Fannie Mae, as it came to be known. The new institution was authorized to issue bonds and use the proceeds to purchase FHA mortgages from lenders, with the objectives of increasing the supply of mortgage credit and reducing variations in the terms and supply of credit across regions.4

Shaped to a considerable extent by New Deal reforms and regulations, the postwar mortgage market took on the form that would last for several decades. The market had two main sectors. One, the descendant of the pre-Depression market sector, consisted of savings and loan associations, mutual savings banks, and, to a lesser extent, commercial banks. With financing from short-term deposits, these institutions made conventional fixed-rate long-term loans to homebuyers. Notably, federal and state regulations limited geographical diversification for these lenders, restricting interstate banking and obliging thrifts to make mortgage loans in small local areas--within 50 miles of the home office until 1964, and within 100 miles after that. In the other sector, the product of New Deal programs, private mortgage brokers and other lenders originated standardized loans backed by the FHA and the Veterans' Administration (VA). These guaranteed loans could be held in portfolio or sold to institutional investors through a nationwide secondary market.

No discussion of the New Deal's effect on the housing market and the monetary transmission mechanism would be complete without reference to Regulation Q--which was eventually to exemplify the law of unintended consequences. The Banking Acts of 1933 and 1935 gave the Federal Reserve the authority to impose deposit-rate ceilings on banks, an authority that was later expanded to cover thrift institutions. The Fed used this authority in establishing its Regulation Q. The so-called Reg Q ceilings remained in place in one form or another until the mid-1980s.5

The original rationale for deposit ceilings was to reduce "excessive" competition for bank deposits, which some blamed as a cause of bank failures in the early 1930s. In retrospect, of course, this was a dubious bit of economic analysis. In any case, the principal effects of the ceilings were not on bank competition but on the supply of credit. With the ceilings in place, banks and thrifts experienced what came to be known as disintermediation--an outflow of funds from depositories that occurred whenever short-term money-market rates rose above the maximum that these institutions could pay. In the absence of alternative funding sources, the loss of deposits prevented banks and thrifts from extending mortgage credit to new customers.

The Transmission Mechanism and the New Deal Reforms Under the New Deal system, housing construction soared after World War II, driven by the removal of wartime building restrictions, the need to replace an aging housing stock, rapid family formation that accompanied the beginning of the baby boom, and large-scale internal migration. The stock of housing units grew 20 percent between 1940 and 1950, with most of the new construction occurring after 1945.

In 1951, the Treasury-Federal Reserve Accord freed the Fed from the obligation to support Treasury bond prices. Monetary policy began to focus on influencing short-term money markets as a means of affecting economic activity and inflation, foreshadowing the Federal Reserve's current use of the federal funds rate as a policy instrument. Over the next few decades, housing assumed a leading role in the monetary transmission mechanism, largely for two reasons: Reg Q and the advent of high inflation.

The Reg Q ceilings were seldom binding before the mid-1960s, but disintermediation induced by the ceilings occurred episodically from the mid-1960s until Reg Q began to be phased out aggressively in the early 1980s. The impact of disintermediation on the housing market could be quite significant; for example, a moderate tightening of monetary policy in 1966 contributed to a 23 percent decline in residential construction between the first quarter of 1966 and the first quarter of 1967. State usury laws and branching restrictions worsened the episodes of disintermediation by placing ceilings on lending rates and limiting the flow of funds between local markets. For the period 1960 to 1982, when Reg Q assumed its greatest importance, statistical analysis shows a high correlation between single-family housing starts and the growth of small time deposits at thrifts, suggesting that disintermediation effects were powerful; in contrast, since 1983 this correlation is essentially zero.6

Economists at the time were well aware of the importance of the disintermediation phenomenon for monetary policy. Frank de Leeuw and Edward Gramlich highlighted this particular channel in their description of an early version of the MPS macroeconometric model, a joint product of researchers at the Federal Reserve, MIT, and the University of Pennsylvania (de Leeuw and Gramlich, 1969). The model attributed almost one-half of the direct first-year effects of monetary policy on the real economy--which were estimated to be substantial--to disintermediation and other housing-related factors, despite the fact that residential construction accounted for only 4 percent of nominal gross domestic product (GDP) at the time.

