The Phaserl


Jade Helm and the Federal Reserve Conspire to Steal Your Bank Account

by Dave Hodges, The Common Sense Show:

As the global economy sits ready to implode, the World’s elite are preparing to steal the bank accounts and all other financial assets of every citizen in all modern nations.

Going, Going, Almost Gone!!!

It has never been more important to get your money out of the bank than it is today. Bank bail-in are coming to America. As of June 3, 2015, the European Commission has ordered 11 EU countries to enact what is called “The Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD)” within the next 60 days or be taken before the European Union Court of Justice for failure to comply with the new directive.

Just in case you have not heard the latest, all current bail-in legislation contains the goal of placing the burden on creditors when banks collapse. This means that when the banks crash, you are not getting your money back. The FDIC’s only purpose, today, is to protect as many of the assets of the elite as possible. This is a dangerous trend for all bank account holders as evidenced by the fact that Austria brazenly abolished all bank deposit guarantees in April. In our hemisphere, Canada passed bail-in laws last year. In fact, the UK, the U.S., Australia and New Zealand all have plans for bail-ins in the event of banks and other financial institutions begin to fail.


Will the United States Be Next?

As for the United States, templates have been put in place. The plan is that your deposit will no longer be classified as an asset. Instead, you’ll be treated as an “unsecured creditor”. Keep that in mind as we approach the next economic downturn.

In 2013, I was roundly criticized when I said the Cyprus scenario is coming here. I was told there would be a revolution if this happened and the government would be to afraid to try such a thing. I marvel at people who hold to such naive beliefs. The American people have been through several beta tests related to our private wealth being confiscated and no resistance was offered (e.g. MF Global). Let’s take a look and see if my fears, of two years ago, were unfounded.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals of Illinois

On August 9, 2012, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals (CCA) of Illinois ruled that when you deposit your money into the bank, you no longer “own” that money. Further, the 7th CCA ruled that it is now permissible for your bank to comingle their assets with yours. That does not bode well for getting your money back in the event of a bank failure.

Read More @

Help us spread the ANTIDOTE to corporate propaganda.

Please follow SGT Report on Twitter & help share the message.

14 comments to Jade Helm and the Federal Reserve Conspire to Steal Your Bank Account

  • Smiteproductions

    I don’t know many people who keep money in the bank anymore. Due to inflation, most are living paycheck to paycheck. Most also have over $20k of debt. If this thing goes south, it’s not going to do much to people because there’s nothing for banks to steal.

  • Craig it's all gone

    I agree that most people live paycheck to paycheck (including myself), but my home and car is free and clear.
    As of July 1st, my direct deposit pension check, will NOT be going into any “bank”,,but it will be going into a “Credit Union” (should be just a LITTLE bit safer from all the derivatives, etc,, or give me an exta 24 hours of access to my money when the “real” banks are all shut down?)

    I only keep enough in my “account” for the automatic bill payments,etc. The rest (if there is any), goes into the house ,car, garden, solar, or other useful things for living after the crash.

    A friend of mine, also cleaned out their 401k, and used it to pay off the house, car, etc, and living within their own means and not give a chance for the banks to steal it.

    Keep stackin’. Silver, Seeds, Solar, Shells, SHlT (compost) and SELF RELIANCE.

  • Jerry

    “All current bail-in legislation contains the goal of placing the burden on creditors when banks collapse. This means that when the banks crash, you are not getting your money back.”

    Not completely true. The U.S. bail-in plan applies only to the big banks. And the bail-in plan only includes uninsured depositors and bondholders. It excludes insured deposits. The government will almost certainly print money before one dollar that is insured by the FDIC is lost, which it has the ability to do. One of the FDIC’s main goals is to protect the insured depositor, not save the bank (orderly liquidation). And insured depositors always have been paid first even before derivative creditors.

    “Austria brazenly abolished all bank deposit guarantees”.

    Not true. They are changing where the insurance guarantee comes from. They are not abolishing it altogether as Hodges falsely claims.

