Tag: property rights

The Great Taking: Global Looting of Humanity Imminent?

When the globalist World Economic Forum (WEF) predicted in 2015 that “you will own nothing and be happy” by 2030, people worldwide recoiled in horror at the thought, but almost nobody understood the mechanism by which it might take place. Now, thanks to brave whistleblowers and attorneys, the plan to seize virtually everything is plain to see. The real question at this point is: Can it be stopped before it’s too late? 

If the WEF’s Great Reset is the marketing campaign for global “transformation,” what retired investment banker David Webb calls “The Great Taking” is the legal and financial machinery designed to make the transformation unavoidable. The plan involves ending private-property rights in securities — stocks, bonds, and other financial instruments — to allow mega-banks allied with governments to take everything when the next crisis hits.

In essence, you no longer own your securities; the deed has already been done. The stocks and bonds in your retirement and investment accounts may seem like they are yours. But thanks to little-noticed changes in state law going back decades, they are actually not. And when a major economic and financial cataclysm strikes, the Deep State establishment and the governments and megabanks it controls will take over everything from you.   

Great Reset Reality

If the scheme is not stopped, the World Economic Forum’s prediction that “you will own nothing” could become a reality in the not-too-distant future. Imagine: Ownership and control of every publicly traded company in the hands of a tiny, megalomaniacal elite. And this plan is not just for the United States, but for the world.

Webb, who first blew the whistle on the scheme to steal all securities in recent years with a book and documentary that went viral, explains the operation in terms any non-finance person can understand. For centuries, stocks and bonds were treated as personal property, which insulated the public from failures inside the financial system.

“For hundreds of years … securities were your property,” he explained to this writer during a 2025 interview. “If the banker or the custodian failed … that was entirely their problem.” Historically, the investor could simply tell those holding the securities, “here’s where you send my stuff.” But that “bulletproof” protection is now gone, he warned.

“Security Entitlement”

In fact, even the direct record of ownership has been severed. Securities are now held in pooled form. And what investors possess is not ownership, but a legal abstraction. “You no longer have a property right — you have what’s called a security entitlement,” warned Webb.

Right now, that may not seem too important. After all, you can still call you broker, put in a sell order, and receive your cash. But when the next crisis hits — and many experts and economists believe it could be just around the corner — the significance of this change will be clear.   

This concept was first embedded into American law through amendments adopted across the states beginning in 1994. In short, through seemingly minor changes to commercial and contract law adopted quietly nationwide, Americans were stripped of their property rights to their securities.

The practical consequence is stark: “If the intermediary fails, you have no right to take your property back,” Webb explained.

Keep reading

Zohran Goes to War with Landlords, He Will Possibly Seize Properties

Landlords and property owners in New York City are Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s prime targets.

“If your landlord does not responsibly steward your home, city government will step in,” Zohran said.

Councilwoman Vicki Paladino believes he intends to seize properties. Frivolous complaints will be responded to and taken seriously, as he suggests in the clip below.

In New York City, buildings and other structures can be seized for negligence if they are found to be unsafe or in violation of building and safety codes. The city has strict building and safety codes to protect tenants and the public. If property owners ignore these standards, they risk lawsuits for negligence and unsafe living conditions.

When a building is deemed unsafe, the city may take action to seize it, which can include taking it down or ordering repairs. The city’s legal team will assess the situation and determine the appropriate course of action.

Property owners must comply with building and safety codes to avoid potential legal action and the risk of seizure.

Keep reading

OUTRAGE IN DC: Court Allows Squatter to Remain in Woman’s Home for MONTHS After Overstaying Airbnb Stay — Homeowner Faces Financial Ruin While System Protects the Trespasser

In yet another stunning example of the nation’s upside-down justice system, a DC court is allowing a squatter to remain inside a woman’s home for nearly a year after overstaying an Airbnb reservation, despite having no lease, no tenancy agreement, and no legal right to occupy the property.