As time went on, however, monetary policy mistakes and weaknesses in the structure of the mortgage market combined to create deeper economic problems. For reasons that have been much analyzed, in the late 1960s and the 1970s the Federal Reserve allowed inflation to rise, which led to corresponding increases in nominal interest rates. Increases in short-term nominal rates not matched by contractually set rates on existing mortgages exposed a fundamental weakness in the system of housing finance, namely, the maturity mismatch between long-term mortgage credit and the short-term deposits that commercial banks and thrifts used to finance mortgage lending. This mismatch led to a series of liquidity crises and, ultimately, to a rash of insolvencies among mortgage lenders. High inflation was also ultimately reflected in high nominal long-term rates on new mortgages, which had the effect of "front loading" the real payments made by holders of long-term, fixed-rate mortgages. This front-loading reduced affordability and further limited the extension of mortgage credit, thereby restraining construction activity. Reflecting these factors, housing construction experienced a series of pronounced boom and bust cycles from the early 1960s through the mid-1980s, which contributed in turn to substantial swings in overall economic growth.

The Emergence of Capital Markets as a Source of Housing Finance The manifest problems associated with relying on short-term deposits to fund long-term mortgage lending set in train major changes in financial markets and financial instruments, which collectively served to link mortgage lending more closely to the broader capital markets. The shift from reliance on specialized portfolio lenders financed by deposits to a greater use of capital markets represented the second great sea change in mortgage finance, equaled in importance only by the events of the New Deal.

Government actions had considerable influence in shaping this second revolution. In 1968, Fannie Mae was split into two agencies: the Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae) and the re-chartered Fannie Mae, which became a privately owned government-sponsored enterprise (GSE), authorized to operate in the secondary market for conventional as well as guaranteed mortgage loans. In 1970, to compete with Fannie Mae in the secondary market, another GSE was created--the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, or Freddie Mac. Also in 1970, Ginnie Mae issued the first mortgage pass-through security, followed soon after by Freddie Mac. In the early 1980s, Freddie Mac introduced collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs), which separated the payments from a pooled set of mortgages into "strips" carrying different effective maturities and credit risks. Since 1980, the outstanding volume of GSE mortgage-backed securities has risen from less than $200 billion to more than $4 trillion today. Alongside these developments came the establishment of private mortgage insurers, which competed with the FHA, and private mortgage pools, which bundled loans not handled by the GSEs, including loans that did not meet GSE eligibility criteria--so-called nonconforming loans. Today, these private pools account for around $2 trillion in residential mortgage debt.

These developments did not occur in time to prevent a large fraction of the thrift industry from becoming effectively insolvent by the early 1980s in the wake of the late-1970s surge in inflation.7 In this instance, the government abandoned attempts to patch up the system and instead undertook sweeping deregulation. Reg Q was phased out during the 1980s; state usury laws capping mortgage rates were abolished; restrictions on interstate banking were lifted by the mid-1990s; and lenders were permitted to offer adjustable-rate mortgages as well as mortgages that did not fully amortize and which therefore involved balloon payments at the end of the loan period. Critically, the savings and loan crisis of the late 1980s ended the dominance of deposit-taking portfolio lenders in the mortgage market. By the 1990s, increased reliance on securitization led to a greater separation between mortgage lending and mortgage investing even as the mortgage and capital markets became more closely integrated. About 56 percent of the home mortgage market is now securitized, compared with only 10 percent in 1980 and less than 1 percent in 1970.

In some ways, the new mortgage market came to look more like a textbook financial market, with fewer institutional "frictions" to impede trading and pricing of event-contingent securities. Securitization and the development of deep and liquid derivatives markets eased the spreading and trading of risk. New types of mortgage products were created. Recent developments notwithstanding, mortgages became more liquid instruments, for both lenders and borrowers. Technological advances facilitated these changes; for example, computerization and innovations such as credit scores reduced the costs of making loans and led to a "commoditization" of mortgages. Access to mortgage credit also widened; notably, loans to subprime borrowers accounted for about 13 percent of outstanding mortgages in 2006.

