Episode 410: RICO Is The Tool For Tyranny

Subscribe: RSS

RICO Is The Tool For Tyranny

– The Kozak Plan – Stormer, Brutus and Richard Henry Lee Predicted This –

Watch RICO Is The Tool For Tyranny (The Kozak Plan) –- on Rumble, Brighteon or YouTube

Yes, it was predicted and proven that the likes of RICO Is The Tool For Tyranny. Judicial tyranny was predicted by the Antifederalist Brutus. The proof of RICO being the tool it has become in the Trump case was written about by John Stormer. Stormer identified RICO as one of the primary tools, then and into the future, for use in These United States to implement The Kozak Plan.

On this program I take you through the history of it all.

A Quick Shock Look

Go to the references and consider the analysis of the Georgia RICO Statute. Interesting that it went into effect on July 1, 2015. How long was Trump talking about running for president? When did he come down the golden escalator? When did Georgia begin the legislative intent to change its 1933 law on racketeering?

Be not shocked that both the federal and Georgia RICO statues allow for the freezing and or seizures of property for forfeiture until the case is resolved.

In a partial answer to the question above, read the intent of the Georgia State Legislature from 2013 here. Now, do the Trump and his co-defendants fall into ‘apply to an interrelated pattern of criminal activity motivated by or the effect of which is pecuniary gain or economic or physical threat or injury?’

The rest of the Grand Jury summations is totally loosey-goosey as one takes a remedial look at the full statute, see reference #2.

For a Georgia Trial Attorney analysis see Reference #3 below.

Stormer Nails it

In ‘None Dare Call It Treason …25 Years Later,’ John Stormer lays out the use of RICO as the mechanism in the Kozak Plan called ‘Pressure From Above.’ Starting on page 506, Stormer lays out the strategy of ‘Intimidate The Opposition.’

Here is a partial quote regarding RICO usage:

‘The awesome powers given to governmental agencies in the last 50 years are used as pressure from above to intimidate and stifle opposition to the on-going pressures for a communist revolution. A weapon Congress enacted to fight drug trafficking which is being applied increasingly in other areas has such potential. Under the 1970 Racketeering and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) someone simply charged with a violation can have all their assets frozen until the issues are resolved by the courts which can take years.’

‘…Such laws were enacted to combat admittedly very serious problems. The have given the government awesome power to tie up the assets of those charged with but not yet convicted of violations. That power could be used at some future date to freeze the assets of those opposing measures leading to a socialist takeover. Not too many small businessmen, political figures, etc. would have to become targets of such action before others would think twice before speaking out. The WXUR case, the potential for using IRS audits, OHSA and EPA harassment and the Anti-Racketeering procedures all fit the Czech blueprint.’ (The Kozak Plan)

See the example of RICO being used by leftist back in 1986 on page 510 in the section on ‘Courtroom Terrorism.’

Last Note: Defying Tyrants:

From my friend Matt Trewhella –

On July 29th, 2023, Christians gathered at a Drag Queen Show for children in order to declare God’s law, Word, and Gospel to those attending the event. It was held outside at the Riverside Park in Watertown, Wisconsin. The police – rather than arresting those sexualizing children – arrested four Christians who were exercising their first amendment rights. Pastor Matt Trewhella engaged the police at that point by exhorting them regarding the doctrine of the lesser magistrates. To learn more about the doctrine – go to DefyTyrants.com.

To see video of the arrests click here.

For more context of the arrests click here.

And click here.

The police had statutory authority to arrest the adults sexually grooming children (link to ordinance = Wisconsin State Statute 948.07 https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/07) instead they arrested the Christians who were NOT breaking the law.

Brutus and The Federal Farmer Predicted Corruption of the Judiciary

I have discussed this a number of times before. Here are just a few quotes from the Anti-federalist Papers Special Eddtion.

Brutus – AFPSE pg 31, 56, 112

31: …But again gentlemen, our judicial power is a strong work, a masked battery, few people see the guns we can and will ere long play off from it. For the judicial power embraces every question which can arise in law or equity, under this constitution and under the laws of “the United States” (which laws will be, you know, the supreme laws of the land). This power extends to all cases, affecting ambassadors or other public ministers, “and consuls; to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to which the United States shall be a party; to controversies between two or more States; between a State and citizens of another State; between citizens of different States; between citizens of the same State, claiming lands under grants of different States; and between a State or the citizens thereof, and foreign States, citizens or subjects.”

56: This government is to possess absolute and uncontroulable power, legislative, executive and judicial, with respect to every object to which it extends, for by the last clause of section 8th, article 1st, it is declared “that the Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution, in the government of the United States; or in any department or office thereof.” And by the 6th article, it is declared “that this constitution, and the laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and the treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution, or law of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.” It appears from these articles that there is no need of any intervention of the state governments, between the Congress and the people, to execute any one power vested in the general government, and that the constitution and laws of every state are nullified and declared void, so far as they are or shall be inconsistent with this constitution, or the laws made in pursuance of it, or with treaties made under the authority of the United States.—

pg 70-71: by Samuel Bryan, Centinel. …are aspiring despots among yourselves prostituting the name of a Washington to cloak their designs upon your liberties.