The case has left homeowner Rochanne Douglas trapped in a nightmare that has cost her tens of thousands of dollars and pushed her to the brink, while alleged squatter Shadija Romero continues living inside Douglas’s property with total impunity.

Romero originally booked Douglas’s short-term rental for 32 days, ending on March 29. But after remaining in the home for more than 30 days, just long enough to exploit DC’s tenant-friendly laws, she suddenly declared herself a “resident” and refused to leave, 7News reported.

“I never gave her any tenancy,” said Douglas. “I never gave her a lease.”

From there, the situation spiraled. Douglas:

  • Served a 30-day notice to vacate
  • Called the police repeatedly
  • Sought court intervention
  • Even offered Romero $2,500 just to acknowledge she wasn’t a tenant and get out

Romero signed the agreement, but when her eviction date came on November 15, she refused to leave the property and claimed the arrangement “no longer works for me.”

To make matters worse, when Douglas attempted to enforce her rights, DC Metropolitan Police told her they could do nothing, despite Douglas being legally barred from entering her own home.

Neighbors later reported that Romero and her companions packed their bags, loaded the car, and left the property. Police cleared the home and informed Douglas she could secure it.

Keep reading

Judges Rule Against Property Owners Seeking Compensation for SWAT Team Damage

A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Nov. 3 that the Los Angeles Police Department SWAT team is not liable for damage done to a business while chasing a criminal in 2022.

NoHo Printing & Graphics Owner Carlos Pena will ask the full court to rehear the case, his attorneys from the Institute for Justice said in a statement posted to the Institute’s webpage.

A majority ruled that arresting a criminal is an exception to the takings clause in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. That clause requires the government to compensate the owners of property taken by government action.

In August 2022, a criminal barricaded himself inside the business Pena had owned for 30 years. Police actions resulted in tens of thousands of dollars in damage and lost profits. Pena’s insurance and the city refused to pay, so in July 2023, he sued.

In March 2024, the court ruled against Pena, and he appealed to the Ninth Circuit. Pena vowed to keep up the fight. In an email to The Epoch Times, Pena wrote that the battle is larger than just his business.

“What happened to me isn’t right and sometimes it feels like the deck is stacked against good citizens. I just don’t want anyone else to lose everything they worked for, like I did,” Pena wrote.

Pena and McKinney, Texas, homeowner Vicki Baker both filed claims against their respective cities after police damaged their property.

In Baker’s case, a fugitive high on methamphetamine barricaded himself in her house with a teenage hostage. He eventually released the teen girl, who told police that her kidnapper told her he would not be taken alive.

Keep reading

Consumer Protection Laws: Unconstitutional Controls That Hurt the Very People They Claim to Help

From rent caps to “price-gouging” laws, a new wave of so-called consumer-protection laws is sweeping state capitols. These measures are marketed as compassion in a crisis — or “fairness” in housing — but their substance is the same: command-and-control price fixing that violates the Constitution, tramples private-property rights, and sabotages the free market’s ability to allocate goods and services when people need them most.

Three recent bills illustrate the trend. Alabama’s House Bill 528 (HB528) and Virginia’s House Bill 1301 (HB1301) expand anti-gouging controls to more transactions and longer periods after emergencies. New Jersey’s Assembly Bill 3361 (A3361) imposes rent control on manufactured-home sites. Nebraska’s Legislative Bill 266 (LB266), however, is a rare bright spot, preempting local rent control and affirming property rights. Together, these bills spotlight the central question: Will states defend a constitutional, republican system rooted in liberty and voluntary exchange, or drift toward administrative despotism under the banner of “consumer protection”?

