“’You’ll own nothing and be happy’? David Webb has gone through the 50-year history of all the legal constructs that have been put in place to technically enable that to happen.” [Oct 2 interview titled “The Great Taking: Who Really Owns Your Assets?”]
The derivatives bubble has been estimated to exceed one quadrillion dollars (a quadrillion is 1,000 trillion). The entire GDP of the world is estimated at $105 trillion, or 10% of one quadrillion; and the collective wealth of the world is an estimated $360 trillion. Clearly, there is not enough collateral anywhere to satisfy all the derivative claims. The majority of derivatives now involve interest rate swaps, and interest rates have shot up. The bubble looks ready to pop.
Who were the intrepid counterparties signing up to take the other side of these risky derivative bets? Initially, it seems, they were banks –led by four mega-banks, JP Morgan Chase, Citibank, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America. But according to a 2023 book called The Great Taking by veteran hedge fund manager David Rogers Webb, counterparty risk on all of these bets is ultimately assumed by an entity called the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC), through its nominee Cede & Co. (See also Greg Morse, “Who Owns America? Cede & DTCC,” and A. Freed, “Who Really Owns Your Money? Part I, The DTCC”). Cede & Co. is now the owner of record of all of our stocks, bonds, digitized securities, mortgages, and more; and it is seriously under-capitalized, holding capital of only $3.5 billion, clearly not enough to satisfy all the potential derivative claims. Webb thinks this is intentional.
What happens if the DTCC goes bankrupt? Under The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA) of 2005, derivatives have “super-priority” in bankruptcy. (The BAPCPA actually protects the banks and derivative claimants rather than consumers; it was the same act that eliminated bankruptcy protection for students.) Derivative claimants don’t even need to go through the bankruptcy court but can simply nab the collateral from the bankrupt estate, leaving nothing for the other secured creditors (including state and local governments) or the banks’ unsecured creditors (including us, the depositors). And in this case the “bankrupt estate” – the holdings of the DTCC/Cede & Co. – includes all of our stocks, bonds, digitized securities, mortgages, and more.
It sounds like conspiracy theory, but it’s all laid out in the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), tested in precedent, and validated by court rulings. The UCC is a privately-established set of standardized rules for transacting business, which has been ratified by all 50 states and includes key provisions that have been “harmonized” with the laws of other countries in the Western orbit. The UCC makes boring reading and is anything but clear, but Webb has diligently picked through the obscure legalese and demonstrates that the amorphous “they” have it all locked up. They can take everything in one fell swoop, without even going to court. Ideally, we need to get Congress to modify some laws, beginning with the super-priority provisions of the Bankruptcy Law of 2005. Even billionaires, notes Webb, are at risk of losing their holdings; and they have the clout to take action.
About The Great Taking and Its Author
As detailed in the introduction, “David Rogers Webb has deep experience with investigation and analysis within challenging and deceptive environments, including the mergers and acquisitions boom of the 80’s, venture investing, and the public financial markets. He managed hedge funds through the period spanning the extremes of the dot-com bubble and bust, producing a gross return of more than 320% while the S&P 500 and the NASDAQ indices had losses. His clients included some of the largest international institutional investors.”
A lengthy personal preface to the book not only establishes these bona fides but tells an interesting story concerning his family history and the rise and fall of his home city of Cleveland in the Great Depression.
As for what the book is about, Webb summarizes in the introduction:
It is about the taking of collateral (all of it), the end game of the current globally synchronous debt accumulation super cycle. This scheme is being executed by long-planned, intelligent design, the audacity and scope of which is difficult for the mind to encompass. Included are all financial assets and bank deposits, all stocks and bonds; and hence, all underlying property of all public corporations, including all inventories, plant and equipment; land, mineral deposits, inventions and intellectual property. Privately owned personal and real property financed with any amount of debt will likewise be taken, as will the assets of privately owned businesses which have been financed with debt. If even partially successful, this will be the greatest conquest and subjugation in world history.
You might have to read the book to be convinced, but it is not long, is available free on the Net, and is heavily referenced and footnoted. I will try to summarize his main points, but first a look at the derivatives problem and how it got out of hand.
The Derivative Mushroom Cloud
A “financial derivative” is defined as “a security whose value depends on, or is derived from, an underlying asset or assets. The derivative represents a contract between two or more parties and its price fluctuates according to the value of the asset from which it is derived.”
