There are certainly 'real' cases within those 300,000+ sealed indictments, but they can't all be handled as 'court cases' (or even tribunals) -- there simply isn't enough time to prosecute them all.
What if the vast majority of them are connected to asset forfeiture features of Trump's public (and possibly private) EO's?
What if the Trump/Q plan is to simply replace all our fake fiat dollars with gold-backed dollars --- except for the bad guys?
On some 'special' day in the near future, all of our bank balances simply get converted, one-to-one, for the new (real) dollars. For the average person, it would be the least-painful way to move forward.
But for the bad guys, their bank balances go to ZERO. And if they want to fight that, we unseal their indictment, where we have proof that they particiated in election fraud, or human trafficking, or treason, etc.
300,000+ indictments could cover everyone who participated directly, as well as every entity they have tried to 'park' or hide money with. Family members, trusts, companies, etc. Every single tentacle is covered by an indictment. Each indictment is a heaping pile of evidence which authorizes the asset forfeiture.
Accept the financial loss quietly, or suffer the exposure (and/or conviction, jail time, hanging, etc). Their choice. But if they fight, they do it without assets.
All US dollars held by the bad guys, anywhere in the world, simply 'evaporate'. The US will simply not honor the old bills, and the bad guys can't convert to the new ones (no one will accept 'old' bills that they can't convert).
As for non-cash assets, we can go collecting those over a period of years. These other assets, once liquidated, go to the (real) Treasury -- or to the people.
Could this work?
The stock market must be dealt with as well. There has to be a way to eliminate the naked shorting that the SEC allows. I think GME is part of that plan and you will see it begin happening soon.
I’m thinking many gov agencies will be dissolved after this is over, but especially the SEC, IRS, CDC, FDA, and FBI. All are so corrupt there will be no coming back to regain public trust. We don’t need a huge government that is only there to enrich itself.
Power to the players will mean more than just a GME slogan. Power will be returned to the people. Shall we play a game? Game over. Nothing can stop what is coming.
I see you are ready as well.
They traded EVERYTHING to run with the covid plan, and won't be participating in the new world. Their world is ending, ours is not.
You mean like a Blockchain backed stock exchange, as in when computer share integrates on the game stop wallet thing
Nobody escapes this
If the banks remain at the end, then we will have to do this again in a couple generations.
A single indictment could include a single person, cluster of people, companies/corporations. Yes.
I think you are right. The transition to the new economy will be smoother than people think. I'm sure blackhats wanted to crash the market years ago but are not in charge anymore. Patriots in control worldwide 🌐.
I'm sure something similar will happen, but there should be thousands of people guilty of too much to let them off the hook. Also, what do you do with all these broke, homeless people?
Pelosi....gets....a....job.
I'm sure she would eat lead first or die by the bottle
Hence 'Suicide Weekend'.
Don't look BJs for a buck...
Pelosi's in her 80's, givin' a gummer at best?
Just eww!
Let them eat cake
Probably give 'em donations or something
Remember when HRC and Bill were recorded sitting in a public plane several years ago? It was freaking amazing to see them sitting there with all the sheep.This is what I thought at the time. Maybe all their assets were stripped and that's why they are flying public and not on a private jet.
Link?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1723772/Video-Clintons-spotted-plane-traveling-Washington-New-York.html
They've got to return the diamonds!
How about they go to jail AND must forfeit all assets? I don't believe they should be walking the streets.
😮
How does the cash I have get converted in this scenario?
In theory, any non-indicted 'good guy' could exchange 'old' cash for 'new' cash -- but there would have to be a way to make sure they aren't converting cash on behalf of a 'bad guy'.
But even if a little of the bad guy's cash 'slipped through' because of this, it would be peanuts compared to the hundreds of billions (or more) that would be stripped from the bad guys.
Thank you for the reply.
You're welcome.
It's just my speculation (and I've been wrong before) -- but I'm really hoping there is a (relatively) easy transition for the average person. If it's not something this easy, there are going to be a LOT of seniors scammed out of their life savings by predators offering to 'help them with their paperwork'.
