The court transcript disagrees. Provide evidence to the contrary that doesn't come from his blog (not under oath, not cross examined, years later, he can say whatever the hell he wants), otherwise this argument is just a bunch of fluff. It may, in theory, even be 100% correct, but without evidence it is still fluff.

Here is the letter from the forensic accountant in my case to the court appointed lawyer. He states that besides the receiver failing to provide any documentation in six years to prevent a trial, what limited material was produced failed to show what was alleged, and about 40% of the trades in the accounts were ERRORS being backed out after weekends by the bank. That certainly smells like they were doing money laundering for someone. This was what the reporter was curious about, and the way she asked me the question implied they were doing similar schemes elsewhere. That interview was NEVER published. Interesting that HSBC was caught allegedly laundering money in Geneva.

When this letter was sent to the court and I requested the discovery that I had never received in 7 years, Judge Keenan replied: “You have enough.” I was denied access to the very records I would need for a trial. It was clear that there was no intent to allow a trial or to hand me more evidence against the banks.

There will NEVER be a public trial having to do with NY banking. It would expose way too much and that would collapse the confidence in the entire financial system supported by the pretend regulators. So, they bring criminal indictments only against the corporation and the deal is signed before it is announced.

The court transcript disagrees. Provide evidence to the contrary that doesn't come from his blog (not under oath, not cross examined, years later, he can say whatever the hell he wants), otherwise this argument is just a bunch of fluff. It may, in theory, even be 100% correct, but without evidence it is still fluff.

13 And they send unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, to catch him in his words.

14 And when they were come, they say unto him, Master, we know that thou art true, and carest for no man: for thou regardest not the person of men, but teachest the way of God in truth: Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not?

15 Shall we give, or shall we not give? But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, Why tempt ye me? bring me a penny, that I may see it.

16 And they brought it. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? And they said unto him, Caesar's.

17 And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him..

13 They sent some of the Pharisees and supporters of Herod to trap him in his words. 14 They came to him and said, “Teacher, we know that you’re genuine and you don’t worry about what people think. You don’t show favoritism but teach God’s way as it really is. Does the Law allow people to pay taxes to Caesar or not? Should we pay taxes or not?”

15 Since Jesus recognized their deceit, he said to them, “Why are you testing me? Bring me a coin. Show it to me.” 16 And they brought one. He said to them, “Whose image and inscription is this?”

“Caesar’s,” they replied.

17 Jesus said to them, “Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God.” His reply left them overcome with wonder.

Well yes virtually everyone is committing crimes and could probably be convicted even if the trial process were completely fair.

Again, not fair, but fair and sane and legal are distinct.

There's the jailhouse lawyer version, and the real world version.

The whole system is not fair. It's terribly corrupt. It's abused. It is what it is.

What I agreed to read was that the bankers took money for their “own benefit” for I refused to all along to plead to taking my own money for we were never managing Japanese money, we bought the portfolios. I fail to see where the words I read even constituted anything close to a crime.

This is how the courts work. There is no difference between some terrorist organization handing a script to some captive to read on TV condemning his country and agreeing with his captors and the way the US legal system operates. The king’s lawyers (prosecutors) write the words to pretend to match the  law and it is all a dog and pony show. This is the ultimate face of corruption.

For the second time, the authority of the courts over all disputes, including disputes arising under the Constitution itself, is established right in the Constitution.

You don't get to decide whether his conviction was proper. He doesn't get to decide (and certainly not by posting his "legal arguments" on a blog). The courts get to decide.

To claim otherwise is to deny the structure of Constitution itself (Article 3, specifically).

I never said his conviction was ethical. And what AP said, while amusing, is also pretty much true. What is legal and what is ethical and/or sane are not the same thing.

 
 
Sorry man, I would have to say that you do not understand law at all.  What you are describing is sanity.

Fine, then he should go to court, prove it, and have his conviction overturned. Until that happens, he's a convicted criminal.

A weasel word (also, anonymous authority) is an informal term for words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that a specific and/or meaningful statement has been made, when only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated, enabling the specific meaning to be denied if the statement is challenged.

If not then the conviction stands.

Furthermore I see no evidence whatsoever that he did not have the option to refuse the plea and go to trial, as a trial date had been set.

Sure, and by its own terms, the courts get to decide. Has his conviction been vacated?

Abuse of Contempt of Court – Far more Common than People Realize

Scripted pleas are actually totally unconstitutional. You are supposed to plead in your own words and the judge is legally bound to accept your plea ONLY if he believes it and it is voluntary. That is just fiction for the justice system has become so corrupt, all they care about now is form, never substance. Here is Judge Kennan stating in my case that I must read from a script written by the government and not allowed to explain anything in my own words.

Don't bother with your non-sequeturs.

If you don't have a court document vacating his conviction anything further that you post is a bunch of opinion.

That's incorrect. He was held in civil contempt for seven years, then pled guilty (i.e. convicted), and then was sentenced to 5 years in prison for that conviction.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/58/Armstrong_guilty_plea.pdf

Was it fair? Quite possibly not, but he does have a conviction. That is a fact.

"If it is the US stance that China has to stop its activities, then an American-Chinese war in the South China Sea is inevitable", reported the "The Global Times", an influential Chinese newspaper owned by the ruling Communist Party is, in today's editorial. "The intensity of the conflict will be higher than what people normally refer to as 'stress'," said the commentator on.

However, an attempt to hand over the sheet to Washington in Beijing, so that the future development is in the hands of the Americans: "We do not want a military conflict with the United States, but if he comes, then we have to accept that." This shows China that it only wants to know safeguarded their own regional interests, while the US global meddling in the internal affairs of other countries.

Beijing himself stressed last week that it "very dissatisfied" with respect to the flight of an American spy plane in the region was that ignored the warnings of the Chinese navy studiously. Washington itself does not recognize Chinese sovereignty in the disputed territories and makes itself - far away US territory - their own territory claims.

TPTB his guilty plea counts as a conviction. You don't need a trial to be convicted.

Even though Martin A. Armstrong has a dishonorable past

Martin A. Armstrong's contribution to economics and his economic predictions made him a person of great influence.  However, his criminal conviction somewhat overshadowed his achievements.

There is even an economist. The American Martin Armstrong managed to become a
millionaire at 15, to find a model that predicts the global economic crises and get into
prison for 12 years without trial ever.

Maintaining a non-aggression principle is a luxury afforded by stable society and government.  Try maintaining a non-aggression principle as a member of a jungle tribe 5,000 years ago.  Try maintaining a non-aggression principle on the border of Germany in the late 1930's.  Try maintaining a non-aggression principle as a pleb thug takes your life from you.

At least acknowledge it.

But the key point you are missing is that people are not necessarily "confused" about fairness as you wrote above, nor are they even necessarily being "raped" by the system...