Warren Buffett famously described derivatives as “weapons of financial mass destruction,” but they did not start out that way. Initially they were a form of insurance for farmers to guarantee the price of their forthcoming crops. In a typical futures contract, the miller would pay a fixed price for wheat not yet harvested. The miller assumed the risk that the crops would fail or market prices would fall, while the farmer assumed the risk that prices would rise, limiting his potential profit.
In either case, the farmer actually delivered the product, or so much of it as he produced. The derivatives market exploded when speculators were allowed to bet on the rise or fall of prices, exchange rates, interest rates and other “underlying assets” without actually owning or delivering the “underlying.” Like at a race track, bets could be placed without owning the horse, so there was no limit to the potential number of bets. Speculators could “hedge their bets” by selling short — borrowing and selling stock or other assets they did not actually own. It was a form of counterfeiting that not only diluted the value of the “real” stock but drove down the stock’s price, in many cases driving the company into bankruptcy, so that the short sellers did not have to cover or “deliver” at all (called “naked shorting”). This form of gambling was allowed and encouraged due to a number of regulatory changes, including the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (CFMA), repealing key portions of the Glass-Steagall Act separating commercial from investment banking; the Bankruptcy Law of 2005, guaranteeing recovery for derivative speculators; and the lifting of the uptick rule, which had allowed short selling only when a stock was going up.
Enter the DTC, the DTCC and Cede & Co.
In exchange-traded derivatives, a third party, called a clearinghouse, ensures that the bets are paid, a role played initially by the bank. And here’s where the UCC and the DTCC come in. The bank takes title in “street name” and pools it with other “fungible” shares. Under the UCC, the purchaser of the stock does not hold title; he has only a “security entitlement”, making him an unsecured creditor. He has a contractual claim to a portion of a pool of shares held in street name, assuming there are any shares left after the secured creditors have swept in. Webb writes:
In the late 1960’s, something called the Banking and Securities Industry Committee (BASIC) had been formed to find a solution to the “paperwork crisis.” It seemed the burdens of handling physical stock certificates had suddenly become too great, so much so, that the New York Stock exchange had suspended trading some days. “Lawmakers” then urged the government to step into the process. The BASIC report recommended changing from processing physical stock certificates to “book-entry” transfers of ownership via computerized entries in a trust company that would hold the underlying certificates “immobilized.”
Thus was established the Depository Trust Company (DTC), which began operations in 1973, after President Nixon decoupled the dollar from gold internationally. The DTC decoupled stock ownership from paper stock certificates. The purchasers who had put up the money became only “beneficial owners” entitled to interest, dividends and voting rights, leaving title of record in the DTC. The Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation (DTCC) was established in 1999 to combine the functions of the DTC and the National Securities Clearing Corporation (NSCC). The DTCC settles most securities transactions in the U.S. Title of record is with DTC’s nominee Cede & Co. Per Wikipedia:
Cede and Company (also known as Cede and Co. or Cede & Co.), shorthand for “certificate depository”, is a specialist United States financial institution that processes transfers of stock certificates on behalf of Depository Trust Company, the central securities depository used by the United States National Market System, which includes the New York Stock Exchange, and Nasdaq.
Cede technically owns most of the publicly issued stock in the United States. Thus, most investors do not themselves hold direct property rights in stock, but rather have contractual rights that are part of a chain of contractual rights involving Cede. Securities held at Depository Trust Company are registered in its nominee name, Cede & Co., and recorded on its books in the name of the brokerage firm through which they were purchased; on the brokerage firm’s books they are assigned to the accounts of their beneficial owners. [Emphasis added.]
Greg Morse notes that the dictionary definition of “cede” is to “relinquish title.” For more on “beneficial ownership,” see the DTCC website here.
“Harmonizing” the Rules
The next step in the decoupling process was to establish “legal certainty” that the “anointed” creditors could take all, by amending the UCC in all 50 states. This was done quietly over many years, without an act of Congress. The key facts, notes Webb, are these:
- Ownership of securities as property has been replaced with a new legal concept of a “security entitlement”, which is a contractual claim assuring a very weak position if the account provider [bank/clearing agent] becomes insolvent.
- All securities are held in un-segregated pooled form. Securities used as collateral, and those restricted from such use, are held in the same pool.
