The Great Taking Part 3: Heads They Win, Tails You Lose

Originally published at:

This is the most important chapter in The Great Taking series that I will produce. If you grasp this, then the entire scheme of how ‘they’ will “legally” steal all of your financial wealth.

However, you may need to review it a few times because it is the absolute Heart of Darkness, and because it is, it has been layered over with unnecessary complexity.

As with all things in a “legally” corrupt society, the complexity is a feature of the scam as it is designed to thwart inquiry by all but the hardiest of explorers. Luckily for everyone, I am both persistent enough to get to the bottom of things and bright enough to make sense of the nonsense.

The conclusion of this episode is simple to relate: Nothing and nobody can prevent protected banks and financial firms from removing securities pledged as collateral by any broker, broker-dealer, clearing party, or any of a number of other financial intermediaries that stand between your security entitlement and the issuer of ‘your’ stock or bond holding.

This is courtesy of the “safe Harbor” provision which is triply indicated and reflected in Titles 11 & 12, as well as UCC Article 8. You know, just in case anybody wasn’t quite getting the hint.

It is astounding that this is how things are arranged, but that’s really not surprising in a corrupt country that has entirely lost its moral underpinnings and has legalized theft and corruption in its laws.

Knowledge is half the battle.

The other half is contained in Part II of this special report where I discuss in detail two additional ways you can protect your cash and bond holdings.

As always, here at Peak Prosperity, we scout for things that are important to your life, and always provide some sort of a response or solution to identified problems and predicaments.


One of the most prophetic learning’s from my university days was a schedule filler Law 101. Taught by a disgruntled lawyer. He showed us a contract and we discussed it, general consensus was that it seemed reasonable. He then produced the definitions section which defined a few key terms different than what you would normally think they meant. It totally changed the flavour of the contract and made it a horrendously unfair one. My thanks to Chris for wading thru this alligator filled swamp on our behalf.

Would be curious to see if anybody would take a stab at refuting Chris’s interpretation. Might be worth it to the audience to fund such an endeavor…


The book “The Great Taking” has, in two words, changed my investment strategy, as well as my portfolio management philosophy,



I’m at minute 30 of part one and I’m having a problem with the words:
Withstanding and Notwithstanding…
Each time it says, notwithstanding other provisions, or notwithstanding state law. Can someone tell me why it means that the Commissioner’s powers do “withstand” other provisions or state’s laws that would be to the contrary??

Wouldn’t the statement need to read like this:
Other sections, provisions, or state’s laws “notwithstanding”, The commissioner in cooperation with the president shall have full authority to do XYZ… ?

I have toiled over this word many times. This isn’t the first time I sat here with Some reference materials looking at this word…
So, If the men at the Alamo withstood days of attacks, but ultimately they were overrun, because they could not withstand it all. (PS I’m not sure if I have my history right, they were overrun, right?)

Anyway, if that’s true, it would mean that they’re gonna do it anyway even though they can’t withstand, for instance, a State Citizens constitutional rights. That would make this power very thinly veiled and vulnerable to challenge. But, for that to be true, the case law that’s already been established, would have to mean that the parties bringing suit, somehow or other, didn’t have constitutional standing, such that their challenge did not withstand this section of code. Or, as in a court of equity, it would be strictly a matter of contract, Whereby they told you in the contract that they’re gonna screw you over if XYZ happened.…

I’m real sorry if I brought confusion to the topic, I just keep running up against this moment with this word , wondering WTF…

whaw, fortunate i prepared before watchingthis :/)
A good long sleep last night, then morning meditation/workout & two cups of coffee.

Now Ineed a nap before watching the members’ part.

Fun times

1 Like

Mine as well. The first time I read it I got scared. The second time I got angry. Now, I’m determined.


