Tag Archives: Money laundering

Jun 12 2020

The Supreme Court is the Source of this Civil Unrest


Armstrong Economics Blog/Rule of Law

Re-Posted Jun 12, 2020 by Martin Armstrong

QUESTION: Is the rioting and social injustice taking place not the failure of Barak Obama? Or is was his failure part of the cause of this? I am not trying to deflect from the police consistently getting away with murder, they should all be locked up for their crimes.
Maybe putting it all on Barak isn’t correct either but it seems odd to me that these types of murders caught on camera, go unpunished. How does this get solved?

P

 

ANSWER: The system is just so corrupt it is hard to see where to begin. We do not have a government of “We the People,” and such a system cannot exist without term limits. As soon as you have career politicians, they will NEVER side with the people. We are the great unwashed to be exploited and ruled. The two things I see are (1) term limits; 2 years and out, and (2) no person working for the government should EVER have any position of qualified immunity. The Supreme Court established Qualified Immunity in 1982 which is precisely the opposite of how they treat the people. If you violate a law you did not know in “good faith” that is not a defense. The courts hold it is your OBLIGATION to know every law they pass for hundreds of years that remain on the books. You cannot present a defense of acting in “good faith,” but those in government can do so against the people. This is morally wrong and totally unethical.

The Supreme Court claims that to do their job, government employees need to be shielded from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably. Yet those in government can rape us, kills us, and torture us with absolute immunity. In Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) the Supreme Court held:

Government officials whose special functions or constitutional status requires complete protection from suits for damages — including certain officials of the Executive Branch, such as prosecutors and similar officials, see Butz v. Economou, 438 U. S. 478, and the President, Nixon v. Fitzgerald, ante p. 457 U. S. 731 — are entitled to the defense of absolute immunity. However, executive officials in general are usually entitled to only qualified or good faith immunity. The recognition of a qualified immunity defense for high executives reflects an attempt to balance competing values: not only the importance of a damages remedy to protect the rights of citizens, but also the need to protect officials who are required to exercise discretion and the related public interest in encouraging the vigorous exercise of official authority. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U. S. 232. Federal officials seeking absolute immunity from personal liability for unconstitutional conduct must bear the burden of showing that public policy requires an exemption of that scope. Pp. 457 U. S. 806-808.

There should be NO basis whatsoever for any such immunity, for the government is NOT the sovereign of the nation. The people are. The Supreme Court stated in LEGAL TENDER CASES, 110 U.S. 421 (1884) (also referred to as Julliard v Greenman), “There is no such thing as a power of inherent sovereignty in the government of the United States. It is a government of delegated powers, supreme within its prescribed sphere, but powerless outside of it. In this country, sovereignty resides in the people, and congress can exercise no power which they have not, by their constitution, entrusted to it; all else is withheld.”

The Supreme Cout held that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land and binds every forum whether it derives its authority from a state or from the United States Cook v Moffat, 46 US 295 (1847). “It may be regarded as settled that the Constitution of the United States is the only source of power authorizing action by any branch of the Federal government.” Dorr v US, 195 US 138, 140 (1904).

There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that grants any immunity to government officials against the people. NONE!!!! To create such immunity by the Supreme Court is contrary to the Constitution and since it lacks such a source of power, it is void. All protests should be directed at the Supreme Court. They have protected government contrary to the Constitution.

Jun 7 2020

The Bias of an Impartial Jury


Armstrong Economics Blog/Human Rights

Posted Jun 7, 2020 by Martin Armstrong

The Sixth Amendment guarantees the rights of criminal defendants, including the right to a public trial without unnecessary delay, the right to a lawyer, the right to an impartial jury, and the right to know who your accusers are and the nature of the charges and evidence against you. Who will help citizens to uphold this alleged right?

The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Gary Val Richardson received a fair trial, despite the judge’s wife acting as a sitting member of the jury. Judge Thomas R. Ensor, now retired, jokingly told the other jurors to “be nice” to his wife, juror 25, as his “dinner was on the line.” Both the defense attorney and prosecutor felt that Mrs. Ensor was fit to sit on the jury, but Richardon’s lawyer later said, “I think we’re both afraid to challenge her.”

Despite the conflict of interest, the jury found Richardson guilty and sentenced him to 16 years behind bars. The Colorado Supreme Court upheld that ruling this week in a 6-1 vote as they believed Richardson’s lawyer waived any right to question juror 25 by not objecting during the jury selection.