- All account holders, including those who have prohibited use of their securities as collateral, must, by law, receive only a pro-rata share of residual assets.
- “Re-vindication,” i.e. the taking back of one’s own securities in the event of insolvency, is absolutely prohibited.
- Account providers may legally borrow pooled securities to collateralize proprietary trading and financing.
- “Safe Harbor” assures secured creditors priority claim to pooled securities ahead of account holders.
- The absolute priority claim of secured creditors to pooled client securities has been upheld by the courts.
The next step was to “harmonize” the laws internationally so that there would be no escape, at least in the Western orbit. Webb learned this by personal experience, having moved to Sweden to escape, only to have Swedish law subsequently “harmonized” with the “legal certainty” provisions of the UCC.
“Safe Harbor” in the Bankruptcy Code
The last step was to establish “safe harbor” in the 2005 Bankruptcy Code revisions – meaning “’safe harbor’ for secured creditors against the demands of customers to their own assets.” Webb quotes from law professor Stephen Lubben’s book The Bankruptcy Code Without Safe Harbors:
Following the 2005 amendments to the Code, it is hard to envision a derivative that is not subject to special treatment. The safe harbors cover a wide range of contracts that might be considered derivatives, including securities contracts, commodities contracts, forward contracts, repurchase agreements, and, most importantly, swap agreements. …
The safe harbors as currently enacted were promoted by the derivatives industry as necessary measures . . . The systemic risk argument for the safe harbors is based on the belief that the inability to close out a derivative position because of the automatic stay would cause a daisy chain of failure amongst financial institutions. The problem with this argument is that it fails to consider the risks created by the rush to close out positions and demand collateral from distressed firms. Not only does this contribute to the failure of an already weakened financial firm, by fostering a run on the firm, but it also has consequent effects on the markets generally . . . the Code will have to guard against attempts to grab massive amounts of collateral on the eve of a bankruptcy, in a way that is unrelated to the underlying value of the trades being collateralized.
A number of researchers have found that super-priority in bankruptcy for derivatives actually increases rather than decreases risk. See e.g. a National Bureau of Economic Research paper called “Should Derivatives be Privileged in Bankruptcy?” Among other hazards, super-priority has contributed to the explosion in speculative derivatives, threatening the stability of national and global markets. For more on this issue, see my earlier articles here and here.
What to Do?
Webb does not say much about solutions; his goal seems to be to sound the alarm. What can we do to protect our assets? “Probably nothing,” he quoted a knowledgeable expert in a recent webinar. “We just have to stop them.” But he did point out that even the assets of the wealthy are threatened. If the issue can be brought to the attention of Congress, hopefully they can be motivated to revise the laws. Congressional action could include modifying the Bankruptcy Act of 2005 and the UCC, taxing windfall profits, imposing a financial transaction tax, and enforcing the antitrust laws and Constitutional property rights. As for timing, Webb says just the movement in interest rates, from 0.25% to 5.5%, should have collapsed the market already. He thinks it is being held up artificially, while “they” get the necessary systems in place.
Where to save your personal monies? Big derivative banks are risky, and Webb thinks credit unions and smaller banks will go down with the market if there is a general collapse, as happened in the Great Depression. Gold and silver are good but hard to spend on groceries. Keeping some emergency cash on hand is important, and so is growing your own food if you have space for a garden. Short-term Treasuries bought directly from the government at Treasury Direct might be the safest savings option, assuming the government doesn’t wind up in bankruptcy itself.
Meanwhile, we need to design an alternative financial system that is equitable and sustainable. Promising components might include publicly-owned banks, product-backed community cryptocurrencies, a land value tax, and a financial transaction tax.
A neoliberal, financialized economy of the sort we have today produces little and leaves the workers in debt. Goods and services are produced by the “real” economy; finance is just superstructure. Derivatives do not now produce even the security for which they were originally intended. A healthy, enduring economy must produce real things and exchange them fairly for the wages earned by labor.
____________________
Ellen Brown is an attorney, chair of the Public Banking Institute, and author of thirteen books including Web of Debt, The Public Bank Solution, and Banking on the People: Democratizing Money in the Digital Age. She also co-hosts a radio program on PRN.FM called “It’s Our Money.” Her 400+ blog articles are posted at EllenBrown.com.