Protecting Property and Contract Rights

America’s Founders understood what modern lawmakers too often forget: Price controls are a form of compelled exchange that violates liberty. The U.S. Constitution safeguards that liberty in multiple places:

  • Fifth Amendment: “Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Price ceilings that force owners to sell below market value are regulatory takings in substance, if not in name.
  • Article I, Section 10: “No State shall … pass any … Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.” When a legislature dictates the permissible price, term, or escalation of a private lease or service, it impairs the parties’ agreed-upon obligations.
  • Ninth and 10th Amendments: The people retain unenumerated rights, and powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states or the people. These clauses limit government; they do not license it to control every transaction.
  • 14th Amendment (due process and equal protection): Arbitrary economic edicts that single out owners for special burdens invite due-process and equal-protection concerns.

Consumer-protection statutes also collide with first principles. The Declaration of Independence identifies unalienable rights — life, liberty, and property — and charges government to secure them. Free exchange is a peaceful exercise of those rights, and upholds one’s pursuit of happiness. Substituting bureaucratic fiat for voluntary exchange undermines the moral basis of self-government.

Keep reading

Greens vote to ABOLISH landlords in bizarre assault on millions of Brits at party’s conference… even though one of their own MPs rents out a home

Green Party members have voted to ‘abolish’ landlords at their autumn conference as they took aim at the nearly three million people in Britain who rent out a home.

A motion passed at the Greens’ gathering in Bournemouth on Sunday committed the left-wing party to ‘seek the effective abolition of private landlordism’.

This would be achieved through punitive regulation and taxes on landlords, including the introduction of rent controls and scrapping of Right to Buy.

Those who let out Airbnbs would have to pay business rates under the Greens’ plans, while there would be double taxation for empty properties.

Party members also backed proposals for a ‘land value tax’ levied on owners not tenants, as well as the imposition of National Insurance on private rents.

In addition, the motion demanded the ending of buy to let mortgages as a means of removing finance for landlords.

It comes as the Greens look to build on their growing strength in major cities, with new leader Zack Polanski claiming they are ‘on track’ to supplant Labour in London.

But the motion could prove awkward for Adrian Ramsay, one of the Greens’ four MPs, who is landlord of a property on Norfolk.

According to his parliamentary register of interests, Mr Ramsay rents out a home he co-owns, which provides rental income of more than £10,000 a year.

The MP for Waveney Valley has previously defended being a landlord, posting on social media in August: ‘I co-own a property with my ex-wife, which we used to live in. 

‘I don’t make a profit from it as I have kept the rent below market rate. I don’t intend to be a landlord long-term.’

The motion passed by Green members on Sunday stated: ‘The private rental sector has failed, it is a vehicle for wealth extraction, funnelling money from renters to the landlord class.

‘This motion makes it clear Green Party policy is to seek the effective abolition of private landlordism and our support for building council housing.’

It added: ‘The Green Party believes the existence of private landlords adds no positive value to the economy or society, that the relationship between landlord and tenant is inherently and intrinsically extractive and exploitative.’

Carla Denyer, Green MP for Bristol Central, said: ‘While the motion to confidence had an eye-catching name, it does not actually ‘abolish’ landlords.

‘It does however address the housing crisis, empowers tenants and improves their wellbeing.

‘It contains a range of policies which, over time, would reduce the proportion of the housing market that is privately rented, and increase the proportion of socially rented homes.’

Mr Polanski, who was elected Green leader last month, has been dubbed an ‘eco-populist’ and is aiming to replace Labour on the Left of British politics.

He told The Guardian this weekend:  ‘I think it’s already happening. It’s happening at defection level.

‘Just last month in Barking and Dagenham, we welcome three new councillors to the party. It’s also happening right across England and Wales.

‘At local council elections, there was a stunning victory recently in Brighton, where the Labour vote completely collapsed and the Green vote rocketed.

‘Reform are still a worry, yes, and the fact that they’re polling even reasonably in London is a real threat, I think, to anyone who’s a progressive voice.

‘But absolutely, the plan has always been to replace Labour at the electoral level, starting at the local level, and I think we’re on track to do that.’

