Martin Armstrong Discussion

[TPTB_need_war]

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.

A scripted plea is not constitutional. He said "yes your Honor" to agree to a scripted plea. Nothing in that transcript in constitutional.

He wanted a public trial and was not given one for over 7 years (leading to 12 years of involuntary illegal confinement for which he was never constitutionally convicted). Just before that they tried to murder him in prison. There is evidence of this event, you can look it up. He is missing teeth from the event you can see that when he smiles. He was thrown in solitary with a bad infection and was going blind.

Smooth you have really disappointed me. You will use any weasel method to be "right" when in fact you are wrong in terms of what is right, ethical, law of the land, consistent, moral, and just.

If we all refuse to agree he is constitutionally convicted, then we the citizens still own our country. If we lay over and use weasel words like you, then we are slaves. You apparently do not respect the Constitution. You respect only the best way to weasel your way through life. Thus I conclude you have no ethical grounding.

I think the words of Jesus are appropriate here.

Mark 12:13 or Matthew 20:22:

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.

[TPTB_need_war]

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.

You are stealing my time forcing me to dig up the research because you won't do it because you make flippant unethical weasel statements. This is really pissing me off.

Why do you feel you have a right to do this?

If you start digging, you will find the material that will shut you up.

You can start here...

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/33417

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.

[TPTB_need_war]

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

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

[smooth]

You are stealing my time forcing me to dig up the research

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.

[suda123]

Fractal cycles  

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

put it on loop, and enjoy.

what is this friend?

[TPTB_need_war]

You are stealing my time forcing me to dig up the research

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.

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

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.

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.

[suda123]

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

[TPTB_need_war]

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.

[smooth]

you've tied up my entire day

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.

[TPTB_need_war]

you've tied up my entire day

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

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.

[TPTB_need_war]

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.

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.

[smooth]

you've tied up my entire day

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

... You can't even take responsibility for the shit trolling you did against me today.

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.

[TPTB_need_war]

you've tied up my entire day

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

... You can't even take responsibility for the shit trolling you did against me today.

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.

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.

[smooth]

you've tied up my entire day

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

... You can't even take responsibility for the shit trolling you did against me today.

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.

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.

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?

[TPTB_need_war]

you've tied up my entire day

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

... You can't even take responsibility for the shit trolling you did against me today.

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.

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.

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?

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.

[TPTB_need_war]

According to court records, he has a criminal conviction.

Does that make you feel better?

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.

[smooth]

[TPTB_need_war]

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?

[smooth]

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?

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.

[TPTB_need_war]

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

I'm not endorsing it.

By promulgating and insisting, you are not endorsing  

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

If I was supposed to be in contempt of court to turnover assets in case I had to compensate victims, the pretense of this facade fell apart after Republic National Bank and Hong Kong Shanghai Bank pleaded guilty and of course nobody went to jail as long as they simply returned what they stole in 2002.  So how was it possible to keep me in prison to turnover assets when all “victims” were made whole by the banks? Alan Cohen personally told the court that I should never be released even tough there was NO DESCRIPTION of any crime outstanding. I was now being just arbitrarily held without anything at all.