Filed under: Ellen Brown Articles/Commentary | Tagged: bail-in, BANKS BIG BANKS BIG TECH DERIVATIVES ECONOMY FED FINANCE MONEY MONEY SILICON VALLEY SVB THE FED, Dodd-Frank, DTC, DTCC, Ellen Brown, public banking |
WEB OF DEBT BLOG 
I wonder how many of our legislators have any understanding of just how bad the situation is. Those on the right push for less and less regulatory oversight of the financial markets (as though 2008 never happened). I am sure that Wall Street and bank executives will be awarding themselves record compensation as we head toward systemic collapse.
Having read many of Ellen’s articles over decades my solution for some secuity of ownership in the UK has been to put most of my “money” into real housing rented out and with title on paper docs that I hold (with no debt), (and not in a low-lieing area or near a river!) a much smaller amount in to UK National Savings & Investments monthly interest bonds, and with a similar smaller amount amount in a Community shares scheme with paper certificates that I hold (in a village small hydro elec scheme) that pays modest yearly interest (only), a smaller still amount still in a building society deposit account and about £2000 held in paper cash (not at home). I am ethically happy with this too as I look after my tenants and charge much less than the market rent and do most repairs and improvements myself and do voluntary work.
Did you know that the crown owns all of the land in England and Wales regardless of whether you have fully paid for it or not ? You are just a long term administrator until they say otherwise.
Ugh. It’s all so scary and depressing. I wish you would have won for CA State Treasurer in 2016. Thank you Ellen!
Thanks! Not sure I had the skill set for it. Not much hope of winning; I just wanted to get the public banking message out.
Ellen, who owns Cede & Co.? My understanding of commercial law is that a human being, in the form of an estate at least, has to have ultimate ownership of all assets.
Good question — pretty vague. Per Wikipedia:
Cede and Company is a New York City-based partnership of certain employees of Depository Trust Company.[10][7] Cede is a separate legal person from Depository Trust Company, which is owned by DTC Participants, who are banks and brokerage houses, and not employees of DTC.[citation needed]
One reason Cede is structured as a partnership is that each general partner can order transfers of stock registered in the name of the partnership without the need for presenting a separate corporate resolution to the stock issuer’s transfer agent or stock registrar to validate the authority of the transfer.[citation needed]
[…] “The Great Taking”: How They Can Own It All […]
“Call Trump all the derogatory names you like. Many will be accurate. But he is the cause of the night horrors in Washington, a candidate not under the control of the Two-Headed Monoparty. He might do any goddam thing, such as end the war. Do you know what that would do to share prices at Lockheed-Martin? Anyway, like I say, the best pure political mechanic the country has produced.” https://fredoneverything.org/this-trump-thing-aspects-of-a-wrecking-ball/
Having read many of Ellen’s articles over decades my solution for some secuity of ownership in the UK has been to put most of my “money” into real housing rented out and with title on paper docs that I hold (with no debt), (and not in a low-lieing area or near a river!) a much smaller amount in to UK National Savings & Investments monthly interest bonds, and with a similar smaller amount amount in a Community shares scheme with paper certificates that I hold (in a village small hydro elec scheme) that pays modest yearly interest (only), a smaller still amount still in a building society deposit account and about £2000 held in paper cash (not at home). I am ethically happy with this too as I look after my tenants and charge much less than the market rent and do most repairs and improvements myself and do voluntary work.
If this were to actually happen it would finally awaken EVERYONE to the deepest problem we face, namely the current anomalous monetary paradigm of Debt Only as the sole form and vehicle for the creation and distribution of new money and as Burden To Repay.
There isn’t anything inherently wrong with a debt/a loan, but enforcing it as a monopoly idea/paradigm is and always has been the deepest de-stabilizing factor in economic history. Consult Michael Hudson and Steve Keen on the history and research.
What Hudson and Keen however have not cognited on is what is the exact new paradigm concept and how can it be most efficaciously applied? I have done that.
The last monopoly paradigm was The Reformation. We require a monetary, financial and economic paradigm.
Agreed. What’s your solution?
Bear with me on this post, it might be rather long.
First we’ll probably need to take the situation you describe to court challenging the sanctity of contracts, specifically the monopolistic ability to seize other people’s money and assets because The Sanctity of Contracts ONLY is a monopoly paradigm.
In the mean time in order to stabilize the economy in perpetuity we need to communicate the wild benefits of strategically applying the new monetary paradigm of Gifting’s policies directly to the general populace.
