Martin Armstrong Discussion

[TPTB_need_war]

Smooth are you going to force the issue and cause me to embarrass you for the 3rd time today?

You don't even know the facts. Go do your research first by reading all Armstrong's blogs. Then come back here to discuss.

I asked you to stop stealing my time. Are you going to force it?

[1715640912]

1715640912

[1715640912]

1715640912

[1715640912]

1715640912

[1715640912]

1715640912

[1715640912]

1715640912

[smooth]

Smooth are you going to force the issue and cause me to embarrass you for the 3rd time today?

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.

[TPTB_need_war]

Smooth are you going to force the issue and cause me to embarrass you for the 3rd time today?

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.

Bullshit. The ultimate law of the land is the constitution.

[smooth]

Smooth are you going to force the issue and cause me to embarrass you for the 3rd time today?

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.

Bullshit. The ultimate law of the land is the constitution.

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

[TPTB_need_war]

Smooth Embarrasses Himself For 3rd Time Today

Feeling smart now?

Smooth are you going to force the issue and cause me to embarrass you for the 3rd time today?

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.

Bullshit. The ultimate law of the land is the constitution.

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

I warned you. So now I will embarrass the fuck out of you again for being such an asshole. And stealing my time, forcing me to go dig up shit I already wrote about before but you are too fucking "smart"(ass) to go read.

You can't be convicted by an unconstitutional action. If you agree with labeling that a "conviction" then you are guilty of treason to your country and thus you are owed the death penalty according the Constitution. So please continue your insane posts of incriminating yourself.

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/29128

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.

Also read this blog post as well:

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

[smooth]

Sorry, but his statements on a blog don't count as legally anything. It's a damn blog, not a courtroom.

Did he go to court and prove his claim of unconstitutional misconduct?

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.

[TPTB_need_war]

If not then the conviction stands.

Scripted pleas are not constitutional. You as a fellow citizen are supposed to uphold the constitution. You can only be convicted by a jury of your peers where all the facts can be brought out in public (did you even read the second link I provided!!). You are convicting him with your words without a trial and without due process. The evidence from the case was not allowed to be public. This is unconstitutional.

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.

Again you are ignorant of the details of the case. Armstrong specifically was not allowed to. So STFU or go do your research first. I am not going to go dig up all the details for you. I did already once in the past and I  know for a fact that you are wrong.

[smooth]

If not then the conviction stands.

Scripted pleas are not constitutional.

Fine, then he should go to court, prove it, and have his conviction overturned. Until that happens, he's a convicted criminal. If you ask me, given the degree of injustice in our system, that is often a badge of honor.

The system is unfair and quite clearly corrupt in many ways. For example, in one of those other blog posts you just quoted (another non-sequteur with respect to his case but I'll play along):

The strangest part of my own case was the fact that anyone who has ever attempted to go after Goldman Sachs & crew of Investment Bankers, has strangely encountered the heavy hand of government that is used to protect them resulting in the New Your Investment Bankers being called the UNTOUCHABLES

I'm pretty sure that is largely true. We do have an actual statement from the former Attorney General about "too big to jail" after all. Which makes it all very unfair, but doesn't change the fact of his conviction.

[TPTB_need_war]

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

You are not a citizen of the Constitution. You are a slave of some thing you call a country which is not my country. You can say he is convicted in your world. Go ahead and live in your unconstitutional lawless definition of a world.

I want nothing more to do with you.

The fact remains he was not convicted in my Constitutional country. And that is a fact. So there is nothing to overturn.

You do not understand law at all. What you are describing is the absence of law. Thus any definitions your lawless arbitrary world are totally meaningless.

I mean you've just failed even the most basic test of someone I would want to be affiliated with. You have no ethical grounding.

I thought you were someone who was ethical but in the end I see you are just a weasel with weasel words.

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.

[americanpegasus]

You do not understand law at all. What you are describing is the absence of law.