I suggested that the mortgage market has become more like the frictionless financial market of the textbook, with fewer institutional or regulatory barriers to efficient operation. In one important respect, however, that characterization is not entirely accurate. A key function of efficient capital markets is to overcome problems of information and incentives in the extension of credit. The traditional model of mortgage markets, based on portfolio lending, solved these problems in a straightforward way: Because banks and thrifts kept the loans they made on their own books, they had strong incentives to underwrite carefully and to invest in gathering information about borrowers and communities. In contrast, when most loans are securitized and originators have little financial or reputational capital at risk, the danger exists that the originators of loans will be less diligent. In securitization markets, therefore, monitoring the originators and ensuring that they have incentives to make good loans is critical. I have argued elsewhere that, in some cases, the failure of investors to provide adequate oversight of originators and to ensure that originators' incentives were properly aligned was a major cause of the problems that we see today in the subprime mortgage market (Bernanke, 2007). In recent months we have seen a reassessment of the problems of maintaining adequate monitoring and incentives in the lending process, with investors insisting on tighter underwriting standards and some large lenders pulling back from the use of brokers and other agents. We will not return to the days in which all mortgage lending was portfolio lending, but clearly the originate-to-distribute model will be modified--is already being modified--to provide stronger protection for investors and better incentives for originators to underwrite prudently.

The Monetary Transmission Mechanism Since the Mid-1980s The dramatic changes in mortgage finance that I have described appear to have significantly affected the role of housing in the monetary transmission mechanism. Importantly, the easing of some traditional institutional and regulatory frictions seems to have reduced the sensitivity of residential construction to monetary policy, so that housing is no longer so central to monetary transmission as it was.8 In particular, in the absence of Reg Q ceilings on deposit rates and with a much-reduced role for deposits as a source of housing finance, the availability of mortgage credit today is generally less dependent on conditions in short-term money markets, where the central bank operates most directly.

Most estimates suggest that, because of the reduced sensitivity of housing to short-term interest rates, the response of the economy to a given change in the federal funds rate is modestly smaller and more balanced across sectors than in the past.9 These results are embodied in the Federal Reserve's large econometric model of the economy, which implies that only about 14 percent of the overall response of output to monetary policy is now attributable to movements in residential investment, in contrast to the model's estimate of 25 percent or so under what I have called the New Deal system.

The econometric findings seem consistent with the reduced synchronization of the housing cycle and the business cycle during the present decade. In all but one recession during the period from 1960 to 1999, declines in residential investment accounted for at least 40 percent of the decline in overall real GDP, and the sole exception--the 1970 recession--was preceded by a substantial decline in housing activity before the official start of the downturn. In contrast, residential investment boosted overall real GDP growth during the 2001 recession. More recently, the sharp slowdown in housing has been accompanied, at least thus far, by relatively good performance in other sectors. That said, the current episode demonstrates that pronounced housing cycles are not a thing of the past.

My discussion so far has focused primarily on the role of variations in housing finance and residential construction in monetary transmission. But, of course, housing may have indirect effects on economic activity, most notably by influencing consumer spending. With regard to household consumption, perhaps the most significant effect of recent developments in mortgage finance is that home equity, which was once a highly illiquid asset, has become instead quite liquid, the result of the development of home equity lines of credit and the relatively low cost of cash-out refinancing. Economic theory suggests that the greater liquidity of home equity should allow households to better smooth consumption over time. This smoothing in turn should reduce the dependence of their spending on current income, which, by limiting the power of conventional multiplier effects, should tend to increase macroeconomic stability and reduce the effects of a given change in the short-term interest rate. These inferences are supported by some empirical evidence.10

On the other hand, the increased liquidity of home equity may lead consumer spending to respond more than in past years to changes in the values of their homes; some evidence does suggest that the correlation of consumption and house prices is higher in countries, like the United States, that have more sophisticated mortgage markets (Calza, Monacelli, and Stracca, 2007). Whether the development of home equity loans and easier mortgage refinancing has increased the magnitude of the real estate wealth effect--and if so, by how much--is a much-debated question that I will leave to another occasion.