Keep reading

Miami Beach’s Silent Crisis: How Greed, Corruption, And Indifference Are Destroying Lives Behind Closed Doors

In Miami Beach, we have a problem most residents never see until it is too late. What is happening to Robert Kraft, known to many as Raven, is not just one man’s story. It is a warning to every homeowner and resident in this city.

Raven has run eight miles every single day along Ocean Drive for nearly fifty years. His daily run has become part of the soul of Miami Beach. Now, after decades of calling this city home, he faces foreclosure. Not because he refused to pay. Not because of financial irresponsibility. But because bad actors inside a broken system have found ways to exploit local enforcement gaps, city oversight failures, and association loopholes for personal profit.

It started as a legitimate repair issue. Structural problems led to court intervention. A Special Master, David Swilley, was appointed to oversee the building at 326 Ocean Drive. That is where the real abuse began. Instead of protecting residents, Swilley and his associates took complete control of the building’s finances, levied inflated assessments, misapplied payments, and took out high-interest loans without owner approval. Many of those loans appear to be linked to entities associated directly with Swilley.

There has been no functioning board. Residents have no vote. Notices are delivered late or not at all. Accounting records are opaque. Personal information was improperly exposed. Violations of the Florida Condominium Act and consumer protection laws are piling up. While residents are being financially squeezed and forced out, those in control continue collecting legal fees, management fees, and pocketing the proceeds of a manufactured financial crisis.

This is not mismanagement. This is exploitation.

The most outrageous part is not just the conduct of those running this building. It is the silence and failure of the city that allowed this to happen. Miami Beach’s local officials have known for years how these games work. They know certain properties get selective code enforcement. They know who receives special treatment with permits and inspections. They know when court-appointed agents abuse their authority, hide behind court orders, and strip residents of their homes one lien at a time. They know, and they do nothing. Why? Because too many of them are controlled by the same consultants and insiders who thrive off this system.

The city has building officials, inspectors, and lawyers on staff who could have flagged this behavior years ago. But instead, they looked the other way while residents like Raven were left to fend for themselves.

Keep reading

DOE cancels $4.9B loan for energy project Illinois lawmaker calls a ‘scam’

The U.S. Department of Energy has canceled $4.9 billion in federal loans for the Grain Belt Express, a proposed multistate transmission line that faced pushback from Illinois landowners over concerns about property rights and eminent domain.

State Rep. Chris Miller, R-Oakland, praised the DOE’s decision and called the project a “scam” driven by global investors and green energy lobbyists.

“This is a huge win for taxpayers in Illinois and across the United States,” Miller said in an interview. “It was an assault on property rights, on the livelihoods of Illinois farmers, and I’m proud to stand with my constituents against this scam.”

The 800-mile Grain Belt Express aimed to carry wind power from Kansas eastward but drew rural backlash over eminent domain, including opposition at a 2024 Meade County Kansas Corporation Commission hearing where resident Barbra Parker spoke.

“The current plan would place it approximately 150 feet from my front door. Over the years, through that very door, have walked my grandfather, my father, my grandmother, my mother, myself, and now my daughter Kate — four generations of farmers and ranchers,” said Parker. “So I’m asking Invenergy to work with me on possibly adjusting the route or considering micrositing alternatives. I’m asking that the commission oversee and ensure that micrositing is used.”

Micrositing in wind energy means fine-tuning turbine placement to boost output and reduce environmental impact.

Supporters say the Grain Belt Express would improve grid reliability, deliver lower-cost clean energy to major population centers and generate economic activity along its route.

In 2023, when the ICC approved the project, Mark Denzler, president and CEO of the Illinois Manufacturers’ Association said in a news release, “This project will deliver billions in energy cost savings. Energy infrastructure investment is key to ensuring our region maintains our traditional energy cost advantage and manufacturing competitiveness.”

Miller criticized the project as a costly green energy push that threatens farmland and drives up electric bills.

Keep reading

A SWAT Team Destroyed an Innocent Woman’s House. The Supreme Court Won’t Hear Her Case.