 
  
Sorry man, I would have to say that you do not understand law at all.  What you are describing is sanity. 
 
The Constitution is not the law of the land, and has not been for some time.  Courts, police, and government agencies began to disregard it with abandon and no one seemed to mind (aside from a few mild complaints) so the precedent has been set.

[TPTB_need_war]

You do not understand law at all. What you are describing is the absence of law.

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

Haha, you got me. Good one.

[smooth]

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

You are not a citizen of the Constitution. You are a slave of some thing you call a country which is not my country. You can say he is convicted in your world. Go ahead and live in your unconstitutional lawless definition of a world.

I want nothing more to do with you.

The fact remains he was not convicted in my Constitutional country. And that is a fact. So there is nothing to overturn.

You do not understand law at all. What you are describing is the absence of law. Thus any definitions are totally meaningless.

I mean you've just failed even the most basic test of someone I would want to be affiliated with.

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).

Be an anarchist if you like. I have nothing against anarchists. But don't claim to be a constitutionalist while denying the authority of the courts of the judicial branch to rule on legal disputes (including ones of a constitutional nature).

You have no ethical grounding.

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.

The Constitution is not the law of the land, and has not been for some time.  Courts, police, and government agencies began to disregard it with abandon and no one seemed to mind (aside from a few mild complaints) so the precedent has been set.

Yeah that's pretty much true. But I object to TPTB's approach on this because the conclusion of that approach is useless. So many cases disregard the Constitution in one way or another (if you look hard enough for something, probably almost all of them) that if you are going to view court convictions as not being "real" convictions you might as well just tear down the prisons and let everyone out.

[TPTB_need_war]

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

You are not a citizen of the Constitution. You are a slave of some thing you call a country which is not my country. You can say he is convicted in your world. Go ahead and live in your unconstitutional lawless definition of a world.

I want nothing more to do with you.

The fact remains he was not convicted in my Constitutional country. And that is a fact. So there is nothing to overturn.

You do not understand law at all. What you are describing is the absence of law. Thus any definitions are totally meaningless.

I mean you've just failed even the most basic test of someone I would want to be affiliated with.

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).

You are ignorant of the Constitution. Trying reading it more carefully.

You have no ethical grounding.

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.

No I said you are not ethical. Because you prefer weasel words than a Constitution and consistency of law ruled by our Constitution.

[TPTB_need_war]

Smooth is ignorant of the 6th Amendment to the Constitution. Did he attend high school?

Damned facts that smartasses don't read before they spout off with their weasel words:

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/29128

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.

You can't be convicted in an unconstitutional court that violates every clause of the 6th Amendment.

You are promulgating weasel word "conviction" that no longer has any meaning in your unconstitutional hell.

[smooth]

Smooth is ignorant of the 6th Amendment to the Constitution. Did he attend high school?

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.

So we open up the prisons and let them all out? Because I'm pretty sure that very few convictions in our system occur without some form of abuse, if you look carefully enough. As AP said, it's become institutionalized. (Even fewer without some claimed abuse.)

[TPTB_need_war]

Smooth is ignorant of the 6th Amendment to the Constitution. Did he attend high school?

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.

And it is going to get worse. And everyone will be "convicted" and you will agree they are convicted. What a civil concept.

If there is no constitutional consistency, there are no more constitutional convictions. Just a lot of terrorism. That is all.

[smooth]

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 concepts.

[TPTB_need_war]

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.

Three felonies per day for all of us apparently. But that isn't even the point.

In Armstrong's case he wanted a public trial and couldn't get one. He was never constitutionally convicted. Period. And that is fact. You can continue with your nonsense lies or you can admit you are fucking wrong.

[smooth]

In Armstrong's case he wanted a public trial and couldn't get one.

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.

[bitrider]

Fractal cycles  

https://pbs.twimg.com/tweet_video/CQuaylQUEAAOJNn.mp4

put it on loop, and enjoy.