Keep the above and this in mind: Probably at least 30-40% of the MAGA constituency is MAGA because the individual has been ignored and jipped by both parties for the last 50+ years.
A couple more preliminaries: The private banks utilize equal debits and credits, i.e. accounting operations to create upwards of 97% of our new money every year. And even government debt is presto-change-o immediately transformed into treasuries, i.e. debt. Thats a monopoly paradigm on new money.
Accounting/Double Entry Bookkeeping is probably the most temporal universe reality anchoring discipline Mankind has ever invented.
Many of the policies I advocate utilize the same debits and credits operations to anchor the new paradigms realities.
If a single policy in the 25 policy program of the new monetary paradigm (the 50% Discount/Rebate policy at retail sale)
1) immediately doubles everyone’s purchasing power,
2) potentially doubles the demand for every enterprise’s goods and services and
3) also mathematically ends inflation forever…thats a no brainer set of benefits that could usher in a greater coalition for its enactment than the The New Deal enjoyed, and
4) with my 25-50% debt jubilee policy at the point of loan signing…anyone could buy a $60k Tesla for $15k and a $400k house for $100k…so its even more of a no-brainer.
All liberal economic and monetary reformer’s, including yourself, philosophically align with the new paradigm. NIB is a form of Gifting for infrastructure, MMT is monetary Gifting for government contractors, Steve Keen’s “Modern Debt Jubilee” is a gift of money to erase debt, UBI/Universal Dividend is direct monetary Gifting to the individual, Michael Hudson’s research confirms that monetary Gifting has been utilized by the ancients to re-stabilize their economies and re-write the contract with their general populace. You take the majority democratic constituency and tack on at least 30-40% of the MAGA crowd even the dumbest consumer can do the simple math and say, Holy crap! Someone finally directly and immediately helped me!
We really need to pow-wow Ellen. The applied ideas AKA paradigms behind our systems are what create and enforce their temporal universe realities, and are where the real power for permanent resolving change is to be found. What if we could integrate and synergize the policy intentions of all of the aforementioned reform movements?
I tried to follow that but failed I’m afraid. I can’t tell from your email address who this is; maybe we’ve already had this conversation.
I’m saying that some group of oligarchs seizing everyone’s assets would be a Boston massacre moment. And it couldn’t possibly survive a constitutional test.
The rest of the post is the way out of the debt conundrum we face by utilizing the same method private finance uses to enforce its monopoly paradigm of Debt Only, namely accounting/equal debits and credits that sum to zero at retail sale and at point of loan signing.
Just keep doing the simple math of a 50% reduction in price and amount financed at those two points until you see its effects for the individual (a $400k house is reduced to $200k at retail and to $100k at point of loan signing. The retailer gets their full $400k as the monetary authority rebates the entirety of their discount to the consumer…back to them. The bank gets $100k rebated back to them as income they can immediately put in their pockets as profit, but the consumer again benefits by only having to finance $100k instead of $400k.
Accounting anchors and enforces monetary and financial temporal reality. But instead of anchoring private finance’s monopoly paradigm of Debt Only it resolves the deepest probems of the current paradigm by integrating Monetary Gifting strategically into the economy and so changes the reality for everyone while breaking up Finance’s monopoly paradigm.
Direct registration allows you to have your securities registered in your name—rather than in the name of a brokerage firm.
When an investor holds securities in the Direct Registration System (or DRS), the securities are registered in the investor’s own name on the books of the issuer, which is maintained by the transfer agent.
https://www.dtcc.com/settlement-and-asset-services/securities-processing/direct-registration-system
https://www.sec.gov/about/reports-publications/investor-publications/holding-your-securities-get-the-facts
https://cda.computershare.com/Content/d725a1d1-6d06-4b48-a90b-6af58fd4eb0f
According to Webb, they can still be taken, as they were in 2008 in the bankruptcies of Lehman Bros and MF Global. He moved to Sweden thinking he could escape all that but then they changed the laws even in Sweden.
I just read the https://cda.computershare.com/Content/d725a1d1-6d06-4b48-a90b-6af58fd4eb0f and on the first page left, “Why is the Company using DRS?” described just what Webb is discussing albeit DRS is just a different name at the brokerage level.
