Martin Armstrong Discussion

[TPTB_need_war]

smooth I'd really like for you to prove to me that Armstrong is a fraud. Not some equivocal yadayada. Please bring the smoking gun. I'd honestly really appreciate it if you could dig up unequivocal proof that he committed a crime and/or is a fraud in his current endeavors.

I have thus challenged you. As you challenged me earlier on the issue of the definition of "convicted". You can choose to ignore if you are not up for the challenge.


Yes I just stole time from you.

I am encouraging you to waste as much time as possible doing research for me that I do not have time to do. But really useful research not just some yadayada piling opinion on top of useless opinion.

[1715362738]

1715362738

[1715362738]

1715362738

[1715362738]

1715362738

[smoothie]

There appears to be a lot of banter on this thread lately.

I suggest some people need to take a break from the "internets"...

 

[jehst]

There appears to be a lot of banter on this thread lately.

I suggest some people need to take a break from the "internets"...

 

[smooth]

smooth I'd really like for you to prove to me that Armstrong is a fraud.

Why? Did I claim that?

It's pretty vague too: "_____ is a fraud".

What does that even mean?

proof that he committed a crime and/or is a fraud in his current endeavors.

I see no evidence of any misconduct with respect to his current endeavors, other than some misleading statements about his past legal troubles that might arguably help sell his DVDs and seminars and whatever else it is he is selling these days (though I don't really think that is his intent). Nothing that rises to the level of "serious" though.

If I see something along those lines, I might look into it more closely if it interests me, but so far I haven't.

[TPTB_need_war]

There appears to be a lot of banter on this thread lately.

I suggest some people need to take a break from the "internets"...

 

Relax folks internets is RISKY BUSINESS...



Because boys become men...



So the only guiding rule is...



So please don't any of this serious boys we are still just only (beyond middle age!) men...

In law, a conviction is the verdict that results when a court of law finds a defendant guilty of a crime.

Who would've fathomed that definition of "conviction" requires not just any court, but a lawful court.   Oh my fucking Lord of Dangling Balls I am shocked! Really courts have to be lawful in order for there to be a conviction? Are you sure? That is ludicrous. How could we ever have any convictions if that is the case! Wikipedia has to be in error.

An error which results in the conviction of an innocent person is known as a miscarriage of justice

There is your proof Wikipedia is derelict! How can an inanimate object receive a fetal extraction by suction apparatus.

Everyone knows the correct term is 'assfucked' or when in the presence of your grandmother 'anally-violated'.

[sidhujag]

This is more a thread on anonymints interpretation of armstrog rather than the merits or lack thereof of his predictions... afterall Ive already proved he is not allowed to be wrong here about his prediction style.

[TPTB_need_war]

other than some misleading statements about his past legal troubles

Prove he has committed a crime. If there is a case with public evidence then that should be trivially easy.

(this exercise will prove you are making slanderous statement above)

afterall Ive already proved he is not allowed to be wrong here about his prediction style.

You didn't prove anything by presenting 2 samples of noise and constructing a strawman as was explained to you ad nauseum up thread. You continue to have bruised ego and so I am in your shit list.

Objectivity much.

Discussed yes. Proven no. Smooth needs to also prove.

[sidhujag]

sure there was as I pointed out his flaws you jump all over others.. maybe you can work as his paid marketer or receptionist taking orders for his new book.

[smooth]

other than some misleading statements about his past legal troubles

Prove he has committed a crime. If there is a case with public evidence then that should be trivially easy.

Legally speaking his guilty plea and conviction is sufficient proof, and public record of such.

(this exercise will prove you are making slanderous statement above)

If he wishes to make a claim against me for stating that he has had past legal troubles or that he was convicted of a crime, then I will be happy to provide him with my attorney's contact information. That should be fun, for about 15 minutes until the court record of his conviction is presented as evidence and the case gets thrown out.

"But, but, but I didn't do it! Constitutional rights!" doesn't work for half or more of the guys in the clink who say the same thing, and it doesn't work for him either.

[TPTB_need_war]

sure there was as I pointed out his flaws you jump all over others.. maybe you can work as his paid marketer or receptionist taking orders for his new book.

Bruised ego fan club versus AnonyMint.

All on board here and now.

I'll be waiting for the proofs. Dish it out and I can dish it right back at you.

[sidhujag]

sure there was as I pointed out his flaws you jump all over others.. maybe you can work as his paid marketer or receptionist taking orders for his new book.

Bruised ego fan club versus AnonyMint.

All on board here and now.

I'll be waiting for the proofs. Dish it out and I can dish it right back at you.

No ego at all.. quite fun proving you wrong

[TPTB_need_war]

other than some misleading statements about his past legal troubles

Prove he has committed a crime. If there is a case with public evidence then that should be trivially easy.