Conclusion I hope this exploration of the history of housing finance has persuaded you that institutional factors can matter quite a bit in determining the influence of monetary policy on housing and the role of housing in the business cycle. Certainly, recent developments have added yet further evidence in support of that proposition. The interaction of housing, housing finance, and economic activity has for years been of central importance for understanding the behavior of the economy, and it will continue to be central to our thinking as we try to anticipate economic and financial developments.

In closing, I would like to express my particular appreciation for an individual who I count as a friend, as I know many of you do: Edward Gramlich. Ned was scheduled to be on the program but his illness prevented him from making the trip. As many of you know, Ned has been a research leader in the topics we are discussing this weekend, and he has just finished a very interesting book on subprime mortgage markets. We will miss not only Ned's insights over the course of this conference but his warmth and wit as well. Ned and his wife Ruth will be in the thoughts of all of us.

mogel007 said...

Judge sends prosecutor to jail:

irs said...

Freedom of Speech?

A federal judge in New York's northern district has ordered a web site that sells information on how to legally stop paying taxes to shut down. If you go to the web site, you'll see that it is still up, but the offensive (to IRS) pages have been removed. According to the site, the latest is that names of people who have purchased their materials will not be turned over to IRS...but this one promises to drag out in court.


I mentioned this site in an Inside Report (now Peoplenomics) way back in early 2001...but, just so we're clear: I haven't stopped paying taxes, and yes, I report every dime I make because although I read a lot of the tax books on how there is not supposed to be any direct capitation on income, one stands in harms way if you stop paying tribute as demanded.

Old saying: "He who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day..."

irs said...

Anyone care to start a DG program for the IRS?

Bet there would be a lot of clients.

mogel007 said...

The Judge wouldn't think to be "vague" would he, on purpose?

"Pursuant to an Injunction issued by a United States District Court most of the content from this website
has been deleted.

Because of the extent and VAGUENESS of the Order, this action has been taken to
prevent charges of
Contempt of Court.

The Order is being appealed
to the Second Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals."

cantgetem'all said...

too bad theyres to many sites and they CANT shut them all down! HA!


