Topic: Martin Armstrong Discussion - page 322. (Read 647196 times)

Finally.


You are blaming him for you not doing your research.

You have chosen to convict some one who never got a speedy public trial of his peers as provided by the Sixth Admendment to the Constitution, and who you admitted was jailed without a trial for 7 years which btw is totally illegal and unconstitutional, thus you already can not delegate your trust to the fraudulent court, yet then you blame Armstrong for not writing the entire legal case in one blog post for you and then you requiring me to find it for you.

You are so quick to judge without facts and constitutionality, yet so lax to do any work. Yet I did the work for the past years than you are so quick to try to put me down.

Actually there is a long document he produced where he explained all of the legalities in exhaustive detail. Maybe if you were sincere, you would have Googled for it already.

I don't know the truth of his factual and ethical guilt or innocence (of the ponzi, fraud, hiding of losses or whatever it is he was accused of), only the truth of the outcome of his court case (conviction after a guilty plea).

It is clearly a very complicated case (something like two dozen charges, although he only pled guilty to one), and the civil contempt aspect adds another layer of complexity to the whole thing. Either way, I'm sure as hell not going to take his blog as the authoritative truth though.


This is exactly what I'm talking about in terms of selective quoting of stuff on his blog not being a valid source. We can see from that page that the entire document is at least 17 pages long and we're shown exactly 9 lines of one page. The last of those lines is "That's one period of losses that are excluded" (emphasis added).

Just on the basis of that small section we can already ask about other periods, and as I said above there were 20 or so separate counts he was charged with. Even if this section somehow supports his innocence in some narrow way (and it is hard for me to even tell), that's a long way from showing that all 20 charges against him were bogus on the basis of all available evidence.

There may even be contradictory evidence about this particular aspect of it on the very same page or the next page! We just don't know. In a complex case like this it wouldn't be usual for there to be thousands of pages of similar evidence, or even more. 9 lines out of one page shown out of context is just meaningless.

By promulgating and insisting, you are not endorsing  


You are not quoting stating it is fraud. You are claiming it is truth.

You stand as a witness under God performing your duty to protect truth and the constitution and that is why I have warned you about your fate.


How many can claim they were held in prison for 7 years without a trial? I think there is only one other documented case in the entire USA if I remember correctly and it was something like 24 months roughly.


Sixth Amendment. How many times did I write "speedy public trial with jury of peers"?

You sure are slow minded.

---

Edit:

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/research/rule-of-law/goldman-sachs-v-armstrong

I'm not endorsing it. There's nothing wrong with quoting fraud though (not making a statement either way about the above quote though). How else do you bring it to light?

I'm still of the opinion that nearly every criminal in prison can claim his or her rights were violated (and most if not all of them are likely correct one way or another). Should we let them all out? Erase or ignore or deny their convictions?

There is no objective basis to treat Armstrong's claim one way and every other criminal making essentially the same claim another way. Being a smart economist isn't enough.

Well now I am prophet because my prior post answers your subsequent post. It is pretty obvious that you eyes have been entirely fooled.

People wonder how Satan will work his magic at the end times. You are watching it folks. This is the magic.

You enjoy quoting fraud? Do you feel that adds to you reputation?

If you believe that then you deserve your fate which you have chosen to side with.

I feel better knowing I don't believe lies and I don't associate with those who promulgate them.

I know damn well not everything that written is true. Maybe one day you will learn that. Just because it is written in a record book doesn't make it true. If you think weasel word definitions will protect you when the time comes, you will be very unprepared for your fate.

You've expended a half-day arguing that Armstrong is convicted. Yet he wasn't every truly convicted.

Having a mark in Satan's record book doesn't mean he was convicted in God's land.

Ditto having a record in an unconstitutional jurisdiction such as NYC on banksters cases, doesn't mean he has a constitutional conviction in the United States of America.

You live in the the United Socialist States of Unamerica. So you proceed. Are we done?

As a matter of fact, there are certain places on earth where he has no record and no one will honor that unconstitutional record.

I think you should continue where you are. You are making a lot of money. You are doing very well. Just continue. Let's see how it works out for you. Life has a way of teaching us lessons that we need to learn when we are hard headed.

