Loose Ends, Speculation and an Apology

This post differs from the typical character of my other posts, in that it does not explore any particular topic in depth. It addresses several topics – mainly briefly – either to offer speculation, provide a brief update. Hopefully this is of interest to you.

Also, this is an apology to u/v8power. I probably overreacted to something he wrote and called into question his motivations. My apologies, v8.

.

--Lindell/Montgomery--

Lindell has filed his reply to the United States' opposition brief. The next step would typically be a hearing and then a decision.

This is an incredibly important matter. If you have no idea what is at stake, start here: https://greatawakening.win/p/15JnYrQlIR/dennis-montgomery-mike-lindell-a/

Then look here: https://greatawakening.win/p/15K6JSzFb9/dennis-montgomery-and-mike-linde/

And then finally here: https://greatawakening.win/p/15K6XUk7Pw/dennis-montgomerymike-lindell--a/

Lindell’s reply essentially states that he and the United States appear to agree that: (i) the protective order does not apply to Lindell; (ii) only applies to the 2006 litigation and not any other litigation; (iii) has nothing to do with the 2020 election; and (iv) does not prevent Lindell from using any information obtained from Montgomery. As such, he asks the court to enter a simple order clarifying the protective order to make those matters clear.

I have more to say on the topic, but the parties may be intentionally “talking past” one another, and that there is no actual agreement. Or it may be the case that the United States would be genuinely agreeable clarifying the protective order, but not lifting it. I doubt that – but you never know.

I am considering the practical difference between lifting the protective order entirely and clarifying it as Lindell requests. Is it reasonable the United States would be okay with the sought-after clarification, but not lifting the order entirely? Because that is Lindell’s position: based on what the United States said in their opposition brief, the United States is agreeable to clarifying the protective order. If I were the judge, I’d hold a hearing to sound out whether the parties actually agree on entry of an order clarifying the protective order – and if they did, then I’d simply enter that order.

The other thing to say is that if the parties genuinely agreed on the entry of an order clarifying the protective order, then Lindell should file a proposed stipulation for the entry of the order – that’s the formal way for parties to agree on a matter and ask the court to act upon their agreement. As it stands, the “paperwork” is in a posture showing that they disagree, while the content of the paperwork (specifically, the reply), states that they agree on the critical issues.

.

--Gregg Phillips--

Anyone get the sense he’s holding something back? I don’t follow his every podcast appearance, so maybe I’m not up to speed with the latest.

In a previous appearance on Patel Patriot’s podcast, Phillips said: “We have a few issues coming up that are more explosive than the (2000) Mules, that are more likely to divide this country even further. Catherine and I spend a lot of time every single day really not just praying through it, but thinking through, how do we actually do this? Because once these come out, there’s one in particular. It’s a multinational deal. It involves billions of dollars.”

Have we heard any revelation involving billions of dollars and relating to some sort of multinational? I haven’t. I don’t think Konnech fits the bill… where’s the billions of dollars?

If I’ve not simply missed a revelation due to inattentiveness, I’d assume that this matter is forthcoming. Perhaps someone could pose the question to him?

.

--Further Speculation--

I’ve only an occasional listener of Patel Patriot – that’s not a commentary on my views regarding him or his work. It’s a reflection of the reality that I’ve only got so much time on my hands.

I know he’s done a significant amount of work on a “devolution” thesis. And I think what I’m about to say is similar or identical to his concepts.

In the wake of January 6 – but prior to Biden being sworn in – Pelosi wrote a letter asking to remove control of the nuclear codes from Trump. This is odd. Pelosi would have known that, legally, the president has the sole authority to order the use of our nuclear weapons. What would make Pelosi think she could even ask for such a thing? Maybe it was just a political stunt?

And about two months ago on September 3, at a rally in Pennsylvania, President Trump said: “Last week, weirdo – he’s a weirdo – Mark Zuckerberg came to the White House, kissed my ass.” Last week? Zuckerberg met him at the White House? Maybe Trump misspoke?

I understand that a couple of weeks ago, at another rally, President Trump jokingly referred to still being in possession of the nuclear codes. I don’t have the quote.

These are all oddities. These things, along with others, do lead me to wonder: are we operating in some form of degraded government? Have certain not-so-visible lines of authority and access been re-routed? I am not of a decided opinion on this matter. Just thinking out loud.