Thanks for making a post on this. For those impatient to see some dramatic arrests, we need to wait until January 19, 2019 when Trump's executive orders re: military tribunals and grabbing assets of human traffickers goes into effect. The number of documents in association with federal indictments is now up to 50,000 and growing. This is simply astonishing. But these filings are in existing federal courts around the USA. .Can they be transferred to a military court?
and grabbing assets of human traffickers goes into effect.
The EO does only apply for people already named in the EO annex and foreign citizens who may be named at a later point. It does not apply to US citizens who are not already listed in the annex.
You are a lawyer, you should know. Please read the EO again. Thank you.
YES IT DOES. Here it the relevant part abbreviated so you can get the flow of it more easily:
Section 1. (a) All property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in:
(i) the persons listed in the Annex to this order;
(ii) any foreign person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General: (...)
(iii) any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General: (A) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of: (1) any activity described in subsections (ii)(A), (ii)(B)(1), or (ii)(B)(2) of this section that is conducted by a foreign person;
There are three categories of people. (i) The persons in the Annex. (ii) Any foreign person doing this shit. (iii) any person who assists any foreign person doing this shit.
If the property comes within the United States or that come within the possession or control of any United States person (Section 1. (a)) then boom - it's blocked.
Eric Schmidt resigned from Alphabet hours after this EO was published. He knew what it meant.
The EO expands the list of "specially designated persons" all of whom are foreigners. The Global Magnitsky Act applies to "any person" including US citizens who.act in concert with them. Three of the designated individuals allegedly made large contributons to the Clinton Foundation but that may not be sufficient to confer jurisdiction. One SDP is a Pakistani doctor involved in organ harvesting, Muchtar Shah
Graham's discussion of military tribunals during Kavanaugh's hearing was odd. Seemed to say military tribunals will be used on US citizens, whether here or abroad. Like No Name.
@think- ts ok, folks like myself are impatient to see some justice meted out on the democratic side of the aisle and wonder where the hell is the posse? Will the EO be the panacea or not. The country was genuinely outraged by the Watergate break in which is child's play compared to what's happening today. I was in law school at the time and classes were actually suspended so that students and professors alike could watch the hearings on TV in the student union room (or cafeteria) Senator Sam Ervin was our hero much like Trey Gowdy. (The South produces great orators). Anyway, action was swift, Nixon resigned and crooks went to jail. The Clintons then brought us decades of corruption and few even bat an eyelash now Those of us who care are jumping at any indication that justice is just around the corner in the form of Q or EOs or wbatever. So there's no harm done. You are a good moderater.
Students were bringing tv sets and radios to the law school.campus. It didnt matter whether you were liberal or conservatve. We were rivited by the proceedings and the professors were as well. They probably thought we would see the law in live action and that was as instructive as any textbook.
Sorry, I didn't want to be rude. I seem to be getting unnerved everytime the EO is mentioned.
Don't feel bad. I have tried in vain to make people aware of the same thing but they can't be bothered to take 30 minutes to actually look at the Executive Order themselves. They just keep spreading the fantasy.
And, I don't believe for a minute that pizzalawyer is actually a lawyer because he keeps spreading the baseless rumor that there are 50,000 sealed indictments. Many documents can be sealed that are NOT indictments. A few of them maybe indictments, but statistically speaking, most of them will not be indictments. Math works that way.
@Esotericshade: And you are not reading carefully either. I never once said there were 50,000 sealed indictments. I said 50,,000 documents related to sealed indictments. It is unclear from Pacer as to what filings constitute search warranta, arrest warrants, witness subpoenas, seizure of assets warrants, attendant to any indictment. I am not going to speculate what percentage constitutes an actual indictment.
Plenty of young bucks here still wet behind the ears getting hard ons when they think they can upbraid a lawyer. You look foolish to someone who is long in the tooth, I assure you.
@esotericshade: ow many times do you have to be told that there are 50,000 sealed documents related to sealed indictments. There is no way of knowing which doument is an indictment . One indictment might have a witness list of 5, another might have 100 attendant witness subpoenas. It makes no sense to keep the indictment sealed and all the search warrants, prejudgement asset seizure warrants open to the public for then we would know who is indicted. These filings are on the criminal side of the docket, the other side devoted to.civil.cases. The number of the filings far outpace anything we have ever seen before, so much so that I wondered if they concerned illegal immigrants. Because they are sealed , we can only speculate. There are several websites devoted to tracking these sealed filings which may interest you.
And how did you arrive at the conclusion that if I dont know about the sealed documents, then I'm not a real lawyer? You are growing younger by the minute. Do you say to a plastic surgeon that if he or she doesnt know about cancer treatments that he or she must not be a real doctor? You have absolutely no idea how vast the law has become and how specialized the lawyers are. Otherwise you wouldn't make such ridiculous statements.
How many times do you have to be told that there are 50,000 sealed documents related to sealed indictments.
I know that.
There is no way of knowing which document is an indictment .
