In honour of Martin Armstrong, discoverer of the Pi Cycle Economic Confidence Model, persecuted by the US Government, denied his constitutional rights. Mr. Armstrong says, the court told him they knew he did not steal money and he says the government know's that Republic Bank employees did illegal trading in his Princeton Economic accounts but apparently the government cannot admit to being wrong so Armstrong remains in prison going on 10 years now! What gives these bureaucrats the right to ruin a man's life! The truth about Martin can be found here: http://www.scribd.com/kzuur58 , as well a on this site.
In Martin's most recent article (mid September 2009) on the scribd.com site he writes of Japan and the defeat of the Liberal Democratic Party which he predicted a decade ago to the Japanese, this also may have something to do with his downfall, as he points out after that prediction the Japanese government put in a request to verify their funds at the bank where Martin had their bonds, this seems to have set off a chain of events, that and the fact that he warned the Japanese that the NY investment bankers were going to attempt to increase the spread the Japanese would have to pay to repatriate their funds from the US and this cost the US bankers "a shit load of money" and as Armstrong details - after that they hated his guts.
Armstrong was just about to start managing the equivalent of at least 2 Trillion US Dollars for the Japanese before all this happened!
Take your pick as to the reason Martin has been in prison for 1 decade now:
A) The NY Club of Investment Bankers got Armstrong for not playing ball with them and being a major threat to their profits as he was about to start managing 2 trillion dollars for the Japanese with the aid of his AI 32,000 variables super computer pi model.
B) The US regulators and Justice Department (possibly in collusion with the NY Investment Bankers) got him for allegedly mismanaging the Japanese money (although as he says not one wire transfer of Japanese money went into his personal accounts) and or manipulating the world economy as he was accused of by regulators. Pres. GW Bush's cousin, Judge Walker is said to have been instrumental in denying Armstrong his constitutional rights, perhaps because Bush's CIA wanted the computer model.
C) The Japanese government and corporations had lost so much money since the collapse of the Nikkei stock market that they needed someone to blame for the losses.
So which is the reason or are they all the reason, did Marty run into the perfect storm of personal life cycles? Is this a case of being so smart and therefore attracting huge money and then the fear of the investment community establishment of what could happen to them as they were out-smarted in the world of big money speculations, with hundreds of billions to trillions of dollars on the line, what wouldn't the powers that be do to stop something like this?
In defense of Martin Armstrong on Wikipedia, I had pointed out that his legal team's monies were taken away from them, that the CIA had approached - according to Princeton Economics staff members James Smith and Barclay T. Leib now of Sandspring Advisors LLC - Martin's company Princeton Economics to aquire his 60 million dollar computer model which they had become impressed by because it predicted the downfall of the Soviet Union and also the stock market crash of 1998 to the day. All that and more was removed from Wikipedia and they banned me from writing on Wikipedia although they still have a link to this site. Who's controlling Wikipedia? Sure isn't the grassroots of society. All traces of what I wrote are gone too I was told, there should be some kind of log but its been removed.
‘You’re In Contempt’ John Browning - Legally Speaking Columnist - Rockwall County Herald Published: August 07, 2009 05:24 pm "It’s a phrase, you’re bound to hear at one point or another in any legal drama or courtroom thriller: “You’re in contempt!” But what does being held in contempt of court really mean, and just what are the lengths to which it can be taken? The theory underlying “contempt” is fairly straightforward: a judge has the power to issue a civil or criminal contempt charge whenever he or she believes that a party or lawyer has disrupted a proceeding or disobeyed a court order. Criminal contempt charges are usually aimed at punishing bad behavior, and the offending individual must be afforded the full due process protection that the criminal justice system provides (including a jury trial). Civil contempt, on the other hand, is a somewhat murkier concept, even though it’s what we generally hear about more. Even though it arises in a civil matter, like a family court custody order, or a journalist being told to reveal his source, it is quasi-criminal in nature. This process, through which a court exerts its judicial authority to compel obedience to some order of the court, is meant to be coercive. It assumes that the person held in contempt, the “contemnor,” holds the key to his or her own freedom. In fact, under Texas law, the contemnor may not be jailed for contempt unless he or she has the ability but refuses to perform the conditions for release. The problem arises when the court simply doesn’t believe the individual, resulting in the contemnor remaining behind bars. In some cases, this can mean a long time behind bars. At one extreme, we have H. Beatty Chadwick, who was released from jail in July 2009 after serving an astonishing 14 years and 3 months for contempt (believed to be the longest civil contempt imprisonment in American history)! Chadwick, a former Philadelphia–area corporate attorney, was accused of hiding $2.5 million from ex-wife Barbara Jean “Bobbie” Chadwick (now Bobbie Applegate) during bitter divorce proceedings. Although Chadwick maintained that he had lost the money through bad investments, Bobbie’s lawyer accused him of hiding it offshore. When Chadwick failed to deposit the disputed funds in a court-controlled account, the judge had him jailed for contempt, in April 1995. There was no trial, and no charges. Chadwick pursued dozens of appeals over the years to county, state, and federal courts, even reaching the U.S. Supreme Court — twice. In an interview shortly after his release, Chadwick pointed out “If I had been convicted of murder in the third degree in Pennsylvania, I would have been out in half the time I was in jail.” Over the years, Chadwick had argued that he was unable to pay the money, and his inability to comply should have been decided by a jury, not left to the whims of a skeptical judge. Moreover, he pointed out that federal law limits the terms of civil contempt confinement (for those refusing to testify in federal court or to a grand jury) to a maximum of 18 months. Chadwick’s lawyer, Michael