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?
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.
I completely agree that it fits, but who is authorized to 'speak for' one side or the other? Or (in this case) will it be 'determined' by the court that there is a rebellion/insurrection going on?
And again, thanks for the info/history.
That, my friend, I believe is the show. The power becomes the military, so they will make those decisions.