I would ask: How was the proposed Constitution to have showered down those treasures upon every class of citizens, as has been so industriously inculcated and so fondly believed by some? Would it have been by the addition of numerous and expensive establishments? By doubling our judiciaries, instituting federal courts in every county of every state? By a superb presidential court? By a large standing army? In short, by putting it in the power of the future government to levy money at pleasure, and placing this government so independent of the people as to enable the administration to gratify every corrupt passion of the mind, to riot on your spoils, without check or control?

Page 112 Brutus: If this be true, and if the states can raise money only by permission of the general government, it follows that the state governments will be dependent on the will of the general government for their existence.

What will render this power in Congress effectual and sure in its operation is, that the government will have complete judicial and executive authority to carry all their laws into effect, which will be paramount to the judicial and executive authority of the individual states: in vain therefore will be all interference of the legislatures, courts, or magistrates of any of the states on the subject; for they will be subordinate to the general government, and engaged by oath to support it, and will be constitutionally bound to submit to their decisions.

by Richard Henry Lee, The Federal Farmer Go to page 124….125,126

126: Should the general government think it politic, as some administrations (if not all) probably will, to look for a support in a system of influence, the government will take every occasion to multiply laws, and officers to execute them, considering these as so many necessary props for its own support. Should this system of policy be adopted, taxes more productive than the impost duties will, probably, be wanted to support the government, and to discharge foreign demands, without leaving any thing for the domestic creditors. The internal sources of taxation then must be called into operation, and internal tax laws and federal assessors and collectors spread over this immense country. All these circumstances considered, is it wise, prudent, or safe, to vest the powers of laying and collecting internal taxes in the general government, while imperfectly organized and inadequate; and to trust to amending it hereafter, and making it adequate to this purpose?

Page 127 leads to RICO

There are some powers proposed to be lodged in the general government in the judicial department, I think very unnecessarily, I mean powers respecting questions arising upon the internal laws of the respective states. It is proper the federal judiciary should have powers co-extensive with the federal legislature—that is, the power of deciding finally on the laws of the union. By Art. 3. Sect. 2. the powers of the federal judiciary are extended (among other things) to all cases between a state and citizens of another state—between citizens of different states—between a state or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects. Actions in all these cases, except against a state government, are now brought and finally determined in the law courts of the states respectively; and as there are no words to exclude these courts of their jurisdiction in these cases, they will have concurrent jurisdiction with the inferior federal courts in them; and, therefore, if the new constitution be adopted without any amendment in this respect, all those numerous actions, now brought in the state courts between our citizens and foreigners, between citizens of different states, by state governments against foreigners, and by state governments against citizens of other states, may also be brought in the federal courts; and an appeal will lay in them from the state courts, or federal inferior courts, to the supreme judicial court of the union. In almost all these cases, either party may have the trial by jury in the state courts; excepting paper money and tender laws, which are wisely guarded against in the proposed constitution, justice may be obtained in these courts on reasonable terms; they must be more competent to proper decisions on the laws of their respective states, than the federal courts can possibly be. I do not, in any point of view, see the need of opening a new jurisdiction to these causes—of opening a new scene of expensive law suits—of suffering foreigners, and citizens of different states, to drag each other many hundred miles into the federal courts. It is true, those courts may be so organized by a wise and prudent legislature, as to make the obtaining of justice in them tolerably easy; they may in general be organized on the common law principles of the country: But this benefit is by no means secured by the constitution. The trial by jury is secured only in those few criminal cases, to which the federal laws will extend—as crimes committed on the seas, against the laws of nations, treason, and counterfeiting the federal securities and coin: But even in these cases, the jury trial of the vicinage is not secured—particularly in the large states, a citizen may be tried for a crime committed in the state, and yet tried in some states 500 miles from the place where it was committed; but the jury trial is not secured at all in civil causes. Though the convention have not established this trial, it is to be hoped that congress, in putting the new system into execution, will do it by a legislative act, in all cases in which it can be done with propriety. Whether the jury trial is not excluded [from] the supreme judicial court, is an important question. By Art. 3. Sect. 2. all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and in those cases in which a state shall be party, the supreme court shall have jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exception, and under such regulations, as the congress shall make. By court is understood a court consisting of judges; and the idea of a jury is excluded. This court, or the judges, are to have jurisdiction on appeals, in all the cases enumerated, as to law and fact; the judges are to decide the law and try the fact, and the trial of the fact being assigned to the judges by the constitution, a jury for trying the fact is excluded; however, under the exceptions and powers to make regulations, congress may, perhaps introduce the jury, to try the fact in most necessary cases.