    • glitter 1

      Do yo really think the FDIC,which only has 30/40 Billion in it’s account can backstop/insure (Big Bank Derivative Exposure) of Trillions!Well they will just print the money,right?
      In a Banking debacle/freeze up/Holiday,yeah maybe they will try printing Trillions of Dollars to guarantee the Derivative losses.Can you say Hyper Inflation!So what do you think yours or anybody else’s Dollars will be worth following that exercise.So,what will let’s say $10,000 be worth with hyper Inflation,20cents/10cents on the Dollar? Good luck with that.Will your insured bank account be guaranteed by the FDIC? Maybe,maybe not!The point is moot.

      • Craig it's all gone

        I’ve been reading FDIC documents and gov’t papers this morning, and EVERY one of them, keeps talking about “if” or “when” the court or treasury secretary PLACES the failed bank into the receivership of the FDIC is what causes the accounts to be “insured”.. but the legal documents often use the term “if,, if ,,, if”… there is legal documentation out there,, (read it about 10 years ago or more).. that says the Treasury Secretary MAY place the failed institution into the hands of the Treasury dept, and this BYPASSES anything to do with the FDIC (including the “insurance”)

        This legal loophole has existed LONG before “Dodd-Frank”. I think it has been there even BEFORE 1985.

        But I agree with you,, even if by some miracle, you got 100% of your “money” back,,, the price of gasoline might cost $50 MILLION dollars per gallon. Paper money, no matter HOW Much “insurance” is placed on it,, means nothing when the paper itself has no value other than how many BTU’s it will create when you BURN it to keep warm in the winter. (Same as was happening to the paper money in Wiemar Germany back in the winter of 1923, etc).

        • Jerry


          What specific FDIC documents and government papers? Please give me the links. What you are talking about, that being that the Treasury Secretary is involved in deciding who is appointed receiver of a failed institution, also includes the Fed and the FDIC in the decision making. See sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.3 especially.

          It also really only pertains to the systemically important banks. And I do not believe that the FDIC insurance simply goes away just because the FDIC is not appoint receiver. However if you have official links that say if the FDIC is not appointed receiver for a failed FDIC institution, that insured deposits are no longer insured, I would like to see them.

      • Jerry

        glitter 1,

        Everything I said in my post that you responded to is true as stated based on my considerable time spent on this subject. Since you did not argue about that I will assume that you can’t. Instead you gave your opinion beyond those facts to which I have no problem. I just do not agree completely with it. I have my own opinion that the banks will not all fail overnight as some claim (since most banks have little or no derivatives). And if there is a bank holiday it will likely be very short (may be just one day). A country the size of the U.S. is not going to shut down the financial system for very long which will make things even much worse and will cause an unnecessary economic collapse. And that insured depositors will not loss one penny since that would be disastrous for any country especially when they have other options available (that is why all the bail-ins and bail-in plans protect insured depositors, so far). And I did not mean to imply that printing a few trillion dollars would not have any consequences. But printing a couple of trillion dollars by itself is unlikely to cause hyperinflation in the U.S. at this time (may be it would in a much smaller country). Has printing trillions caused hyperinflation yet? And derivatives and any losses are not guaranteed by the FDIC or any one else as some in the alt media try to say or imply (some derivatives contracts do use some form of collateral). Only deposit accounts are insured up to a certain dollar amount. Yes, some of this money is used by some banks as far as derivatives go. But it is only the depositor’s money that it being used that is insured, not the large notional amount of the derivatives. If there are several large banks that become insolvent due to derivatives then the uninsured depositors and bondholders of the these banks would be at considerable risk according to the current bail-in law. Tax payer bail-outs will probably also take place. Now things could change down the road and probably will but as of right now that is my opinion. I definitely to not believe in the complete almost overnight collapse of the financial system as some like Bill Holter do at this time for good reasons, so I am not worried about having some excess savings in my very good community bank. However I would advise any one to avoid the large banks and look for good local banks and credit unions which are very unlikely to fail just because several of the large banks end up having derivative problems.

        • Craig escaped from Detroit

          Jerry, here ya go.

          I was looking for this for a couple days, and finally found it.

          Title 2 of the “Emergency Banking Act of 1933” contains the language that puts in the hands of comptroller of the currency, the power to restrict the operations of a bank with impaired assets and to “appoint a conservator”,,,,,

          I have NEVER found any statute that REQUIRES any bad bank, to be placed into the conservatorship/receiveship of the FDIC,, it is a “choice” made by a “bureaucrat”.

          It is fully legal for the comptroller of the currency, to prevent the FDIC from having to pay ANY insurance when the FDIC is NOT APPOINTED as the receiver.

