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?
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.