Can they take your stocks and bonds? The courts have already ruled “yes.”

Originally published at:

The Great Taking – Episode 5

Welcome to episode 5 of my Great Taking deep dive. This episode centers on the many court cases that have affirmed the legal ‘right’ of big, powerful financial firms to take money and stocks and bonds from a failed (or failing) stock brokerage or clearing firm.

They have this right because Congress, in its infinitesimal wisdom, passed laws that banking lobbyists and white shoe law firms wrote for them to pass.

This is the heart of The Great Taking. Once you understand that passing the laws was the installation of the means of executing the taking (the ‘trigger’) the next step is to ask if that trigger has ever been pulled.

Bang! Bang, bang! Bangity-bang-bang!

Yes, it’s already been pulled many times. And the legal frame has been run all the way up to the Supreme Court which has affirmed the protected status of certain types of financial firms and then allowed the taking of assets under that protective umbrella.

It’s all quite shocking. One of the core tenets of bankruptcy is the idea of an ‘automatic stay’ that happens the instant bankruptcy is filed. It prevents creditors from even calling the bankrupt party, let alone demanding or seizing money or property.

But not when it comes to the murky world of ‘high finance’ where the intention of Congress was to create a safer financial system but has instead created a monster. One with even more concentrated banks and vastly larger derivative positions and by carving out more and more types of financial securities and derivatives that are protected and can bypass the usual bankruptcy mechanisms.

I’m sorry if this is all convoluted, complicated, and seemingly boring. It is anything but boring, it’s how ‘they’ plan to seize all of our wealth whenever they themselves face the prospect of losses. Heads they win, tails we lose.

It’s grotesque, completely immoral, and entirely indefensible.


@cmartenson do you have any plans to get Ann Vandersteel on to talk about becoming a State National?

I’ve been researching Allodial titles and came across the State National movement that Ann is involved with and realized she was down south with you at the gap.

General question:

The big picture looks like TPTB have many triggers in place which they may execute under various conditions.

Is it possible ALL triggers would get pulled?
Or is the situation more hedged and nuanced, where under one set of circumstances they pull one set and under another, they pull others?

No doubt the choice to defend the dollar or the bond market has consequences. What if they set things up to where whichever way things went they had plans in place?

Possibly they may plan to kill the dollar at some point and replace the currency. But if something got in their way and things went the opposite way, wouldn’t it make sense to have triggers in place for their protection in case of bond market collapse?

If I had 50 years to plan things out why not plan for both cases?

1 Like

Chris, I’ve been avoiding these videos, preferring to take the Ostrich approach. This frightens me, A LOT. We know that none of our reps have the capacity to write these laws. And the long game that is being played is truly frightening. I go back to the MD you interviewed several ago that laid out how the plans to incorporate the death panel were put into place. Somebody had this completely planned out, and it took years to incorporate. My father in law ran into the death panel provisions. The surgeon used an interesting choice of words, “we are not permitted to do surgery, because he doesn’t meet the numerical numbers to perform the surgery”. Wife begged him to run the test again, and he miraculously passed the minimum number to have the surgery. he lived about three more years after that surgery. Was it the best financial decision, probably not. But, we had three more years with him.


Multiple individual triggers - wrapped up within a grand wholesale rug-pull plan … I agree with this hypothesis 100% … I’ll even go you one further… I think it’s multiple individual kaaaaaaaabooms - wrapped up within a grand wholesale KAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABOOOOM plan.

Even if some kaaaaabooom fireworks don’t go off, it’ll still finish up the mother of all firework displays when this thing eventually goes off.

1 Like

“Notwithstanding” - I really dislike this word, it’s so confusing to me. When I hear or see it, can I replace it in my mind’s eye with the words “regardless of” … and the sentence still finish up meaning the same thing? Please can somebody help me understand this English legal term.

So for example: “Notwithstanding any law written elsewhere, this law applies” … can this be replaced with “Regardless of any law written elsewhere, this law applies”. This would be easier for me to understand what law actually applies and eliminate my confusion. Is this correct and are there any exceptions?