          The comptroller of the currency has the legal authority to place a failed bank OUT of the hands of the FDIC by placing the failed bank, directly into the control of the Department of Treasury.

          Guess what. The Department of Treasury does NOT insure deposits or accounts.

          • Jerry


            Thanks for the info. At the time of the Emergency Banking Act of 1933, which was in March of that year, the FDIC did not physically exist yet, it was only on paper, so of course the FDIC could not be appointed receiver of a failed institution. The FDIC actually came into being later that year and was later appointed receiver of failed insured banks.

            “In addition, the language authorizing the FDIC to act as receiver in the case of failed insured banks was clarified.” as stated in the link below.


            Below is a link with some detailed info on the FDIC being given receivership powers by congress and requiring the appointment of the FDIC as receiver for all national banks in the beginning.


            The only time that I know of that a FDIC insured bank does not have to have the FDIC as receiver is some State-chartered banks that are not a member of the Federal Reserve System. In those cases, the banking authority in that state can decide and with few exceptions they always have chosen the FDIC.

            So everything I have read confirms what I already believed.

        • glitter 1


          Did you even look at the link I provided?It’s one of many if you Google the subject of Large Bank Derivatives being made First To Be Guaranteed by the FDIC in the event of a Financial Maelstrom.the FDIC guarantee of bank funds is for a limited banking issue,not on the scale of the Five Largest Banks In The US,who collectively have over a 100 Trillion in Derivatives that could fail,taking the entire banking industry down with it.You appear to have allot of confidence in your position,more like denial of the potential severity/reality of what is brewing in the US and the Rest of the World.No Hyper Inflation with Trillions being printed so far,That’s to funny for a response. Nuff Said!

          • Jerry

            Glitter 1,

            Yes, I did look at that link which had info that I saw 6 months ago. I spend 1-2 hours a day on this kind of stuff. That is why I have a lot of confidence in my position.

            That article has nothing to do with actually making derivatives FDIC insured. All that bill did was to allow the MORE risky derivatives to once again be traded inside FDIC insured institutions (they undid the swap push-out rule). The LESS risky derivatives were never removed from the FDIC insured institutions and they were never insured. Are stocks and bonds that are traded in FDIC insured institutions insured? No. And neither were those LESS risky derivatives that have always being traded in the FDIC insured institutions. And neither were the MORE risky derivatives before the push-out rule.

            If derivatives were insured, why did derivative creditors not get paid by the FDIC when Washington Mutual failed? Both insured and uninsured depositors did not lose one penny. The same can’t be said for Washington Mutual’s derivative creditors.



            And what happened to the claim by those in the alt media that according to the 2005 bankruptcy reform act that derivate creditors are first to get paid even before bank depositors do? That is what people like Ellen Brown keep saying. The facts do not support them. I keep find that when a bank becomes insolvent that insured depositors and most times uninsured depositors are taken care of right away. But other creditors including derivative creditors are not.

            You can see why I have a problem with what I am being told by those in the alt media.

            Now having these MORE risky derivatives back in FDIC insured institutions does increase the risk of a bank becoming insolvent should they have large net derivative losses which would required the help from the FDIC. If that happened then a bail-in could take place which would put that specific bank’s uninsured deposits and bondholders at risk of losing some, if not all, of their money according to the current bail-in law. Insured depositors are protected from a bail-in at least according to the bail-in law. Taxpayer bail-outs are also a possibility. Things of course could change which is why I spend the amount of time that I do on this subject.

            It is not like I have money in those big banks. My bank is a very good community bank that has no derivatives. They make no sub-prime loans or credit card loans. Relatively speaking they have high asset quality, high liquidity and high capital ratios. Most banks would likely fail before mine would. I am not saying it could never happen and that the FDIC will always be there.

            I realize that you and people like Craig and others are trying to warn people about these dangers to the banking system. Everyone of course needs to do their own due diligence and decide for themselves what steps to take.

  • Craig escaped from Detroit

    Yes,, there are a ton of documents where the FDIC and board, and congress, and court,, all hand conservatorship over to the FDIC, but it’s never a requirement in any statute, it’s always “may”,, “if”,, etc. The Treasury Dept is certainly one of the CHOICES available for receivership of a bad bank. Or did your research make you think it’s not statutorily allowable, then I’d like to see where the Dept of Treasury is banned from such a role.