* The Great IRS Hoax-electronic book about taxation. Excellent!
* The Galileo Paradigm (9.3 Mbytes)- electronic book about taxation. Excellent
* America: From Freedom to Fascism (OFFSITE LINK)-HOT! Aaron Russo
* We're the Government, and You're Not-funny video
* 31 Questions and Answers About the IRS -Very educational and enlightening.
* Corporate Takeover of U.S. Government Well Underway-amazing! The IRS is a for profit corporation. Look at some of the other federal agencies that are also for profit corporations. Quite a scandal.
* 861 Evidence-Larken Rose
* IRS: A Private Corporation-research by Citizens for Truth in Government
* IRS "Notice of Levy" is NOT a valid levy and banks do NOT have to obey it-at least this financial institution recognizes the truth and protects their depositors from illegal racketeering
* The IRS is paid by the Dept. of Agriculture, not the Dept of Treasury-since they don't have any lawful authority to exist, the money to pay them may have to be laundered by the Dept. of Agriculture.
* How Scoundrels Corrupted Our Republican Form of Government-from Great IRS Hoax section 6.2. How criminal politicians implemented an illegal De Facto government that violates the law in enforcing a voluntary and not mandatory income tax
* Court Case Citations on the Nature of "Income"- Wages are NOT taxable according to the courts.
* Tax Deposition Questions- (HOT!) expanded version of the We the People Truth in Taxation Hearing questions. Over 700 questions with evidence proving irrefutably that there is no requirement to pay or file income taxes for most private persons.
* The REAL evaders: IRS Commissioner Everson-refuses to admit that there is no law requiring people to pay taxes
* IRS Humbug- the BEST book we have seen on the income tax fraud, other than our own Great IRS Hoax book, of course. You simply GOTTA get this book!
* Cracking the Code-very good book about the IRS fraud by Pete Hendrickson
* Vernice Kuglin Interview-(MP3, 600 Kbytes) won against the IRS in court on 8/8/2003
* Congressman admits that the IRS was "not established by law" and Treasury admits DOJ has no authority to defend the IRS in court!-Read the proof for yourself!
* U.S. Government admits under oath that the IRS is not an agency of the U.S. Government! Amazing! See also 31 Questions and Answers about the IRS
* Proof You can get ALL your Federal Taxes On Communications Refunded-because they violate and burden your First Amendment Right to communicate!
* IRS Chief Admits Under Oath that the Income Tax is VOLUNTARY!-Congressional record
* IRS Admits taxpayers are not required to file returns and levies can only occur on Officers or Employees of the Federal Government-Amazing!
* The Joe Banister Story - (MP3, 11 MB) how one IRS criminal investigator learned the truth about the income tax and was asked to resign when he told his supervisors at the IRS about the findings of two years of his own research. See his website at:
* Liens: Are they for Subtitle A Income taxes or Subtitle B Estate Taxes? - this article shows that in most cases, the IRS is instituting federal tax liens by fraudulently claiming an I.R.C. Subtitle B Estate tax liability rather than a Subtitle A Income Tax liability
* Treasury/IRS Privacy Act of 1974 Resource Document #6372--This document, item 46.002, shows that the IRS maintains information files on federal judges so they can be coerced and intimidated. Is it any wonder that citizens get a raw deal in court?
* Evidence of Cover-Up in the U.S. Supreme Court- Supreme court admits in this written transcript of U.S. v. Sandra L. Craft (case # 00-1831) that there is no statute that makes it a crime for failing to file an income tax return and then says to the other justices that "We'd better not let the word get out" ..."We'll keep it just among ourselves".
* Washington, D.C. License Plate: Taxation without representation - proof that the Constitution doesn't apply in the federal zone or the District of Columbia, or should we say the District of Criminals?
* "Work and Jurisdiction of the Bureau of Internal Revenue"-(10.9 Mbytes) very informative and authoritative document written by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue and published in 1948 by the U.S. Government Printing office.
* Letter from the Social Security Administration Regarding Social Security Numbers - Background on legal requirement to have an SSN


* Flawed Tax Arguments to Avoid-(VERY IMPORTANT!)-false or bad legal arguments you should avoid in all your dealings with the IRS
* IRS Public Information Officers-excellent
* April 15: Ritual of the Enslaved-excellent
* Federal Courts and the IRS' Own IRM Say IRS is NOT RESPONSIBLE for Its Actions or its Words or For Following Its Own Written Procedures-(HOT!) the reason they LIE is because they aren't held responsible for telling the truth and its so profitable to lie
* Bursting Bubbles of Government Deception-excellent
o Video (81 minutes)
o Audio (75 minutes, 8.5 Mbytes)
* If the IRS Were Selling Used Cars-hilarious!
* The Dialectic: How Government Uses Cognitive Dissonance to Promote Clearly Irrational and Unlawful Tax Policies
* Brainwashing-a synthesis of the Russian book on psychopolitics
* Brainwashing America
* Rebutted Government Propaganda:
o Meaning of the word "includes" and "including" -rebuts the most frequent bogus argument used on the internet about the jurisdiction of the federal government
o Congressional Research Report 97-59A: "Frequently Asked Questions Concerning the Federal Income Tax"
+ REBUTTED VERSION of Congressional Research Report 97-59A-rebuts Congressional research service omissions and deceptions
+ Congressional Letter Attachment-Typical response of U.S. Congressman attached to constituent's original letter and 97-59A report
o IRS "The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments" -IRS propaganda aimed at discrediting tax freedom advocates.
+ REBUTTED VERSION of "The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments" - rebuttal of IRS propaganda aimed at discrediting tax freedom advocates.
o IRS Anti-Tax Protester Arguments with Rebuttal
o The War of Words-how the government uses "psychopropaganda" and "psyops" to control the docile citizen sheep and beat them into compliance
o Debunking IRS Lies-Original Intent Website
o Substitute for Returns (SFR's) Are Impossible-Pitman Buck

cantgetem'all said...

