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?
“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.