Malloy, maintained that since the money was gone, so was the coercive effect of the order. The inability to comply, he said, had turned the contempt charge “into a life sentence.” Ultimately, Delaware County Judge Joseph Cronin agreed, ruling that there was little chance that Chadwick would comply with the order. Now released, the 73-year-old Chadwick-who battled cancer and had his law license suspended while in prison - must rebuild his life. Chadwick is by no means alone. New York investment manager Martin Armstrong was sued civilly for securities fraud (he is currently serving a five year sentence for criminal conspiracy). When he refused to produce certain documents as well as $15 million in gold and antiquities, Armstrong was incarcerated for civil contempt; ultimately, he spent more than six years in a Manhattan jail. Arizona businessman Manuel Osete failed to turn over more than $800,000 in alimony and interest payments that he’d been ordered to make, steadfastly maintaining that he didn’t have the money. After he spent nearly three years behind bars from 2002 to 2005 without ever being charged with a crime, the Arizona Supreme Court changed its rules and Osete was released. Arizona courts now are required to hold hearings every 35 days for those being held in civil contempt on family law cases, and a judge must find that the contemnor has the ability to comply with the court’s order. Because most states face few limitations on how long someone can be held in contempt, critics have called for reform. According to Brooklyn Law School professor Jayne Ressler, “These results of too many civil contempt confinements are flatly outrageous and often unconstitutional.” Others point out that putting the burden on contemnors to prove a negative (i.e., requiring Mr. Chadwick or Mr. Armstrong to prove that they didn’t have the money in question) is at odds with our justice system’s “innocent until proven guilty,” standard. As a result of such criticism, a number of states have overhauled their laws concerning civil contempt. Texas changed its law in May, 2003, after legislation was passed limiting jail time for civil contempt to 18 months, the same limitation as under federal law. The impetus was another cause célèbre: the case of accused con man Odis Briggs, who had allegedly bilked an African-American family out of over $100,00 in a scheme to help them recover lost family land. Briggs was held in contempt for failing to document for the court where the money had gone (Briggs claimed to have forgotten, and said it was impossible to provide the documentation sought). Figures like Jesse Jackson lobbied unsuccessfully for Briggs’ release. After the skeptical judge who’d thrown Briggs in jail retired, his replacement reversed course, believing that Briggs could not possibly comply with the court order. After four years and eight months of imprisonment with no charges brought against him but contempt, Odis Briggs walked out of jail a free man. Few legal analysts feel that we should completely abandon the notion of confinement for civil contempt. After all, sometimes the threat of jail is the only thing that will make someone comply with a court order. But as with other aspects of our justice system, there have to be clearly defined boundaries on a court’s powers. Just ask Beatty Chadwick." John Browning is a partner in the Dallas office of Gordon & Rees, LLP. He may be contacted at: jbrowning@gordonrees.com. Below written on Nathan's Economic Edge blog... "Below are two letters written by Armstrong on his own behalf, one sent to Patrick Leahy regarding the appointment of Sotomayer (and his case), and the other to the U.S. Court of Appeals. Preceding those letters is a hand written note asking for others to write in asking for an investigation. I think that is most appropriate given his circumstances and ask all who follow his writings and appreciate his work to please do so, the addresses are provided. It is my understanding that Armstrong has received virtually NO RESPONSE to the arguments he made to the SEC and Appeals court. I have asked for their responses and am being told that there has been no response to his arguments, although I’m still trying to get all legal documents associated with his case. He has written another article that should be out by tomorrow. Evidently it deals with what he views as what will be the end of the Obama Presidency and the possible rise of a new third party. Should be interesting as all his thoughts are…" M. Armstrong regarding Sotomayor and her involvement in his Imprisonment 09
The Chinese government also was very interested in his model and was going to hire Martin to model all of their economic data. I had also mentioned that his daughter Victoria Armstrong stated on an internet forum, that a big reason her father was still in prison was because of his refusal to hand over the source code for his 32,000 variable computer model. That James Smith had gone to the court to present to them that the US Energy Dept. wanted to work with Martin to do energy forecasting. All this has now been removed from Wikipedia, which shows that the US government has now gotten to Wikipedia too! The arguments defending Martin Armstrong are now replaced with government propaganda. Another example from Wikipedia is the sentence below: "As an investor, he claims that his market timing approach predicted the high-water mark of the Nikkei in 1989 months ahead of time, and also the July 20, 1998, high in the U.S. equities market." This is more propaganda, it is a matter of public record that Martin Armstrong predicted those two events and many more long before they happened, including the current financial mess the USA is in. What is on Wikipedia makes it sound like Mr. Armstrong just claims that he predicted these things. As detailed by Martin Armstrong in recent articles available on the internet and this site, reporters from large media companies that wrote articles questioning Martin's guilt and doubting that he could get a fair trial were silenced. The court even froze his 80 year old mother's bank account including her pension and just about killed her before Martin's lawyers threatened to hold a press conference. Freedom of the press no longer exists in the USA, as President George W. Bush said, "the constitution is just a piece of paper". The Wikipedia article shows up as the #1 result for a search of Martin Armstrong. Big Brother lives, the US government Judiciary is now very corrupt just as Thomas Jefferson predicted it would become when he warned that the Judiciary, which is unelected and unaccountable, is the biggest danger to the American civilization.
Martin Armstrong.response to SEC.appeal
Publish at Scribd or explore others: Law & Government Business & Law securities & exchang martin armstrong
