There is a lot of speculation about the phrase: the seal is broken.
I am going to pose another view.
First he said this a couple of times, I think 3x. The seal is broken.
Context:
Trump was talking about the deplorable state of the USA. No significant borders = no country. De system of law is out of order = no authority, money= no indication of sovereingty. Infiltration at the highest levels by bribes = no functioning administration. By indicting Trump under the espionage act, these dwellers in Washington DC, Trump called it China Town, it becomes not only foreign but in a state of enimity.
Now take a look at the flags.
Before his indictment Trump would speak with flags behind him, with golden presidential emblems adorned flagpoles and a flag adorned with a yellow fringe.
Also take note of the video Trump retruthed where is travels the world. Note the color of the emblems. All silver colored. Sometimes a ball, or a spear.
In his Bedminster address you'll notice the color of the eagle: not Gold but Silver.
So now Trump says: the SEAL is broken.
Additional consideration:
https://mcgrathseals.ie/dispose-corporate-seal-free-destroying-recycling-service/
Hypothesis:
I view it as meaning: The Great Seal has been broken.
By changing the presidential eagle from gold to silver, I think he changed the venue.
Gold, traditionally connected to the money of Monarchs, and Silver, the money of the People, I think he is signalling that his promise at inauguration of January 2017 to revert power back to the people, is going to be manifested in a different venue.
By the same token that brought the USA into a corporatocratic-postal construct, so, I think, he has just moved into a different construct.
If this is difficult to comprehend, just research postal venue since July first 1775. What did it setup? What did the Constution replace and setup? What did the Constitution of 1871 set up? What did the yellow fringe since 2000 signify? What is the correct flag for contracting?
Happy digging!
One addition:
Trump is the owner of the original seal!
And it may explain why Dan Scavino JR posted the flag in darkness.
Given Q's messaging of the Title 4 flag, It would not surprise me if the venue change has been setup years ago, to be activated at a moment's notice, to prevent the hassle with the maritime proscription law of 1 year and 1 day.
The maritime law stuff is compelling every time I read about it but I've never found any drops to support it. Are there any?
As far as I am concerned, there are none.
Would that suggest that it does not exist?
To be fair, UCC = admiralty law, the law of the navigable water, coastal waters and harbors. Hence, Martial law may be viewed as admiralty.
Irrespective of that, there is a lot to learn from maritime law in all its aspects, and I would most certainly recommend reading up on it, as you are a vessel porting cargo from a to b. Comprehending its operation is key in preventing the mishap that comes from not knowing where and when you are.
I find the maritime law stuff fascinating. How do you reconcile between trying to understand it and find your footing, and ignoring it and thus depriving it of power?
Do you think it's our destiny to know it and make it work for us, or to discard it as a relic and create something new and clear?
Well, it depends. As a sailor I am somewhat used to maritime law. But it certainly depends on how you contract, as every thing is about equity-exchange.
(Note that I have written the word THING separate to emphasize a special nature of the meaning in relation to law. Pronounce the word as a Swede would. All of a sudden you are not talking about a good or service but about a con-vent-ion (a going together) to parley an issue pertaining to your honor, which is conducted by a LAW-YER, a person knowing what has been the law or legh: the rituals surrounding a "challenge" . Yes, medieval and before!)
equity => Kwittung => kiet = mutual declaration pertaining to having met the terms of contract and thus even; the clearance of the terms of the contract or accord.
So, when the dems speak of equity, they have the intention of imparting the idea of contract or unilateral duty to make whole and keep whole, based on presumed or alleged damages. These Dems ideas are typical of a Weismann Nature.
But apart from that, there is nothing wrong with equity and consciousness around that at all.
There is however a side to it, which makes it rather odd. Since equity is what you say it is, nothing is barred from it, including freedom, the right to life, your own body. And hence, it should be limited by right, so as to make it impotent to abridge them.
This is what the amendments/ Bill of Rights were for.
However, it also brings up a rather problematic issue, of that of autonomy. Can the government as the instrument prescribe a sovereign as a grantor what it can and cannot depart with?
A good thing that equity requires full closure on subject-matter. And this is where the whole system stinks and fails. As a matter of right, no contract or unilateral duty to make and keep whole can be construed or imparted due to willful retention of pertinent knowledge. This is fraud. Fraud not only spoils but voids.