That has been my point FROM DAY ONE. Which is why Q people need to stop spreading the false rumor that Trump and Q have 50,000 sealed indictments ready for military tribunals which will incarcerate a third of Washington D.C. and the Rothschilds. The whole fairy tale is beyond ridiculous.
You are immune from learning anything from me, so maybe these websites will help you.
This is the first time you ever said anything remotely lawerly, condescending prick. And if you are a lawyer, I can't believe that you would fall for the Q bait.
@Pizzalawyer, this happens about as often as a full solar eclipse, but it does happen: @ESOTERICshade is closer to the truth on this question, and the truth is actually even less encouraging than he suggests.
If you read this thread, you will see that the method used to count the sealed items was flawed from the beginning, and the standard used to judge what is "normal" for sealed items in the PACER system was badly flawed as well. The study that they cite is perfectly real and trustworthy, but they didn't read it carefully.
In a "normal" year (2006), PACER saw about 1,100 sealed indictments that were still sealed in early 2008. But it also saw more than 15,000 sealed magistrate judge proceedings and more than 8,000 sealed miscellaneous proceedings that were also still sealed more than a year later. That is, the total number of sealed documents in that year was at least 24,000 and could have been a lot higher. The correct standard of comparison is not "Wow, 5,000 sealed documents per month compared to 1,100 in a whole year!" That's comparing apples to oranges.
Now, more than a decade later, we are seeing about 4,500 to 5,000 sealed documents per month, which would be 54,000 to 60,000 for the year. However, most of that is probably magistrate judge proceedings or miscellaneous proceedings, coming from a federal system that has presumably gotten busier over time.
The group of volunteers who go through PACER district by district and add up the number of new sealed documents never track how many are unsealed. The current running total, 50,000 or whatever it is, is not actually meaningful. Judging by past practice, most of those documents have already been unsealed and weren't relevant to human trafficking to begin with. So we don't have a meaningful number.
I have cited the 5,000-documents-per-month figure in the past, but that was because I was pressed for time and placed excessive trust in the people who actually have access to PACER to read and comprehend the instructions. They didn't do that, and henceforth I think the 5,000-per-month number needs to vanish altogether. It explains nothing and proves nothing.
Sorry, but that's life on the Internet. Check everything yourself if you want to be sure of something.
view the rest of the comments →
Pizzalawyer ago
Thanks for making a post on this. For those impatient to see some dramatic arrests, we need to wait until January 19, 2019 when Trump's executive orders re: military tribunals and grabbing assets of human traffickers goes into effect. The number of documents in association with federal indictments is now up to 50,000 and growing. This is simply astonishing. But these filings are in existing federal courts around the USA. .Can they be transferred to a military court?
think- ago
The EO does only apply for people already named in the EO annex and foreign citizens who may be named at a later point. It does not apply to US citizens who are not already listed in the annex.
You are a lawyer, you should know. Please read the EO again. Thank you.
paulf ago
YES IT DOES. Here it the relevant part abbreviated so you can get the flow of it more easily:
Section 1. (a) All property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in:
(i) the persons listed in the Annex to this order; (ii) any foreign person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General: (...) (iii) any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General: (A) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of: (1) any activity described in subsections (ii)(A), (ii)(B)(1), or (ii)(B)(2) of this section that is conducted by a foreign person;
There are three categories of people. (i) The persons in the Annex. (ii) Any foreign person doing this shit. (iii) any person who assists any foreign person doing this shit.
If the property comes within the United States or that come within the possession or control of any United States person (Section 1. (a)) then boom - it's blocked.
Eric Schmidt resigned from Alphabet hours after this EO was published. He knew what it meant.
MazeyDaze ago
There was a thread in r/greatawakening that was tying iii into the Bushes also.
Pizzalawyer ago
The EO expands the list of "specially designated persons" all of whom are foreigners. The Global Magnitsky Act applies to "any person" including US citizens who.act in concert with them. Three of the designated individuals allegedly made large contributons to the Clinton Foundation but that may not be sufficient to confer jurisdiction. One SDP is a Pakistani doctor involved in organ harvesting, Muchtar Shah
Anonomus911 ago
Graham's discussion of military tribunals during Kavanaugh's hearing was odd. Seemed to say military tribunals will be used on US citizens, whether here or abroad. Like No Name.
Pizzalawyer ago
I didnt read it so thanks for educating me, I was being lazy.
think- ago
Sorry, I didn't want to be rude. I seem to be getting unnerved everytime the EO is mentioned.
Pizzalawyer ago
@think- ts ok, folks like myself are impatient to see some justice meted out on the democratic side of the aisle and wonder where the hell is the posse? Will the EO be the panacea or not. The country was genuinely outraged by the Watergate break in which is child's play compared to what's happening today. I was in law school at the time and classes were actually suspended so that students and professors alike could watch the hearings on TV in the student union room (or cafeteria) Senator Sam Ervin was our hero much like Trey Gowdy. (The South produces great orators). Anyway, action was swift, Nixon resigned and crooks went to jail. The Clintons then brought us decades of corruption and few even bat an eyelash now Those of us who care are jumping at any indication that justice is just around the corner in the form of Q or EOs or wbatever. So there's no harm done. You are a good moderater.
think- ago
Thanks. :-) Interesting that you were allowed to watch the hearings on tv!
