Armstrong Economics Blog/Rule of Law
Re-Posted May 5, 2017 by Martin Armstrong
QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong; I am a law student in London and have reviewed your case after going to the premier here in London of the Forecaster. My professor said your case was “stitched up” and is indicative of how corrupt the American judicial system has become. They ordered you to turn over assets, refused to ever define what those assets are to prevent any compliance, and then when the bank pleads guilty and agreed to return all the money, they simply said there was another fraud without ever charging you with anything. How can the American press simply refuse to ever tell the truth? Is this indicative of American justice?
ANSWER: Sadly to say yes. The US government cannot be sued, only the agents of the government. Consequently, those in the Justice Department are not forthcoming about admitting a mistake. I do not believe that a prosecutor should be able to bring charges. There should be a panel set up where every prosecutor presents his case to them and they are the one’s who bring an indictment. That would remove the personal liabilities.
Edwin Paul Wilson (1928 – 2012) was a former CIA and U.S. Naval Intelligence officer who was convicted in 1983 of illegally selling weapons to Libya. His daughter fought to get documents to prove he worked for the government uncovered. When one agency caught him, the CIA denied he worked for them. He was tried and convicted.
You can tell he was innocent because they kept him in solitary confinement – the ultimate torture. They did that to prevent him from having free communications outside the prison.
It was later found that the United States Department of Justice and the CIA had covered up evidence in the case. Wilson’s convictions were overturned in 2003 and he was freed the following year.
Wilson filed a civil suit against seven former federal prosecutors, two of whom are now federal judges, and a past executive director of the CIA. On March 29th, 2007, U.S. District Judge Lee Rosenthal dismissed his case on the grounds that all eight had immunity covering their actions.
The Supreme Court committed the the worst crime against humanity ever recorded demonstrating their bias. They declared that those who are prosecutors of judges have ABSOLUTE immunity from being prosecuted for wrongful prosecution even if they know they are abusing their authority because they might be afraid to prosecute someone if they could be prosecuted in return. The Supreme Court’s most anti-Constitutional decision ever rendered implemented a nationwide policy declaring prosecutors must have absolute immunity for acts committed in their prosecutorial role. This decision has unleashed the most abusive legal system ever on the face of this Earth. The most notorious court in history had been that of Hitler where it had a 90% conviction rate. That to the Supreme Court, you have been stripped of every possible human right since the dawn of civilization. The conviction rate now exceeds 98% in the US federal courts. Lawyers tell you to just plee because you cannot win. Nobody will hold prosecutors accountable and then most judges are former-prosecutors so good luck of pleading your case. There is not a vein of morality in these people. When you stare into their eyes, all you see is coldness of evil stripped of all human emotion. The Supreme Court has unleashed the total destruction of the Constitution and there is a growing call to acknowledge and address an epidemic of prosecutorial misconduct in the United States, but nobody will listen. The case was Imbler v. Pachtman and its perverse holding is uncivilized in any democratic state for it is the decision of a totalitarian regime.
There is nothing you can do. There is so much corruption in the Justice System it is beyond belief. The ONLY reason I was released was because I had been accepted by the Supreme Court. To prevent them from ruling, the prosecutors had no choice but to release me. They had a dog and pony show. Dr Paul S. Appelbaum was put on the stand. He was the Forensic Psychiatry / Psychology from Columbia University. He testified that no time in contempt would alter my position. The Appeals Court recused Judge Owen and handed it to Judge Castel with the job of releasing me. Dr. Appelbaum testified my position was simple. The bankers wanted me silenced because their manipulations were failing after the collapse of Long Term Capital Management in 1998 and they blamed me for exposing what they we doing.
Dr Appelbaum had to testify that there was no way I would comply and that civil contempt is coercive so if it lost its coerciveness then I had to legally be released. If you will not comply, then they have to release you. Someone had to say I would never comply in court in order to justify releasing me to prevent the Supreme Court from ruling. The real paradox is after I was released, the court had to rule I did not owe anything or else I would get a trial and I could start calling the bankers to the stand. They had no choice. How can you spend time in prison to turn over something for 7 years and then the court rules you do not owe anything? Anyone with common sense would ask what’s going on here? This was all about (1) having me turn over the code and (2) silencing me so the bankers could manipulate markets undisturbed.
When I did the premier for the Forecaster in Amsterdam, the third night was all the bankers in Europe. The moderator wanted to appear impartial and asked me what happened to the $1 billion that was supposed to be missing and nobody knew where it was. I turned to the audience and asked: Is it possible for $1 billion to be missing from a bank and nobody knows where it is? The audience all laughed. You either wire it out, write check, bust into the vault with a tank, or beam it out like in Star Trek. It was a totally ridiculous accusation and not a single member of the press even bothered to ask was that possible? How incompetent is that? It would be like reporting someone is standing trial for murdering his wife while she is present in the courtroom. The press always protected the establishment.
In an interview for the Forecaster, David Glovin of Bloomberg News at least spoke to the director of the film while the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, the New Yorker all refused to be interviewed:
DAVID GLOVIN: And there is a legal issue that develops in terms of whether or not Martin is…this is proper, that he can be held for so long, without being convicted of a crime.
Katrin: So is that a normal thing…?
DAVID GLOVIN: No! It’s totally, completely not normal. (15:12:13:10) Martin…in a white color federal case, Martin was held longer in prison, better known as civil contempt charges, then any one else.
Marcus: It didn’t reach you, that they were hiding the evidence. I think it didn’t even reach the public, because nobody is listening and this is what makes me so crazy, because nobody knows about it.
DAVID GLOVIN: I mean…I don’t know. I can’t answer about what other people did, I can’t answer what judges heard, what did I hear? I heard Martin and I wrote stories about him, I went to prison and I wrote here’s the guy, but again I would present the other side, because that’s what you do. That’s what we do, at least. They say X, they say Y, sometimes X may seem so outrageous and Y may not really hold water or etc. Yes…
I am by no means unique. Only a fool would believe what government says in any case. Take Bernie Madoff’s case and why did he plead guilty so fast? That was to shut down the investigation for he was protecting someone. The banks claimed they had no idea it was a fraud. Madoff was asked if the banks knew once he was in prison. He said of course. In fact, only a fool would believe the banks were not also involved. I was interviewed by a journalist at the NY Post. I was asked if the bank was laundering money in my accounts for the Russian Mafia and Colombian drug cartels “as they were doing in Madoff?” She knew the truth, but that interview was never published.
There is nothing to be proud of in the American legal system. Fair trials are simply IMPOSSIBL