America First with Nicholas J. Fuentes is LIVE Mon-Fri @9pm EST
Streaming Site:...
Follow the most censored man in America:
Watch Nick's nightly show LIVE Mondays - Fridays 9PM EST
On Gab: https://gab.com/realnickjfuentes
On Telegram: https://t.me/nickjfuentes
Modal body text goes here.
I don’t agree with this guy on every topic, but I support the right to freedom of speech, and none of us are free unless ALL of us are free. Regardless of whether this financial asset seizure was intended to suppress his freedom of speech, or merely to steal his money because they think they can get away with it, this seizure is nevertheless a violation of the federal constitution:
The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments contain a due process clause protecting citizens against the arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the government. https://www.thoughtco.com/due-process-of-law-in-the-us-constitution-4120210
Of course, there is nothing which prevents the congress from creating federal statutes which violate the supreme law of the land. When a citizen is harmed by a federal agency which relies on an unconstitutional statute for its authority, the victim can sue the agency and the corporate United States. So I would want to know which federal statute the FBI/DoJ were relying on (if any) when they ordered the bank to steal this man’s money, and I disagree when he said you have no recourse, because you could sue the federal government for a declaratory judgement that the seizure was unlawful, and you could sue the bank in a state or federal court for conspiracy to commit theft under color of law — but depending on how many corrupt judges you encounter, this could potentially involve appealing all the way to the supreme court.
If the lawyer said the supreme court has already ruled on a similar (and applicable) case, but that ruling does not represent a sincere interpretation of the constitution, and the composition of the supreme court has substantially changed since the decision was rendered, the subject matter could be re-tried (if the court is willing to hear the case, just as the Roe v. Wade decision was reversed.) So the bottom line is, the attorney probably lied when he said there is nothing you can do, and he is simply afraid or unqualified to do it. He also apparently failed to inform the client about his legal options (in which case he is guilty of fraud, malpractice or incompetence, and the client deserves a refund of the retainer fee, at the very least.)
In this situation the victim should look for another attorney, and may want to consider approaching a public policy group like the ACLU (or some equivalent) that has knowledgeable & sincere constitutional lawyers on staff who would be interested in arguing his case as far as legally possible (or would tell him exactly why they think this unconstitutional policy could not be reversed through litigation at the present time.)
Now for the average citizen with no money to spare, in practical terms these options might be the equivalent of having no recourse to the law —but technically speaking you probably still have SOME recourse, and I would want to know if the injured party here has really and truly exhausted all of his options. From another perspective, this unlawful seizure could be regarded as a gift because it provides an opportunity to reverse an unconstitutional policy of the federal government —restoring some measure of liberty & justice for all. As Franklin said, “a republic, if you can keep it.”