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?
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'.