* Congressman admits that the IRS was "not established by law" and Treasury admits DOJ has no authority to defend the IRS in court!-Read the proof for yourself!
* U.S. Government admits under oath that the IRS is not an agency of the U.S. Government! Amazing! See also 31 Questions and Answers about the IRS

* IRS Chief Admits Under Oath that the Income Tax is VOLUNTARY!-Congressional record
* IRS Admits taxpayers are not required to file returns and levies can only occur on Officers or Employees of the Federal Government-Amazing!

mogel007 said...

I know Pauligirl once asked about this complete case, Bank One vs. Robert E. Ward in Florida. Here is the complete case several years ago in the lower court where a person was able to get their mortgage cancelled by using a Bill of exchange:

Pauligirl claims that this case was overturned on appeal, however, I've never seen or read the appeals case. I would like to read it. Maybe she can find a link for me too.

mogel007 said...

Alot of good reading on this website:

Pauligirl said...

Thanks for the link. After reading it, I have to say I really don't understand what Judge Johnson was thinking when he dismissed the case, other than he just didn't want to hear it. What he did say on the dismissal was that in order to hear it again, a representative from the bank would have to be there and Ms. Fugate would deliver the funds to him. Oh, and the bank had absolutely no obligation to accept anything other than certified funds.

It appears Bank One appealed the summary Judgment and was able to show the Appellant court that no money was ever received, because the interest just kept running.
I can't get the actual appeal documents ( I wish I could because I would love to read them) but I do have the recorded foreclosure papers.

You might want to let the folks over at farmguardian know that while yes, it is an interesting case, the debt was not eliminated using the UCC and a Bill of Exchange

Pauligirl said...

Oops, Make that: bank had absolutely no obligation to accept anything other than certified funds or a cashier's check as stated in the payoff letter.

Can you explain to me exactly how that Bill of Exchange thing works for an individual? Did Ms. Fugate actually have some kind of an account with the treasury department that has at least $144,000 in it?

mogel007 said...

Pauligirl said: "I really don't understand what Judge Johnson was thinking when he dismissed the case,..."

Apparently Judge Johnson thought that a Bill of exchange was GOOD ENOUGH or satisfied the requirements for payment, rather than having to show a "cashiers check" or "certified funds". That's what I take out of this case as SIGNIFICANT. If Fugate gave funds that were acceptable, then the debt is discharged, regardless of how things got twisted later. Accepting that premise, this case adds more credence to the Dorean Group "bond" that was presented to all lenders for their clients.

Pauligirl, do you know if the foreclosure was finalized with an eventual eviction where the bank took literal possession of the Fugate/Ward home & resold it? It appears there isn't enough information to totally understand what transpired LATER.

I don't understand how the Treasury Account thing works. I think it has something to do with a person's unlimited exemption to discharge a debt. I seriously doubt if Ms. Fugate had actual funds on account in her Treasury Account she set up, like a person would have verifiable funds at a bank account. I have her physical mailing address somewhere, I'll have to look and find it. She would be the person to ask many of your questions.

If what Ms. Fugate presented in her Bill of Exchange argument was overturnable, it must have been some sort of scam, wouldn't you agree? If it wasn't a scam, there has to be something to all of this that she did.

If it was a scam, why hasn't someone heard about this Ms. Fugate character getting charged with fraud, being persecuted by the press, and investigated by the FBI & thrown in jail & her being charged with passing "ficitious instruments" by the governmental department that handles this?

Such an important win in Court with such interesting implications, you would think the government would want to make a public example out of her & completely humiliate her so no one else ever tries this again, or so no one else tries to figure out how to do everything correctly so it can never be overturned or challenged.

Pauligirl said...

The property was sold. I can't tell for sure, but it appears that Ward may have abandoned the property as all mail to them from the court was returned to the court as undeliverable.
I agee with you that if what Ms. Fugate presented in her Bill of Exchange argument was overturnable, it must have been some sort of scam. And that's exactly what the count declared.
I did some more digging under Fugate's name and found the order that stated in court that Fugate's Bill of Exchange was a fraudulent financial instrument. I have no idea what may have happened to Ms. Fugate.


notorial dissent said...

