That is what I thought. You have no proof. Because there is no evidence in the public. Because there was no trial. Etc..
What I said on this thread that set you off was that he was convicted of criminal charges. Which he was. My proof is the court documents, duly recorded in the public record. That is sufficient. I have no interest in arguing the history of what he did or didn't do that led up to it,
especially when I'm presented with arguments in the form of one-sided statements and selectively reported snippets of documents on his blog.
He had the option of a trial, not only during his plea hearing but during most of his seven year confinement for contempt. He chose not to avail himself of it, and instead to keep resisting the courts authority (which again is in some ways quite admirable). As such, he gets to live with his time in jail, his plea bargain, the conviction that is on his record as a consequence of the plea bargain, and the admission of guilt on his part that plea bargain entails.
He subsequently had the option to litigate, in court, his claims that his civil rights were violated (including but not limited to his claim that his admission was coerced and his claim that his right to a speedy trial was denied). In fact, he could have done this during his five years in prison after being convicted and sentenced. (Not like he had much else to do with his time.) If successful, not only could his conviction have been overturned and his admission of guilt erased, but he could also have been compensated, as many others have been under those circumstances (on occasion with large to extremely large cash awards). As such, his incentive to do so, if he has a legitimate case for it given
the totality of the evidence that exists, should be obvious. He chose instead to pursue his grievance, not in court, but on a blog in the form of a public persona with the well-worn halo of being an Unfairly Persecuted Individual.
I'm not buying the persecution sympathy card. Even if the original charges were bogus (and I have no opinion on that), so much of what happened later was clearly of his own making and the result of his own decisions.
I'd further suggest that Martin knows more about the totality of the evidence that exists than you do, when you are relying on his selective disclosure in his blog, and he is not.
He decided not to try to prove, in court, his (blog) claims of civil rights abuse. You were not the one to make that decision, as you are in no position to do so in an informed manner. You're a mere blog reader to him (in effect the one whose eyeballs he is being paid to deliver), not his lawyer and not even his friend. Remember that, and consider what you don't know (but he does!) in addition to what you do know.
I still find much of his economic analysis to be refreshingly competent and insightful. I am withholding judgement on his forecasting model and computer program until we see how this 2015.75 big turn plays out. I so far see a lot of interesting things happen more or less as predicted but no clear "big bang" event. At least not yet. The powderkeg of enormous debt is in place. The fuse may or may not be lit. Will it explode? We'll see.
Oh my fucking Lord of Dangling Balls I am shocked! Really courts have to be lawful in order for there to be a conviction? Are you sure? That is ludicrous. How could we ever have any convictions if that is the case! Wikipedia has to be in error.