Thanks in advance.


I posted a question in the comment section below the video, but perhaps I should have waited and posted it here. Did any of the bangity-bang-bangs result in retail brokerage customers losing money? No retail brokerage customers lost money in the Lehman bankruptcy. All the accounts were transferred to another broker.

If there is no precedent for retail customers being wiped out and not being covered by SIPC insurance we really don’t know how a systemic failure would play out.

After studying the various contexts in which the phrase “financial stability” is used in the Great Taking laws and regulations you have revealed, I’m ready to offer a definition of that all-important phrase.

“Financial stability” is that set of conditions which enforces the reality that the wealthiest and most powerful 0.1% of financial system participants remain the wealthiest and most powerful 0.1% of financial system participants.

In other words, the JPMorgans of the world must remain on top of the financial system forever and ever. Amen.


Here’s a link to a legal view of notwithstanding:

Merriam Webster dictionary suggests “despite” as a synonym.


The Lehman collapse was instructive and highly complicated. Many years after the fact deep analyses are still trying to sort out what exactly happened.

We may never really know.

But even if the retail accounts managed to be protected, their holdings may not have been:


This was an important test run to figure out how this could all be done.

Since then things have only gotten larger and more complex.

Now I 100% understand why the Fed freaks out and reliquifies the ““markets”” every single time equities or bonds decide to sell off. They simply cannot risk these markets finding their natural equilibrium levels because they have so much rot in so many central pillars.

Things like:

  • How many persons believe they own the same equities?

  • how many bonds have multiple ‘owners?’

  • How many derivative positions cannot be netted out because the necessary underlying simply doesn’t exist?

Etc, and so forth.


Gosh, I depend on Chris to verify and confirm these truths, and it is truly helpful on many levels. Even if I can’t really protect my self, monetarily. (BTC)
“When plunder becomes as a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.” —Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850)


Chris. Thanks for that thorough and well-explained video.

Wouldn’t transfer agents like Computershare now be included in the list of “financial institutions” or “financial participants”?

Would credit unions be included in either of the above categories?

Surely they would’ve lobbied to get themselves in on the legislation?

1 Like

I hope he answers these questions. I personally, would assume so. If you’ll own nothing and be happy… I also believe that it applies across the board. Homes, vehicles, your microwave… ummm, our bodies?? Geeesh!

1 Like

You are correct. In English, regardless of, could be used in place of, Notwithstanding. The former term is perhaps too accurate and too harsh. So slippery lawyers prefer to use a term a bit more obtuse to confuse the reader as to their real intent.


I just got off the phone with Andrew Schiff, Peter’s brother, asking him about The Great Taking. He has the same reaction as others – they would never take everyone’s stocks. Even when I mentioned the SC case, he didn’t think it would apply to everyone. “There would be widespread revolts.”

You mean like all those revolts when they locked down the entire country over a virus they created? :slight_smile:

I am getting the eQRP book soon and will read it carefully. May be time to move my IRAs over to its umbrella.


There are lots of things ‘they would never do’…like:

  • Kill a US President on a sunny day in full view of hundreds of people

  • Knock down 3 towers with 2 planes by exploding them right in front of everyone, and then troll all the engineers and other rational people by producing a NIST model for one of the buildings that doesn’t even slightly match the copious videos of the event and declaring it ‘case closed!’

  • Totally make up a bunch of lies about the imminent use of weapons of mass destruction by a country that hadn’t even threatened the US, attack that country, kill a million of their citizens, and then give everyone involved promotions and bonuses

  • Print up trillions of dollars to hand to Wall Street because it had made some seriously ill-advised bets and might have, you know, suffered some loss of profits, and then sit back and watch as the very next reporting period Wall Street handed itself record bonuses while Main Street got clocked and millions lost their savings playing the housing game

I could go on and on.

I believe that anybody who has been paying even the slightest bit of attention knows that there’s literally nothing that ‘they wouldn’t dare’ do.

If none of the above even resulted in more than a few street protests, then on what basis does anybody propose the idea of “widespread revolts?”



1 Like