At what point in the past did all the people in the Western world have their ownership of equities and pensions, and what they own, did they really own those things?
David Webb: They're called securities because they were secure, and that was the case for four centuries, from the beginning, from the invention of securities, 16th century. There was definitely a design to sever ownership rights to Securities and this was beginning in the 1960s and then a process of dematerialization was had begun to get rid of paper certificates as a first step but then a new legal concept of entitlement was created which is really the legal concept that severs your property rights to the Securities and that was the beginnings of the implementation in 1994 or with the revision to the Uniform Commercial Code, UCC, in the United States so this began in the United States, yet it took many tears to implement that in all 50 states, so they were able to do this quietly. It didn't require any action at the federal level. It was done in state law so it didn't draw any attention but it was . . . . People in the US had property rights for some time even after the beginnings of this literally over decades. But what really lit me up about this was in 2008. I was expecting a wave of insolvencies to begin and there was a small broker-dealer in Florida that failed very early on in the financial crisis. There was an article in Barron's showing that all the client securities were swept to the bankruptcy receiver. Prior to this point, if your broker had gone bust, you'd say well I'm sorry that happened. Here's where you can transfer my securities.. so this was the first time that it had actually happened that the Securities were not returned to the clients. That was in 2008.
It was still possible in other countries to have property rights to securities. That's what sent me to Sweden during a financial crisis because it was still possible to have property rights to securities in Sweden. Then over a period of 6 years, property rights in two Securities in Sweden were subverted. It's been a long process over decades. It depends on what country you're talking about as to when the rights to Securities were lost.
This was initiated at the top level in the United States. So it's not coming from China. It's not coming from "bad Russians." And as you stated twice, the other thing that really hit me was that Sweden and Finland have local laws that were problematic for this system where you lose your rights. And they specifically went to Sweden and Finland to Hoover up the last two countries. They should be irrelevant in nature, but even those were in the system.
Well, the intention is that there will be no pocket of resistance anywhere. This is a strategy to be implemented absolutely globally. And it has been.
The ICSA, or the CSAS, locally in Sweden and Finland have done workarounds in the legal structure that they are effectively now in the basket. They are in.
Yes.
The reality is now that if there is a massive collapse of the derivatives, which I think you said is a quadrillion of assets many times the world GDP, forms this enormous nuclear financial bomb that if it blows and we have contagion, all of the assets of people, your pensions, your securities, your Apple shares, all of it that you think is yours with your broker legally now worldwide in the west, will be collateral for a massive problem and will be taken by the favored or . . .
7:37. Webb. Lehman Brothers, 2008, was used to set the case law precedent for the secured creditors taking the client assets. And it was a shocking example because just prior to this what had been done in the case of Lehman would have been a fraud, constructively fraud, but there were legal changes made essentially on the eve of the financial crisis to ensure that clients could not take back their assets out of the insolvency estate. So in the case of Lehman Brothers, JP Morgan was both the custodian for the client assets . . . there used to be a fiduciary duty to the clients. But they're acting as the custodians and so there was a decision an important decision made by the bankruptcy court in the southern district of New York in Manhattan finding in favor of JP Morgan for the client assets immediately even though they were the custodians. This case rang every bell of having been constructively fraudulent but the court upheld this and they said in the decision if JP Morgan was eligible to take the client assets and stated that as a member of the protected class that's actually in the decision as a member of the protected class JP Morgan certainly was empowered to take the client assets the point of this is that it's not all secured creditors it's only selected entities that will take the collateral and that's essentially just a very largest banking firms.