Pizzalawyer ago
Students were bringing tv sets and radios to the law school.campus. It didnt matter whether you were liberal or conservatve. We were rivited by the proceedings and the professors were as well. They probably thought we would see the law in live action and that was as instructive as any textbook.
ESOTERICshade ago
Don't feel bad. I have tried in vain to make people aware of the same thing but they can't be bothered to take 30 minutes to actually look at the Executive Order themselves. They just keep spreading the fantasy.
And, I don't believe for a minute that pizzalawyer is actually a lawyer because he keeps spreading the baseless rumor that there are 50,000 sealed indictments. Many documents can be sealed that are NOT indictments. A few of them maybe indictments, but statistically speaking, most of them will not be indictments. Math works that way.
Pizzalawyer ago
@Esotericshade: And you are not reading carefully either. I never once said there were 50,000 sealed indictments. I said 50,,000 documents related to sealed indictments. It is unclear from Pacer as to what filings constitute search warranta, arrest warrants, witness subpoenas, seizure of assets warrants, attendant to any indictment. I am not going to speculate what percentage constitutes an actual indictment.
Plenty of young bucks here still wet behind the ears getting hard ons when they think they can upbraid a lawyer. You look foolish to someone who is long in the tooth, I assure you.
ESOTERICshade ago
Just because something is sealed does not mean it is an indictment and as a lawyer you should know that, bro.
Pizzalawyer ago
@esotericshade: ow many times do you have to be told that there are 50,000 sealed documents related to sealed indictments. There is no way of knowing which doument is an indictment . One indictment might have a witness list of 5, another might have 100 attendant witness subpoenas. It makes no sense to keep the indictment sealed and all the search warrants, prejudgement asset seizure warrants open to the public for then we would know who is indicted. These filings are on the criminal side of the docket, the other side devoted to.civil.cases. The number of the filings far outpace anything we have ever seen before, so much so that I wondered if they concerned illegal immigrants. Because they are sealed , we can only speculate. There are several websites devoted to tracking these sealed filings which may interest you.
And how did you arrive at the conclusion that if I dont know about the sealed documents, then I'm not a real lawyer? You are growing younger by the minute. Do you say to a plastic surgeon that if he or she doesnt know about cancer treatments that he or she must not be a real doctor? You have absolutely no idea how vast the law has become and how specialized the lawyers are. Otherwise you wouldn't make such ridiculous statements.
ESOTERICshade ago
I know that.
That has been my point FROM DAY ONE. Which is why Q people need to stop spreading the false rumor that Trump and Q have 50,000 sealed indictments ready for military tribunals which will incarcerate a third of Washington D.C. and the Rothschilds. The whole fairy tale is beyond ridiculous.
This is the first time you ever said anything remotely lawerly, condescending prick. And if you are a lawyer, I can't believe that you would fall for the Q bait.
SoberSecondThought ago
@Pizzalawyer, this happens about as often as a full solar eclipse, but it does happen: @ESOTERICshade is closer to the truth on this question, and the truth is actually even less encouraging than he suggests.
If you read this thread, you will see that the method used to count the sealed items was flawed from the beginning, and the standard used to judge what is "normal" for sealed items in the PACER system was badly flawed as well. The study that they cite is perfectly real and trustworthy, but they didn't read it carefully.
In a "normal" year (2006), PACER saw about 1,100 sealed indictments that were still sealed in early 2008. But it also saw more than 15,000 sealed magistrate judge proceedings and more than 8,000 sealed miscellaneous proceedings that were also still sealed more than a year later. That is, the total number of sealed documents in that year was at least 24,000 and could have been a lot higher. The correct standard of comparison is not "Wow, 5,000 sealed documents per month compared to 1,100 in a whole year!" That's comparing apples to oranges.
Now, more than a decade later, we are seeing about 4,500 to 5,000 sealed documents per month, which would be 54,000 to 60,000 for the year. However, most of that is probably magistrate judge proceedings or miscellaneous proceedings, coming from a federal system that has presumably gotten busier over time.
The group of volunteers who go through PACER district by district and add up the number of new sealed documents never track how many are unsealed. The current running total, 50,000 or whatever it is, is not actually meaningful. Judging by past practice, most of those documents have already been unsealed and weren't relevant to human trafficking to begin with. So we don't have a meaningful number.
I have cited the 5,000-documents-per-month figure in the past, but that was because I was pressed for time and placed excessive trust in the people who actually have access to PACER to read and comprehend the instructions. They didn't do that, and henceforth I think the 5,000-per-month number needs to vanish altogether. It explains nothing and proves nothing.
Sorry, but that's life on the Internet. Check everything yourself if you want to be sure of something.