If you own only coins, you're already all set
IDK what happens to dollar bills yet
Yes I think you have the right idea! I've long held the belief that the end game involves a re do of our currency. Right now the bad guys have control of the printing press and huge amounts of cash and assets. The only way to win and for we the people to not end up with nothing also is to take the bad guys assets and Robin hood it back. Go to gold backed currency, remove taxes stop inflation, and end massive government handouts. Hopefully they have a good plan how to do all that cause it's a real big mess right now hahaha
All part of the plan
Trump will enrich the People, at the expense of the global criminals
ill take it
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.“
“In common law, extortion is committed by a public officer. When a public officer takes money or other valuables from an individual that is not due to the officer, such act will not amount to robbery but extortion.” https://www.stimmel-law.com/en/articles/extortion-essential-elements-and-broader-reach-rico
From Trump's EO 13818 - "Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse or Corruption":
Sec. 7. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render those measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in this order, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to this order.
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-13818-blocking-the-property-persons-involved-serious-human-rights-abuse-or
Yeah I've seen that. And just like all other exigency exceptions fabricated out of whole cloth by the Supreme Court, it is as invalid. If it is repugnant to the Constitution, it is void. Doesn't mean it won't happen though.
I understand your position (and the 'position of the Constitution').
But what if - (by virtue of treasonous activities - or direct proof of 'working with the enemies of the US') - these people are considered enemy combatants? Do they still have the rights afforded to a normal US citizen?
Again, I understand your position - but at some point, the nation must be able to effectively defend itself against an obvious existential threat.
I would say yes, they still have Constitutional rights. And the most important is the right to due process. What due process is need not necessarily be the same for a typical gas station stickup vs treason. But still entitled to due process. Congress long ago failed in appropriately legislating on the subject. They sort of left the Bush administration to fly by the seat of their pants in making it up as they go. SCOTUS rejected a good portion of what the Bush admin did. Though many of the holdings were pluralities and not majorities. Meaning they aren't of precedential value. And some of the dissents were blistering.
The framework for how to handle this must come from Congress and it must protect the Constitution. It need not function the same for run of the mill crimes as it does for national security. But it still must abide by the basic Constitutional protections. The concept of substantive and procedural due process cannot be lost along the way to sorting this out. Whatever tools we create, we are then subject to their misuse. Always be mindful of that.
I am most definitely mindful of that. Q actually reminded us of that early on (paraphrased - 'it must be done lawfully').
If we seize our country back using 'Banana Republic' methods, then we have indeed transformed into a Banana Republic.
But I know that even on small scales, involuntary forfeiture can happen 'temporarily', with an 'opportunity' to prove to the court that you have a right to your property back. (An 'allegedly' violent person's guns being seized, for instance.)
I believe that the EO is a RICO-level expansion of that (very) common practice.
I am absolutely disgusted by civil forfeiture laws as described. To me, it flips our system upside down with a presumption of guilt that must be rebutted by the defendant. Certain police departments are notoriously abusive with this process. You can search around and find numerous incidents where police have pulled someone over on the interstate, somehow managed to find cash ranging from a few hundred bucks on upwards, and seized it as "drug money" where the person had to spend a small fortune to litigate the issue and get it back. Many have been unsuccessful, even when no underlying crime was ever charged let alone convicted.
Since the FED is in charge of the wire system, I have a hard time imagining that it would be possible to liquidate and disperse assets without being traceable. I could even see where it would be legally permissible to simply block the ability to transfer the funds outside of the country. In some circumstances, preventing the transfer of funds to a different party. We routinely void property transfers that were fraudulent, or intended to hide assets from being levied for judgments. So much of this can happen after the fact without the need to step all over the Constitution from the start.
I truly believe we are in agreement on this issue. No one (sane) wants to create bad precedents.
Perhaps an asset 'lockdown' (as you describe) would be sufficient. I rely on people with far more knowledge and experience to find the best solution -- and I am comforted that Q has said that it will all be done legally. (I am certain that it is also understood that it must be done in some sort of reasonable time frame.)