So I’m wondering, and I don’t recall this in Webb’s book but maybe I missed it, well I’ll just quote here: “Investors who have purchased AT&T Inc. stock through a broker and who wish to be a registered owner must specifically direct the broker to register the shares with the corporation.” So, if one’s shares are registered with the company, would that change things, and or would a letter confirming removal from “book listings” when the certificate is issued help?….
g
If you search the author not much is found, hmmmm
There are several good youtube podcasts on him and his book:
Get Ready for “The Great Taking” Doug Casey’s Take, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5-qvST4_iE
On him but not about him and what he’s done. Guy like him should have a long list of articles like most of the financial guru’s do. But hey buy my book
[…] This article was originally published on the author’s blog site, Web of Debt Blog. […]
Ellen- Thank you so much for this article. I’m sharing it everywhere. I’m actually surprised that some financial types don’t seem to take it seriously and think it’s “nonsense.” But of course, these people didn’t take the time to read his book or listen to any of the videos on his book.
All of this talk about owners, beneficiaries, and collateral on debt has reminded me of a presentation I listened to by a medical doctor (“KL”) who has spent years researching hidden legal tricks pertaining to the banking system. He seems to say that in addition to getting the power to issue currency out of thin air and loaning it to governments at interest, the other way the elite have been ruling over us is through trust law (hidden legal tricks/deception/fraud) and bankruptcy law. In the audio below, he says the early US government never paid off the Revolutionary War debt to the international bankers, and that there were other resets that we didn’t even know about at key historical times (with “reset” referring to a restructuring of the debt). He says each time there was a reset, the US govt could not pay back the debt and had to put up more and more of the nation as collateral (e.g. ownership of federal and state lands and buildings, and even us via birth certificates, maybe as our future labor)
https://www.crrow777radio.com/256-a-path-to-freedom-for-those-fictitiously-lost-at-sea-free/
Also, during David Webb’s presentation on his book on Rumble, at one point, I think he said the central bankers were using Roman law to set all of this up. Well, that’s also what researcher “KL” has been saying–he says they are using Roman Civil law and trust law, where we have (without knowing it) entered into trust agreements with them, which allows them to do what the do. “KL” also seems to suggest that we don’t really own our cars or homes because of these hidden trust agreements and that they are the owners and we are simply given the privilege of using them (just like the stocks). “KL” did video presentations on all of this here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6D46W7nvo0M&list=PLLRHMES2cd2U-SLlowedXWuISkBaq7FqN&index=1 I don’t know what the truth is on all of this, but I found his presentations compelling.
Finally, in his above presentation on The Great Taking, Mike (Parallel Systems youtube) mentions that people in the UK don’t really own their power property and that it is held in a land trust, but they are given the privilege of using (living in) the property. Apparently, this goes back to 1666 when the bankers set fire to London (http://mileswmathis.com/1666.pdf). Anyway, I’m wondering if the same might apply to us here in the US because of legal trickery mentioned in the book below, as well as KL’s information. (I’ve also heard finance expert, Greg Mannarino warn about this too- that we don’t really own our own property because we used their unit of debt to purchase it):
They Own It All (Including You!) By Means of Toxic Currency https://archive.org/details/TheyOwnEverythingIncludingYou/mode/2up
Here’s more info on the book here http://newpeopleorder.com/
Thanks, will check those links out.
I tried, but the book was too hard to read on the screen and the interview is 3 hours long. I listened to the beginning but it seemed like opinion without references. Maybe gets better but I’m a bit busy now!
Yes, it takes time to dig into, and most are pressed for time. I’ve looked into this info for years, so it doesn’t sound as crazy now as it used to. And attorney Todd Callender seems aware of this info–in an interview with SGT report, he didn’t seem to think it was crazy said 25 million are now state nationals (so they “changed their status”) and undid their US citizenship, which is apparently some kind of hidden trust agreement when you check govt forms indicating that you are a US citizen it gives the corporate govt jurisdiction (yes, I know it sounds crazy). I mainly wanted to bring it up because what David Webb was talking about in terms of the legislation put in place for The Great Taking, reminded me of what I’ve been hearing from these other sources, with beneficiaries, collateral, and hidden owners, especially with KL also mentioning Roman Civil Law. But yes, it does take time to get into and there’s not much time these days.