Like climbing… 2st top rope is dvay, then you kniw you’re safe… then you lead trad scared … :slight_smile: then its just fun timed…

I expect after the ‘transition’ to have a clear view across the smoking ruins & see a bunch of nicely kept gardens

Really happy with my decision to subscribe, valuable content on the great taking. I have noticed a related wrinkle that could affect millions similarly.In 2021 we refinanced our house and I noticed this provision we signed:

(2.waives any and all rights which grantormay have under the fifth and fourteenth amendmentands to the Constitution of the United States)

after considering rescinding I found it in every other mortgage contract we ever signed. As I understand it, this makes so if you miss a payment they don’t have to go through the courtsat all, they can just take the house with no proceedings. Thanks again for your valuable work.


Likewise! Even though I haven’t been commenting too much on this series (don’t really have much to add), it has been extremely usable-info-rich.

Thanks for your post. I’m determined at this point also - but very confused. I’m also tired of hearing from “those that be” that the financial system is “unsustainable”. Since nothing is being done to change the system, it sure sounds like we’re being setup. Thanks for all your work, Chris.

1 Like

Albert Jay Nock in “Our Enemy, The State” lays out succinctly the general principle of the historical Playbook: “Expropriation Precedes Exploitation.”

So, get ready to Take It up the Ass….

Another head they win, tails you lose from Meta and the EU.

Meta’s blackmail exposed in eight European countries

Sharing an article by A Midwestern Doctor. The article has two videos embedded and both are worth the watch. Behold the power of Central Banks in “The Dying Rooms” and behold “Mao’s America,” written by a survivor of the Cultural Revolution in China and who later became a US citizen.

1 Like

Why is the Odyssey client SO BAD? 80% of picture is static, and STILL it can’t seem to form a crisp picture. I can watch movies on the same hardware and they look perfect, but Odyssey can’t stream STATIC TEXT. Good grief.

1 Like

Where is information on the best places to put money to keep it safe from being taken? Do I need to find the right bank that is least likely to fail? Put it in 1 or 2 year treasuries? What about 401(k)s? Which are the best, safest banks to put those? Thank you

1 Like

If you live in Massachusetts, we have cooperative banks. Chris has mentioned these as never having lost money in the GFC of 2008. Credit unions have member owners: not just unsecured creditors. You might wish to stay under the $250,000 limit. Treasury Direct is a way to avoid third parties. Computershare has a list of companies that let you buy direct; some pay dividends. I’d avoid 401(k)s, IRAs as I have made withdrawals and it is a slow process. Of course, you can buy bullion. A few reputable dealers have been mentioned on the site: I use AGE. Other dealers have been mentioned, including one which Chris recommends. Pay down debt; especially mortgage debt.

thank you
okay, so I need to find a trustworthy Credit Union and I did see there are some disadvantages such as you need to live nearby and they have fewer services.
The problem with treasuriesdirect dot com is there is a $10,000 yearly buy limit. This means I need to buy treasuries safely because I need to buy more than $10,000. Do I just find another trustworthy bank to do it?. Does anybody have recommendations on how to buy $100k+ in treasuries without the risk of a broker going bankrupt and taking my treasury?

I don’t understand. I have 80k in treasuries, all within a yearly buying period. Am I misunderstanding your post?

as far as I know (but I’m a beginner in all this)-
Using treasurydirect dot com, there is a limit of $10k per year - and it doesn’t use a broker or fund managing company like Fidelity, Vanguard or some other broker. According to David Webb, if a particular brokerage firm goes bankrupt then they could take things like stocks and bonds from customers to pay off their debts. So treasurydirect dot com (straight from the US government) eliminates that problem - except there is a $10K limit per year. There is (virtually) no limit on the amount of treasuries you can buy if you buy through a broker or fund managing company. Again, I’m a beginner and don’t have all the terminology. But I wonder if I found a Credit Union (or a bank) that I trusted, could they buy, for example, $100k in treasuries for me and would I have more faith that it couldn’t be taken away? maybe

I don’t know where you got your info jed77, but, like JaneB, I have substantially more than $10K directly purchased by me in TD. Go to their site and check for yourself.