Legally speaking his guilty plea and conviction is sufficient proof, and public record of such.

(this exercise will prove you are making slanderous statement above)

If he wishes to make a claim against me for stating that he has had past legal troubles or that he was convicted of a crime, then I will be happy to provide him with my attorney's contact information. That should be fun, for about 15 minutes until the court record of his conviction is presented as evidence and the case gets thrown out.

That is what I thought. You have no proof. Because there is no evidence in the public. Because there was no trial. Etc..

FAIL.

End of discussion.

[trollercoaster]

Haha wtf..

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/37894

[farfiman]

Haha wtf..

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/37894

Some much worse people have gotten the Nobel peace prize....wouldn't surprise me.

[THX 1138]

To be honest, I don't give a damn one way or the other about Armstrong's time in prison and all the "ifs" and "buts" surrounding it. I'm far more concerned about what he is saying and doing right NOW! Either he holds enough credibility in the opinion of those who visit this thread to warrant them following and contributing to it or he doesn't.

I hope we can continue to use this thread for its original purpose (see below) and not get distracted by the sound of locking horns in the ensuing stag fight, otherwise I've got better things to do with my time.

EDIT: From OROBTCs original post for this thread:

...He is now out of jail and has set-up shop as a macro-consulting company....

...I look forward to reading your views on his ideas, and his proposed solutions...

[smooth]

That is what I thought. You have no proof. Because there is no evidence in the public. Because there was no trial. Etc..

What I said on this thread that set you off was that he was convicted of criminal charges. Which he was. My proof is the court documents, duly recorded in the public record. That is sufficient. I have no interest in arguing the history of what he did or didn't do that led up to it, especially when I'm presented with arguments in the form of one-sided statements and selectively reported snippets of documents on his blog.

He had the option of a trial, not only during his plea hearing but during most of his seven year confinement for contempt. He chose not to avail himself of it, and instead to keep resisting the courts authority (which again is in some ways quite admirable). As such, he gets to live with his time in jail, his plea bargain, the conviction that is on his record as a consequence of the plea bargain, and the admission of guilt on his part that plea bargain entails.

He subsequently had the option to litigate, in court, his claims that his civil rights were violated (including but not limited to his claim that his admission was coerced and his claim that his right to a speedy trial was denied). In fact, he could have done this during his five years in prison after being convicted and sentenced. (Not like he had much else to do with his time.) If successful, not only could his conviction have been overturned and his admission of guilt erased, but he could also have been compensated, as many others have been under those circumstances (on occasion with large to extremely large cash awards). As such, his incentive to do so, if he has a legitimate case for it given the totality of the evidence that exists, should be obvious. He chose instead to pursue his grievance, not in court, but on a blog in the form of a public persona with the well-worn halo of being an Unfairly Persecuted Individual.

I'm not buying the persecution sympathy card. Even if the original charges were bogus (and I have no opinion on that), so much of what happened later was clearly of his own making and the result of his own decisions.

I'd further suggest that Martin knows more about the totality of the evidence that exists than you do, when you are relying on his selective disclosure in his blog, and he is not. He decided not to try to prove, in court, his (blog) claims of civil rights abuse. You were not the one to make that decision, as you are in no position to do so in an informed manner. You're a mere blog reader to him (in effect the one whose eyeballs he is being paid to deliver), not his lawyer and not even his friend. Remember that, and consider what you don't know (but he does!) in addition to what you do know.

I still find much of his economic analysis to be refreshingly competent and insightful. I am withholding judgement on his forecasting model and computer program until we see how this 2015.75 big turn plays out. I so far see a lot of interesting things happen more or less as predicted but no clear "big bang" event. At least not yet. The powderkeg of enormous debt is in place. The fuse may or may not be lit. Will it explode? We'll see.

[altcoinUK]

He subsequently had the option to litigate, in court, his claims that his civil rights were violated (including but not limited to his claim that his admission being coerced and his claim that his right to a speedy trial was denied). In fact, he could have done this during his five years in prison after being convicted and sentenced. (Not like he had much else to do with his time.) If successful, not only could his conviction have been overturned and his admission of guilt erased, but he could also have been compensated, as many others have been under those circumstances (on occasion with large to extremely large cash awards). As such, his incentive to do so, if he has a legitimate case for it given the totality of the evidence that exists, should be obvious. He chose to pursue his grievance, not in court, but on a blog in the form of a public persona with the well-worn halo of being an Unfairly Persecuted Individual.