If someone asks if he has any criminal convictions and he says no, he is lying. If that's the basis of some economic advantage, he'd likely be guilty of fraud.

You plead guilty to something in court, and it isn't overturned (even if, on its merits, it could be overturned), you have a conviction. Which he does, and which the original post on this topic correctly stated.

Let it go. You are not personally responsible for his status as a convicted criminal. Why do you even make such a big deal about it? Why not the thousands or even millions of other people whose rights are violated, and probably many is worse ways than his?

How about this:

According to court records, he has a criminal conviction.

Does that make you feel better?

The term was "conviction" not "criminal record". What was that about "accuracy"?

Did I deny he has a criminal record?

You have made this sort of inaccurate error numerous times today. You think so highly of yourself.

Who cares if you've lost respect. You are demonstrating that you are not worthy of being trusted as a judge of respect.

See above.

There was no shit trolling, just being accurate about his criminal record. That set you off, for reasons unknown.

I really didn't know about his trying to weasel out of his criminal record by claiming "My rights has been violated!" like every two bit criminal in the slammer (and most of them are probably right, but also largely guilty in fact), but it makes me lose a bit of respect for him. He's still a smart economist though, no taking that away.

All I did was correct the disinformation that says he was "convicted". Anyone who thinks that either doesn't have any sanity or is too lazy to research the facts of the case.

You turned it into a battle of the weasel word interpretation versus the truth. I was willing to leave it as "reader can go do the research" but you were make sure you force me to either do your research for you, else I have to leave it with some disinformation post of yours for naive readers.

Edit: and about your other slander about him presenting invalid information. Everything in The Forecaster movie about him was culled over by numerous attorneys which was necessary for it to receive truth insurance. So again just more bullshit out of your mouth. Yes he has occasionally been a little loose on the interpretation on some post on his blog, but that is some news item he is writing about in a few seconds.. he is a very busy man and little goofs happen. Not the facts of his case which is something he has studied for years. For you to conflate the two ontologies and in a slanderous and boastful manner that impinges on another's time.

Unfucking believable. You are the classic asshole. You can't even take responsibility for the shit trolling you did against me today.

I know you were trying to spank me all day, but look where it got you factually. Because being vindictive was your motive, not truth.

You just had to get your daily points on your ego board didn't ya. You are addicted. It is sad.

Sorry dude, but you did that. You're responsible for your own well being, so learn some restraint, eh?

Who appointed you advocate for Armstrong's constitutional rights anyway? He's not the first one to get a raw deal from the system, and won't be the last. If you take personal responsibility for every injustice in the world, you're gonna tie up a lot more days.

Smooth,

My gf asked me why I was angry as it is time to sleep and you've tied up my entire day with arson.

I tried to explain it to her. I said imagine your entire family had been sitting with your brother when an alleged murder occurred, but then the judge convicted your brother without a trial and without allowing any presentation of evidence from the family in his defense. Would it be fair to say he was convicted.

I then explained that Armstrong was put in jail for 7 years while his right to a speedy trial by a jury of his peers was not allowed for 7 years. He was not allowed to have any public hearings. The judge was caught changing the transcripts. As Armstrong gained support from his writings while in prison, some had petitioned some Senators and he was close to getting a hearing with the Supreme Court where all the facts would come out. There was no way the NY courts were going to allow this because he would have called the bankers into court and this would have revealed their manipulations. So they started to torture him in prison ramping it up from deprivation until finally putting another inmate in his cell to kill him.

He finally acquiesced to signing a plea that he felt was not incriminating. The offer for him to have a public trial was never an option. That is some bullshit the corrupt judge put in the transcript. They changed the plea when he was there to plea. He was not allowed to speak in his own words. He had a choice to make, either say "yes your honor" or go back into the hole and surely face death, because there was no way the banksters were letting this go to public. So they had an incentive to get him to plea because murdering him was going to be messy because by this time he had many supporters (but not nearly as many as now). Yet he also had an incentive to say "yes your honor" because the alternative was to risk his life.

Being that he is much more intelligent than you are, he understood that a contract under duress where his constitutional rights have been violated is not going to be respected as a conviction by anyone who matters to him.

Therefor you do not matter to him. And you no longer matter to me.