    I get the impression that your area of expertise may officially be in the bank-legal sector. I am not from that field. Both a handicap & a benefit in some ways.

    My main focus in legal work was tax law, tax case law, etc..and I can tell you,, when you compare all the other tax laws and then jump into INCOME tax statutes, etc,, it gets EASY to see all the “Weasel words” and subterfuge that went into the income tax code and court rulings, etc.

    Excise tax, import tax, tobacco & alcohol tax,, all very cut and dried,, straight forward,, and then the income tax boogie man crap. Hahaha.. makes me head spin.

    I’ve been retired and distanced from that shit,, for at least 20 years.. but I vaguely remember some brilliant bullshit DOUBLE talk with a double negative (which is positive)..

    For withholding tax overpayments and refunds, etc.. some wording,, (double negative in tax code),, “money paid is not to be considered not to be an overpayment …” etc. see the double neg?

    It’s like a man sitting down while his wife is getting raped,,and he shouts,, “I’m not going to sit here and do nothing.” (double neg means he’s going to jump up and kick ass.)

    If you’re into reading some “fun” legals.. there’s a pretty interesting publication,,”Brown’s Lawsuit Cookbook”.. (by a former inmate convicted of explosive offense,, but he turned out to be a pretty funny jail house lawyer). And for income tax crusade? I’ve read numerous pleadings, appeals, cases filed and argued by Irwinn Schiff.. (now doing 13 years),, he was brilliant (and from what I can see,, he was absolutely correct.).. BUT,, there is NO way that the gov’t will allow their “money maker” to be ruled “invalid”.

    It’s strange how all lawyers are considered “officers of the court”,, (as if there is NO conflict of interest when your case is against said gov’t?) Hahaha.
    And the FEAR that lawyers have,, to challenge a sitting judge’s ire,, when that lawyer will have to come back week after week with other clients and plead before that judge who will be holding a grudge? (need I mention the arrogance of ultimate power?)

    I left the book behind. Got work far from any offices or courts. Happy, no mental anguish,,etc.. Hahaha. I was the type of crusader who hated conceit, lies and “the game” too much to keep my mouth shut,, I was the type who wanted to insist on doing things right,,and didn’t like to “Go along to get along”. When you have morals too strong for the courts,, they crush you when you fight them. Can’t fight city hall is far too true.

    Better to just live and enjoy your life,, fly under the radar of the vultures. Plant a garden (yes,, I’ve got 3 gardens,, and next year,, it should be enough to feed me all year long.) Learned a lot in the last 18 months about it.

    OK,, have fun.. it sounds like you are still in “the books” and offices/corridores of power and grovelling at the gavel.

    • Jerry


      You said that you get the impression that my area of expertise may officially be in the bank-legal sector. Well I can tell you that at least your impression is wrong. I am actually a janitor and have been for 35 years. Barely finished high school. But thanks.

  • Craig escaped from Detroit

    Jerry, your intelligence is not measured by your job. You are a diligent, able reader and reveal very good depth of understanding complex issues and how many of them are intertwined back and forth.

    I’d rather do manual labor myself, than to fight with all the contradictions hidden in the legal books, rulings, etc.

    Jury nullification is something everybody should know about.

    As for tax law,, there is one interesting Supreme court ruling I remember reading,, it was a defendant over a sawed-off shotgun, and the gov’t wanted to nail him,, (using his income tax return where he filed and admitted to certain things).. and he said that his return CANNOT be used against him because income tax returns are forced under penalty of law (and not voluntary)..but the gov’t wanted to nail him,, so the supreme court UNANIMOUSLY ruled,, saying “for 5th amendment analysis, the preparation and filing an income tax return constitutes the TESTIMONY of a Witness.”

    They were saying,, that an income tax return,, is a 5th amendment issue (which says you cannot be forced to testify against yourself).

    So,, this ONE ruling, ,needs to be used over and over again by GOOD lawyers,, to argue that income returns NEVER have to be prepared or filed by anybody who does not want to testify against themselves.

    But they never want to open this “can of worms”,,because the gov’t will NEVER invalidate it’s own IRS dept. (which is the other half of the Federal Reserve Fraud system.)

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>