Let’s put some time into searching the texts from Ellen Brown for use of the word “trust” to see if she actually ever tells her readers the power of “structuring a trust indenture” to shield property and assets away FROM A LEGAL PERSON’s name, and putting the item(s) “INTO TRUST” for future named beneficiaries. Then go have a read over at brillianceincommerce to see what we’ve been missing. HINT: What is DTCC besides a huge trust that holds assets away from others?
brillianceincommerce.com/house-of-freedom-natural-law-trust/
hotcityjimmy is also an American State National (among the 25 million)
Treasuries Direct does seem to be an attractive option. But my assets are retirement assets held in an IRA at a huge brokerage firm. That raises an issue as to whether you can buy Treasuries Direct for an IRA. Apparently you cannot. Kiplinger says there are ways to get them in there. But does that solve the problem? Once they are in an IRA at a bank or brokerage firm do I have the same “secuity entitlement” problem?
]
Good question. You can buy Treasuries at Schwab. But what if Schwab goes bankrupt? I imagine they can be nabbed like stocks.
I’m helping my mother manage her money, and I just bought her short term T-bills in her IRA at Fidelity. But there was no going through Treasury Direct when setting that up. The woman on the Diamond Nest Egg youtube channel teaches you step by step how to buy the short term T bills through Fidelity, Vanguard, and Schwab. I definitely did that for my mom’s brokerage account and IRA at Fidelity. But I’m not sure if that will solve The Great Taking problem.
And right now I’m also concerned about the banking system itself–I listen to Greg Mannarino and he’s warning that there are bank runs going on behind the scenes, as people are pulling their money out like never before. He also said something like the banks were going to the Fed for help, but we’re not supposed to know. So I’ve been helping my elderly mother get out of CDs and reduce what she has in the bank. I’m not sure what the best strategy is at this point., though Bill Holter says get gold for whatever you don’t want to lose.
I’m also worried about Schwab, though today Mannarino seemed to say he thought the banks in the worst shape were BoA and Wells Fargo.
Hi
Hi Ellen, Webb’s argument refers to UCC 8, where we find https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/8/8-511 in which point (c) indeed designates clearing corporations as exceptions to the rule that entitlement holders are entitled to their holdings, namely in the case that (1) the clearing is a depository (2) the clearing falls over and (3) (protected) creditors of that bankrupt depository/clearing feel the urge to grab your stocks from that depository.
It’s not completely clear to me that those conditions are satisfied:
(Ad 1) The DTCC has two subsidiairies: DTC (the securities depository) and NSCC (a clearing corporation) among others. Now that doesn’t mean that that clearing corporation IS the depository. I.e. if the NSCC goes bankrupt, then the DTCs stock in NSCC is worthless, but the creditors don’t necessarily get to grab securities from DTC in that case unless, as Webb mentions, DTC offers the stock you thought you owned as collateral for losses in NSCC. That latter condition, DTC offering collateral to NSCC, is quoted as being desirable by lobyists pushing legislation, but it is not clear to me that this in fact is happening. As far as I can see Webb doesn’t offer evidence in the book that this actually happens. Do you know if it is the case?
(Ad 2) Webb does provide evidence that the capitalization of NSCC is laughable, making that a realistic scenario.
(Ad 3) The creditors would I presume be the institutions to which the collateral was offered. Question is: Is it really common practice for depositories to offer securities on deposit as collateral for other people’s risks?
The DTCC is the clearing agent at the top and the holding company for the DTC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depository_Trust_%26_Clearing_Corporation Its assets are held at Cede & Co. If it went bankrupt, the derivatives claimants could take the assets at Cede & Co. without going through bankruptcy. That’s how it looks to me, but complicated!
What I mean is: The clearing corporation NSCC can go bankrupt because it doesn’t have the capitalization needed to cover for parties defaulting on their derivative obligations, ok I agree. But the subsidiary NSCC going broke doesn’t mean that the holding company DTCC goes bankrupt. It just means that the value of its stock in NSCC just went to zero, and from there it’s JPMorgan’s problem to try and get more than the $3.5B out of NSCC, which however is not there, so JPMorgan is holding the bag if Deutsche Bank fails on its obligations. UNLESS the other subsidiary DTC actually pleged its securities under custody to NSCC. My question is: Is that as we speak the case? Does DTC pledge securities under custody as collateral to cover for risk concentrated in NSCC? That’s not clear to me.