But we are certainly in uncharted waters here, with so much corruption at (nearly) all levels of (nearly) all agencies.
I look forward to the books that will eventually be written about what happened 'Behind the Scenes'.
If they lose nothing but money, Justice has not been served. They must lose their freedom and in many thousands of cases their lives. And the People must see ALL OF IT. Otherwise the cycle keeps repeating.
I am in complete agreement with you -- but there are simple logistics involved.
Prosecuting thousands and thousands of people will take time (even with tribunals).
While they wait their turn, they wait penniless and without power.
The above sounds good, but in reality nothing would stop them from colluding again.
There is a huge difference between colluding with access to hundreds of billions of dollars and colluding while broke.
Also, there is no reason to stop whatever tribunals are coming.
The number of sealed criminal cases stands at 9,216.
Love and Light 💕
It would be awesome if that were true, but I don't believe assets could be taken simply because the government accuses you of something. Isn't that what we're all fighting against? I get the idea that to fight the case you open yourself to incriminating evidence but what about an innocent spouse? If they did nothing wrong can they have their half of marital assets taken? I don't think so. What about assets that backed a loan? Wouldn't the mortgage company have a right to their share of any assets? While it sounds great, I think there's much more to it than simply taking someone's assets.
So, a bank robber steals $500,000, and it takes a few months to find and convict him. Can his 'innocent' wife really ask the court to keep 'her half', because 'she didn't steal it'? No. They need to return any and all ill-gotten gains.
I agree that 'penalties upon government accusations' are what we are fighting against, but the logistics of prosecuting thousands of people/entities requires a fast track for it to mean anything. If all the bad guys get to keep their billions, suffer no consequences, and simply die of old age during the decades of prosecutions, then it really doesn't work, does it?
If I remember correctly, the EO allows the Treasury dept to seize assets prior to notification -- for the simple reason that assets are easy to hide. So there is (at least) some form of fast track in place.
From Trump's EO 13818 - "Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse or Corruption":
Sec. 7. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render those measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in this order, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to this order.
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-13818-blocking-the-property-persons-involved-serious-human-rights-abuse-or
Asset forfeiture has been a hotly debated topic for a couple decades. If they used it against them it would be so epic I cannot fathom it. This is literally my dream. Would unite the country. Who on right or left would really feel bad if these fucks were bankrupted.
The issue at hand isn't whether we'd enjoy watching it, but whether it'd be legal. There's a discussion at length going on elsewhere in the thread about the legality. However, if you'd prefer to form your own opinion, Moyer vs Peabody and Ex Parte Milligan are likely precedents coming into play. If you want my opinion, I think the D5 has been geniusly set up by Q and Mil teams. If you'd like to read the discussion, I replied to it earlier, or you can find user AllowMeToExplain in the thread.
Lots of reading to get into the meat of this, but u/ProudOfAmerica may be onto something major here.
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Seizure
First, you're correct that criminal seizures require a conviction of someone; however, several "someones" have been convicted of smaller and likely connected crimes. Something like a racketeering case could connect a lot of people very quickly in one massive swoop.
Further, civil cases allow for seizures prior to judgements. This is to prevent property from leaving hands, being liened or leveraged, or otherwise becoming unrecoverable during proceedings.
Even deeper, Federal Civil Forfeiture has absolutely atrocious safeguards. Mere suspicions prior to any cases or indictment being presented is enough to allow a seizure. The defendant(s) are given 35 days notice to recover their assets from the government, which is basically "come to court for these charges, or lose your stuff forever."
This is a very plausible theory.
From Trump's EO 13818 - "Blocking the Property of Persons Involved in Serious Human Rights Abuse or Corruption":
Sec. 7. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render those measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in this order, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to this order.
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-13818-blocking-the-property-persons-involved-serious-human-rights-abuse-or
Exactly right. You've hit the ringer, and I think you're finding the gold.
They are for us. Just in case you didn’t know.