Kurt blathered"dream from Doug"

Moogey boy, where you been, don’t you remember good old Dougy “got your money in Latvia” Cameron. His dream was to see how many fools he could separate from their money in one scheme or another and his inept pupil proved just how inept he was.

IRS saidA federal judge in New York's northern district has ordered a web site that sells information on how to legally stop paying taxes to shut down.

Well, I guess we should give you points for getting part of it right, which around here is something of a mementos occasion. A Federal judge did issue an order and Schulz did shut his website down, one having little to do with the other. The court order was for Schulz to stop peddling his tax scam from the website and to remove any mention of it there from, to post a copy of said order on the site and leave it there, and to turn over the names of people who had bought the tax package, hardly vague or unclear. There was never an order to shut the site down. Now the kicker is, that since the whole point of the website was for Schulz to peddle his snake oil, since that is where his money is coming from these days, that sort of hit him in the pocket book, and for the moment he is not even begging for donations to keep fighting the good fight and paying for his lifestyle which he doesn’t intend to give up until he goes to what ever Federal facility they finally send him to. Incidently, there is no way to “legally stop paying taxes”, you can cut your taxes by following the laws and using the legal deductions, but you can’t just stop paying them or by using the nonsense Schulz dreamed up. His so called package has long been ruled a fraud and the actions it advises are flat out illegal and will guarantee an unpleasant number of Federal entanglements down the road. Schulz has appealed the ruling, but it will be upheld, at least the major parts of it, they may get the list excluded, but I wouldn’t hold my breath on that one. Schulz is just another cheap conman, whose time is rapidly running out.

Moogey blathered The Judge wouldn't think to be "vague" would he, on purpose?

Moogs, see above, and you might try reading the order, long winded maybe, but hardly vague. Schulz cut and ran because his cash cow had been turned into hamburger.

cantgetem'all nice reading list of the sure fire guaranteed to get you a nice long stretch at the Federal facility nonsense. A finer collection of quarter truth, misquote, fantasy, and out and out nonsense I haven’t seen in a long time.

Pauli girl, glad you found the rest of the Fugate farce, they always post the first part, and somehow conveniently forget to post the part where she lost, and lost big. I still can’t imagine how that judge would even consider a BOE as an acceptable payment, when it is the lender’s option as to what is acceptable.

In answer to your question, one of the scams making the rounds in the Tax Protester circuit is one or another forms of the redemption scam that claims that there is an account established at birth, or you can fill in the blanks, I’m not going to rehash the nonsense here, but there are several equally nonsensical versions out there. The claim is that you can issue a BOE, draft, again fill in the blanks on this treasury account, Treasury Direct Account-to be precise, and it will pay off your debts. The only thing that is even remotely true here is that there is such a thing as a TDA, it is however a closed loop account used by people who routinely buy Treasury paper, and it requires big bucks to begin with and it is one way, you are sending money to the Treasury, not the other way around. There is no circumstance on earth where any individual has any kind of drawing rights on anything from the treasury. They may get checks or funds from the treasury, but it is gov’t money being sent out as a pension or payment for something, but there are no individual accounts at the Treasury. For all intents and purposes, she was writing a bad check, that ultimately bounced, and since it was written on the Treasury there is also no easy way to present something like that since there is no bank routing channel or anything, that is why some people have gotten away with it for a time, but it is still fraud, and there have been notices sent out from the FED and the FBI about it, and it is a Federal Felony to attempt to write any kind of instrument against a government account, and this more than qualifies.

As to Famguardian, the truth about anything they have a stand on is the last thing they are interested in. They don’t like their mythology disturbed or questioned. They are almost as funny as the ostriches over on Pete Hendrickson’s website trying to explain how him repeatedly getting his head handed to him is vindication for his tax nonsense. He has lost his latest civil case, and the next round, if they don’t nail him for contempt first, will be the criminal phase, and then he really will be in a world of hurt.