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 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'.
Hi again! I can help with you and u/AllowMeToExplain on this. Put simply, there are SCOTUS precedents regarding this that come into play.
The most important are probably Moyer vs Peabody, which said that if both sides of a conflict willingly agree that there exists a rebellion/insurrection (not who's right nor who's rebelling, just that one exists), then martial law and military courts become the Jurisdiction of the issue at hand. This would allow civil forfeiture in a completely legal manner.
Futher reading should include Ex Parte Milligan, in which the ruling said that the military gains Jurisdiction when the civil courts are no longer able to service their functions, but also ruled that the defendants held by the military for the purpose of rebelling against the United States dis not regain their rights after the events subsided IF the courts were not open or able at the time.
Enjoy the discussion!
Thanks for the info.
I'm curious about one thing... In the current situation, who would be the 'both sides' in the Moyer v Peabody precedent? I don't think that the cabal has a spokesman, and you could even argue that 'both sides' are the US government (one side 'as designed', and the other side 'as infiltrated').
If the 'bad guys' don't 'agree' that they are rebelling, how does Moyer apply?
In the case, the rebels were attacking a town, and the military stepped in to assist. That case had the rebels accusing the governor of being a rebel. So the sides were Insurrectionists and State Government.
In our case, it's probably more simple. Maybe Deep State and The People, or New World Order and Digital Soldiers.
They called us Insurrectionists for protesting on Jan 6. We called them Insurrectionists for stealing the elections for decades, selling out our world, poisoning us, sacrificing our children to Satan, and intentionally killing us for political theater. I'd say it fits.