The Supreme Court last month declined to hear a case from an elderly woman whose house was destroyed by a SWAT team, leaving open the question of whether or not innocent people are constitutionally entitled to compensation when law enforcement lays waste to their property in pursuit of public safety.

In July 2020, while chasing a fugitive, police arrived at Vicki Baker’s home in McKinney, Texas. They threw dozens of tear gas grenades inside, used explosives to break the front and garage doors, and drove a tank through her backyard fence, although Baker’s daughter, Deanna Cook, had supplied them with a key to the home, a garage door opener, and the back gate code.

The suspect, Wesley Little, had previously worked for Baker as a handyman and barricaded himself inside her home while on the run from police. He had kidnapped a teenage girl, whom he released after the cops arrived. But Little himself refused to exit, prompting law enforcement to ravage the house. (He ultimately killed himself.)

Baker, who was in Montana when her house was destroyed, never contested that police acted in the best interest of the community when it sought to extract Little from her home. She took issue, however, with the subsequent response from the government, which refused to compensate her for the more than $50,000 in damages. Her homeowners insurance likewise declined to pay, as many policies explicitly do not cover damage caused by the government.

“I’ve lost everything,” she told me in 2021. “I’ve lost my chance to sell my house. I’ve lost my chance to retire without fear of how I’m going to make my regular bills.” Baker, who was undergoing treatment for stage 3 breast cancer when we spoke, had been preparing to retire with her husband in Montana. After the house was ruined, a buyer predictably withdrew. The government said she did not qualify as a “victim.”

She is not the only person with such a story. At the core of the case and those like hers is whether or not the Constitution legally obligates the government to repay people who are not suspected of criminal wrongdoing but whose property is nevertheless destroyed by police in an attempt to protect the community. The Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment promises that private property cannot be taken for public use “without just compensation,” though some lower courts have ruled that actions taken by police in stories like these operate under an exception to that rule.

Keep reading

‘Wildly Off-Base’: New Push for Supreme Court to Reverse Case That Allows Property Confiscation

Ruling denied ‘the core protections of individual citizens.’

The U.S. Supreme Court bizarrely ruled in 2005, in the Kelo case, that a government could take privately owned property from one owner to give it to another, just, well, just because.

That original ruling came down to dollars and cents, when the city of New London, New York, used eminent domain to confiscate a home belonging to Susan Kelo to give it to Pfizer for one of its business operations.

She sued, but the Supreme Court said a procedure to use eminent domain “to transfer land from private owner to another private owner” did not violate the Constitution.

Actually, the authority vested in eminent domain would be for purposes of taking property to build a highway, or some similar public benefit.

That New London scheme actually failed, as the company was unable to obtain financing for its plans, and the site remained an undeveloped empty lot.

The move already has prompted 47 states to strengthen their own eminent domain laws, and now it’s time for the national precedent to be reversed, according to constitutional lawyer Jonathan Turley, who not only has testified before Congress as an expert on the Constitution, but has represented members in court.

He said that one case, Kelo, “has long stood out for me as wildly off-base and wrongly decided.”

He explained, “There is now a petition before the Supreme Court that would allow it to reconsider this pernicious precedent. The court should grant review in Bowers v. Oneida County Industrial Development Agency precisely for that purpose,” he explained.

“Many of us expressed outrage at the actions of the city leaders of New London, Connecticut, when they used eminent domain to seize the property of citizens against their will to give it to the Pfizer corporation,” he said. “This anger grew with the inexplicable decision of the Supreme Court in Kelo v. City of New London to uphold the abusive action. After all the pain that the city caused its own residents and the $80 million it spent to buy and bulldoze the property, it came to nothing. Pfizer later announced that it was closing the facility — leaving the city worse off than when it began.”

He said the new case involves New York developer Bryan Bowers who challenged the decision of a county redevelopment agency to condemn his property and then give it to another developer to use as a private parking lot.

Turley noted that Justice Chase, shortly after the Bill of Rights was written, explained the injustice.

Keep reading