Good question, but it looks to me as if they are merged — https://www.globalcustodian.com/dtcc-finally-puts-dtc-and-nscc-on-to-a-single-platform-after-six-months-of-dual-running/
That seems to be a merger of operational systems, not a legal entity merger. DTCC refers to both DTC and NSCC as its subsidiaries: https://www.dtcc.com/about/businesses-and-subsidiaries/dtc . Which doesn’t exclude what Webb claims, namely that depositories pledge their securities under custody to cover for risks concentrated in derivatives clearings. I asked David Webb but he hasn’t answered yet. I fear he knows what he’s talking about, it’s just that I can’t verify it, I was wondering if you knew more about this.
Frivolous fun with an AI to try and get an answer: https://poe.com/s/Y0b2v948tZ2v1biQhGsm
Who does the Deep State — THEY —imagine will enforce this BS Plan to “own the world in Fee Simple”? WE will declare a Jubilee and then reclaim the MONEY POWER and outlaw banksters from creating money.
If we have time. At the very least, there will be riots and pandemonium; but legally, “they” seem to have it locked up. Imagine a nation-wide cyberattack as a scenario. Your bank is closed and you can’t access your account (as happened in the Great Depression). You can’t even prove how much money was in it, since you opted to go paper-free with your monthly report. You have no money for food and essentials, until the government comes up with its rescue plan — a “programmable” CBDC that they control. I actually think a CBDC could be a good thing (since the central bank can’t go bankrupt), but it all depends on the program, transparency, and who controls it.
The REAL majority in this country, us deplorables in flyover country, national guard, police, WILL NOT COMPLY with (((THEM))) taking everything we have WORKED for.
I haven’t opted to go paper-free for ANY of my bank or utility or title deeds or other accounts despite being regularly invied to do so and how good that would be. Here in the UK you still don’t have to and it has long seemed a no-brainer for me to refuse and I always ask everyone else to refuse also. I have an indexed filing cabinet full of papers but what the hell- things are often more easily found than digitally and I am not dependant on technology or an internet connection. Trouble is so many people meekly do what they’re told without asking themselves what the motive and the downside might be. On another but related subject- The same for contactless debit cards, most banks here still allow the chip and pin alternative and for the few that won’t- the contactless functionality is easily disabled. If I lose my card of course I want to know that no-one else can use it and that I am not dependant on the bank’s good will in refunding any losses to me.
[…] Great Taking”: How They Can Own It All – by Ellen Brown – https://ellenbrown.com/2023/10/03/the-great-taking-how-they-plan-to-own-it-all/ – You’ll own nothing and be happy’? David Webb has gone through the 50-year history of […]
Hello Ellen Brown, I have enjoyed reading and sharing your insights into public banks vs all-the-rest for several years, but never felt the need to comment until now. I don’t actually have a comment, I have a bit of information that you might want to know about. I live in Canada and have been using a social media site called ‘Librti’. A person posted something rather unusual about the Canada banking laws that you might be interested in exploring and perhaps explaining. Here is the post: Hmmmmm. this is interesting – under the Canadian Banking Act – This is interesting – Bank Act (justice.gc.ca)
Go to Section 21 (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (4), banks shall not carry on business, and authorized foreign banks shall not carry on business in Canada, after June 30, 2025.
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/B-1.01/page-4.html#docCont Bank Act Does this mean what I think it means? That there will be no more banks in Canada after June 30, 2025? Thank you for taking the time to consider my question.
Can’t find Section 21. Only goes to PART 16
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/B-1.01/page-4.html#docCont
Please provide link to the June 2025 “end of banking in Canada” quote.
Canadians need to reclaim THEIR Money Power from the banksters the same as us yanks.
[…] read this today – “A “financial derivative” is defined as “a security whose value depends […]
[…] "The Great Taking": How They Can Own It All […]
[…] “The Great Taking”: How They Can Own It All […]
[…] Sursa: https://ellenbrown.com/2023/10/03/the-great-taking-how-they-plan-to-own-it-all […]
[…] Ellen Brown Preluare: ellenbrown.com/Traducerea: CDsursa: […]
[…] Read more of this post […]
[…] Ellen BrownPreluare: ellenbrown.com/Traducerea: CDsursa: IonCoja.roNOTAEllen Brown este avocat, președinte al Institutului Public […]
[…] Banking expert Ellen Hodgson Brown writes: […]