Contested in what public hearing where all evidence could be presented?
It was reported as such in the press.
The same "free" press that didn't report any of the damning facts such as the MOA that ordered the receiver to withhold all evidence from the Defendent, thus a violation of discovery in law due process.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/14767564/More-Proof-Of-Martin-Armstrong-s-innocence#scribdI don't have the transcripts from the case
Then what do you have that emboldens you to promote fraud as truth and simultaneously destroy your relationship with me with insane behavior?
but it would not surprise me at all if there were hearings or motions on the delays.
It would not surprise you. That is evidence of some sort in your unconstitutional world?
Anyway, I'm more inclined to give any weight at all to an independent source as opposed to his blog that you keep foolishily quoting as the authoritative source that it quite literally cannot ever be given its one-sided nature and the inherent self-interested bias of its author.
Oh grasshopper did you ever learn that scientists pull information from what appears to be noise by using tools such as correlation of multiple data points.
You are more inclined to give weight to a source which proved it is not fair as documented above.
Who is foolish?
the government admitted that he never defrauded anyone and admitted that the banksters did it and even fined the other banks. And he was totally vindicated
Sorry, I don't believe it. If that were true he could go to count and get a finding of factual innocence. He wouldn't have to argue his innocence on a blog.
Did you already forget the court orders they put on him disallowing him to do certain things which I presented in one my earlier replies to you today.
On what basis do you not believe it? Can you even recite to us the details of his case and the related court cases where the banks involved were fined and admitted their culpability for the entire incident?
I am asking you first, before I print in your face so you can eat some humble pie.
What I believe is that some aspects of the case were probably found to be more attributable to the actions of others.
But as I said it was a very complex case with so many pieces and in reality there are so many complex laws and conflicting requirements, especially when it comes to vague fraud charges that it is almost impossible to be completely and provably innocent. So when he claims to be "completely vindicated" that just tells me that he is full of shit and trying to rehabilitate his image (or possibly self-image) with such puffery.
Again you lash out because of your laziness because you don't know the details of the case into a slander of a man you have no evidence with which to support your leanings to slander him.
You assume it is so complicated because you never even bothered to understand it. Yet you are simultaneously an expert able to boast and boast post after post.
But in this case, had he gone forward with trial and then fully prevailed at trial, the civil contempt would also have ended because the order was to turn over assets associated with the alleged fraud.
He turned over everything he was given a court order to turn over.
He did not turn over those items he was told to turn over only in an email.
Of course he wanted the demand on the official record why they wanted the source code to his computer model. And the banksters were unwilling to put it on the official record because they knew they had no basis with which to officially demand it.
So because he wouldn't give them the computer source code to his model (which has absolutely nothing to do with the case and allegations against him) without an official court order, they keep in civil contempt for 7 years.
There is also a bit of verbal slight of hand in the statement of his that you posted (not unusual it seems). You do not have a right to a trial for civil contempt (though can appeal the order, which he did, twice, and lost twice), but being held in contempt does not prevent being tried in another case, which is what he was facing. If he wasn't going to turn over the assets he needed to prevail on the fraud (and other) charges to render the civil contempt charges moot.
Do you have any point? He had already complied with all court orders on which assets to turn over. What more could he do but appeal the unconstitutional use of civil contempt to prevent his speedy public trial by a jury of his peers.
He told them if they wanted other assets then give him a court order. They refused. They kept him in civil contempt for 7 years.
At the end of it all, he was entirely vindicated and then his appeal was going to the Supreme Court so finally they had to move.
I'm sorry but Armstrong is apparently full of shit on a lot of this stuff. You shouldn't blindly reading and quoting his blog and do your own independent research. It seems not infrequently to disagree with his spin on it.
You call anything you don't understand well "full of shit" so then who is full of shit.