Based on what I read on Armstrong's blog and heard in the documentary, personally I believe he is innocent. He came cross as a Don Quijote type individual terms of his fight against the establishment, which indicates an idealistic but honest character, and I believe he was taking the plea bargain to end the nightmare of imprisonment. However, your point is very logical and seeing his action from that viewpoint makes actually a lot of sense. One would expect that a character like Armstrong who is so anti-establishment and fight to death against the corrupted political and financial system would stand up to prove to the public how corrupted the juridical system is, especially if such fight would clear his name. To clear his name would be quite essential for him who provides clients with financial services, not to mention he could make a strong argument to prove that the juridical system is corrupt. Very good point, why he doesn't fight on court by presenting evidence to clear his name?

Armstrong is a remarkable intellect and I am grateful for his work. Even he helps me with stock market trading a lot to filter out the noise and trade calmly by putting daily events in a wider context. Maybe that's all matter, his work and the character doesn't matter, I am not sure, that is a difficult question. After all, Armstrong always say, the big bang financial crisis will be all about confidence in government. Perhaps confidence in the individual's character is similarly important, so it is quite understandable why there are posts like yours about his character.

[americanpegasus]

I still find much of his economic analysis to be refreshingly competent and insightful. I am withholding judgement on his forecasting model and computer program until we see how this 2015.75 big turn plays out. I so far see a lot of interesting things happen more or less as predicted but no clear "big bang" event. At least not yet. The powderkeg keg of enormous debt is in place. The fuse may or may not be lit. Will it explode? We'll see.

 
 
I find this: 
 
http://investmentresearchdynamics.com/a-liquidity-crisis-hit-the-banking-in-september/ 
 
and this follow up: 
 
http://investmentresearchdynamics.com/something-blew-up-in-the-global-financial-system/ 
 
extremely insightful.  It appears that perhaps 2015.75 has already happened, but the powers that be have decided to go to egregious lengths to cover-up/band-aid it.  If that speculation is correct, the derivatives bubble just popped, but the greater world hasn't realized it yet.  Meanwhile, behind the scenes, they are scrambling and going into full panic mode to determine how to mitigate the damage. 
 
But if a 1 quadrillion dollar bubble pops with geometrically accelerating consequences there's nothing that can be done: that dwarfs the sum of money on Earth by a factor of 10x.  It won't be like a financial earthquake... 
 
It will be a fucking economic extinction level event: 
 

[smooth]

He subsequently had the option to litigate, in court, his claims that his civil rights were violated (including but not limited to his claim that his admission being coerced and his claim that his right to a speedy trial was denied). In fact, he could have done this during his five years in prison after being convicted and sentenced. (Not like he had much else to do with his time.) If successful, not only could his conviction have been overturned and his admission of guilt erased, but he could also have been compensated, as many others have been under those circumstances (on occasion with large to extremely large cash awards). As such, his incentive to do so, if he has a legitimate case for it given the totality of the evidence that exists, should be obvious. He chose to pursue his grievance, not in court, but on a blog in the form of a public persona with the well-worn halo of being an Unfairly Persecuted Individual.

Based on what I read on Armstrong's blog and heard in the documentary, personally I believe he is innocent. He came cross as a Don Quijote type individual terms of his fight against the establishment, which indicates an idealistic but honest character, and I believe he was taking the plea bargain to end the nightmare of imprisonment. However, your point is very logical and seeing his action from that viewpoint makes actually a lot of sense. One would expect that a character like Armstrong who is so anti-establishment and fight to death against the corrupted political and financial system would stand up to prove to the public how corrupted the juridical system is, especially if such fight would clear his name. To clear his name would be quite essential for him who provides clients with financial services, not to mention he could make a strong argument to prove that the juridical system is corrupt. Very good point, why he doesn't fight on court by presenting evidence to clear his name?

I believe he is banned from financial services but he can offer general economic consulting, write a blog, give speeches, etc.

If he were able to overturn his conviction he could perhaps restore his ability to work in finance, which as you suggest offers yet another incentive to do it. Of course he is 65 years old, and may be content to write a blog and give speeches rather than try to build another financial firm.

(It may be too late for him to pursue his civil rights claims now, but it certainly wasn't in the past.)

My speculation as to how to resolve the conflict you propose (where he was originally innocent but doesn't continue to fight) is that he knows that much of his 12 year ordeal was largely the result of his own choices about how to fight the case, and those are the areas where any civil rights issues would lie. So he has no case. Remember, he appealed his contempt of court detention twice, and lost twice. Some aspects of this have been reviewed.

It is still unfortunate and tragic when someone who is innocent gets caught up in the legal system, but that doesn't rise to the level of civil rights violations, on its own.

EDIT: I had originally characterized his choices of how to fight the case as poor, but then I reconsidered. He did eventually get out after 12 years, got to keep his program it seems, etc. Given the original charges he was facing, that could possibly have been a good outcome. Again we don't know everything he knows so he may have done the best possible at the time.

[altcoinUK]

Again we don't know everything he knows so he may have done the best possible at the time.

Probably, that's the key. I think you are quite right that we don't have all information which led him to not continue the legal battle.