I asked my gf what should I do with a person like you who has to be correct on a weasel technicality, even when the facts are clearly that a man was abused and there is no way a sane person would say he is constitutionally convicted.

My non-violent gf's response really shocked me. She is always the one who tells me not to raise my voice, not to fight, not to make trouble. She gets afraid just when I drive the car. She is not brave.

She say you should be killed. I don't agree of course, unless under a constitutional government you were tried for treason which would be a stretch and that would require a jury of your peers. But I think her indignation at your abuse of this man who suffered so much sums it up succinctly.

You would not last long in the Philippines with the kind of attitude of arguing the unjust on a technicality. Filipinos see right through weasels and go direct to the point. And they do kill for people who have such nonsense type of flippant and abusive attitudes.

Hey I have no idea what this means, can you guys translate http://investmentresearchdynamics.com/a-liquidity-crisis-hit-the-banking-in-september/

My father is an attorney that reached the highest levels working as General Counsel for a consortium of major oil companies after being the West Coast Divison Head for Exxon. He told me any contract entered under duress or unfair circumstances is invalid. I've seen other attorneys say this.

You come spouting off your mouth without consulting with an expert attorney on this matter.

You have a very high opinion of your discernment of what is factually correct, because delusions are free.

Google could help you if you actually had a clue of what to search for (which again shows you are spouting off your flippant mouth far out of your area of expertise):

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/unenforceable-contracts-tips-33079.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duress#In_contract_law


You have not addressed duress which is a legal term.

The 7 year illegal, unconstitutional detention without a trial is part of the duress as explained by Wikipedia above, "when one of the parties to the contract enjoyed an ascendant position vis-à-vis the other party and abused that position by subjecting the other to threats". Again he was threatened by repeated acts of violence and deprivation and even refusing to allow the public into his hearings and even the court admitting it had changed the transcripts that were published.

You do not deny he was held in prison for 7 years without a trial. And certainly not a speedy trial by jury as he is provided by the constitution in the Sixth Amendment. Imagine 7 years after being arrested, you still haven't been given a trial and have been held part of the time in Supermax security prison and at times thrown into solitary confinement and then finally in middle of the night they bring another inmate into your cell to kill you and he beats you senseless and knocks your teeth out and damages your eye.

You are unfucking believable. Here is a man who has suffered the worst injustice in modern times in the USA (at least in terms of not getting a speedy public trial) and you stick to some weasel interpretation of what is "factual" which is entirely inconsistent with what our founding fathers escaped from England to get away from, and what our Constitution is designed to protect.

None of his basic Constitutional rights were respected, thus any outcome is under duress and entirely invalid in the mind of an upstanding adherent to the Constitution.

Armstrong has explained that they rushed the forced plea bargain because the Supreme Court was being forced to accept his case and this is why he thinks they used physical violence force him to sign a plea. He agreed to sign one wording of the plea which he felt did not incriminate him and then on the day of the signing the wording was changed. He knew damn well they were not going to let it go to the Supreme Court and if he didn't say "yes your honor" he was going to be killed.

He also knew that by saying "yes your honor" under such duress that he was not convicted of any crime by any person who adheres to the Constitution.

Now you go ahead with your fucked up ethics and I will stick to be a true American. Your behavior is abhorrent to me. Both your ethics and the way your trolling pedantic crap and losing the plot in the process just so you can annoy the fuck out of someone and create a lot of noise. I hope you are proud of this outcome.

what is this friend?

Actually no, you could just leave well enough alone when I said that he had been convicted but is not necessarily disreputable because that is a factually correct statement.

And as I said, stuff he posts on his blog does not count as a credible evidence or a valid legal argument. It's one sided, selectively reported, not subject to cross examination, unauthenticated, etc. and may even be completely made up.

He does have a tendency to make things up too.

Google for "you are supposed to plead in your own words". The only hit for that phrase on the entire internet is from his blog. He made it up.

The Supreme Court has explicitly endorsed negotiated plea agreements (contracts, which may be drafted by either party, as long as agreed by both), as well as the structured questioning of the defendant by the judge that the agreement is being entered into voluntarily, there is actual guilt, etc.

Smooth are you sure you are an American or some half-breed?

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/tag/sixth-amendment