Justice Richard Gabriel was the only member of the Colorado Supreme Court to question the ruling. “To me, the question is whether Richardson was denied a fair trial when the trial judge sat on a case in which his wife served as a juror and in which the judge told everyone in the courtroom to ‘be nice’ to his wife and then repeatedly reminded everyone of his relationship with her,” Gabriel observed.

The Sixth Amendment should have granted the defendant an impartial jury, but the definition of “impartial” can be manipulated based on the reviewer. The Constitution does not guarantee protection against otherwise basic human rights, further reiterating why the US has one of the highest conviction rates in the world.

Jun 7 2020

Devin Nunes Discusses The Testimony of Rod Rosenstein – Sketchy Statements Conflict With Evidence…


Posted originally on The Conservative Tree House on June 6, 2020 by 

Devin Nunes appears on One America News for an interview about last weeks testimony by former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.  As Nunes notes, Rosenstein is a very “slippery individual” who is professionally versed in obtuse language.

“There is a fine line between disingenuous and lying.”  WATCH:

It is now clear Senator Lindsey Graham is executing the familiar chaff and countermeasure approach to cover-up the former administration surveillance abuses.

Here are four specific reasons that clarity is assured. Ranked in order of brutality:

♦ Number Four:

While there was some cursory inquiry into the reasoning of Rod Rosenstein to authorize the direct targeting of Trump campaign officials, not a single Senator inquired about the specifics behind how the August 2, 2017, scope memo was created:

Who specifically identified the targets; what justification was provided by the special counsel to target the officials; why were those specific persons selected; and under what predicate was Rosenstein authorized to expand the Mueller investigation?

The Senators on the Judiciary Committee, with full knowledge and forethought; and with specific access to the document in question; and with malicious intent to deny justice on behalf of those targeted; totally failed to make appropriate inquiry.

♦ Number Three:

To make matters worse… The Senate Judicary Committee members specifically stated they were aware of the content of the Mueller Report. As a witness, DAG Rosenstein brought a copy of the Mueller report with him to the hearing; and yet not a single member of the committee highlighted the hidden/secret October 20, 2017, scope memo.

There was ZERO inquiry from the Senate Judiciary Committee into a known issue that was/is relevant to the ongoing prosecution of General Michael Flynn; and the underlying evidence, first uncovered within the report; highlighting how Rod Rosenstein authorized a hidden memorandum to target Michael Flynn Jr. as leverage to force a guilty plea from the original target that Rosenstein authorized. This was completely ignored:

The Senate Judiciary Committee’s lack of inquiry was either because they held no awareness of the hidden scope memo; or, more likely, because they needed to pretend they held no awareness of the hidden October 20th scope memo to avoid exposing it.

♦ Number Two:

Despite the former Deputy AG stating twice that he was troubled by the leaking of the highly classified FISA application to the media, the committee intentionally and purposefully avoided asking the obvious question:

If DAG Rod Rosenstein was so concerned about the leak of the Carter Page FISA, then why did the DOJ under Rosenstein’s tenure purposefully refuse to indict SSCI Security Director James Wolfe for leaking the FISA application?

During his testimony Deputy AG Rosenstein testified this specific leak was alarming to him because it identified the innocent target of the investigation, Carter Page. However, Rosenstein was NOT alarmed enough to prosecute Wolfe for the leak. Why Not?

The Senate Judiciary Committee never went near that highly explosive issue.

However, if the purpose and intent of Senator Graham were not crystal clear by those three prior issues that were left undiscussed, the number one proof of his intention is stunning in its brutality.

♦ Number One:

The Senate Judiciary Committee was recently made aware of a letter from the DOJ to the FISA Court written in July of 2018. The letter was/is a specific example of fraud upon the court during the tenure of Rod Rosenstein. It is inexcusable that Rod Rosenstein was not asked about the July 12, 2018, material lie to the court.

Please notice this DOJ cover letter (making the committee aware) was personally sent to Chairman Lindsey Graham by the DOJ as ORDERED by the FISA Court.

The content of the communication was a 2018 letter from the DOJ to the FISA Court. The letter below was sent by the DOJ National Security Division on July 12, 2018.

The purpose of the hearing today was specifically about the FISA abuses, yet the committee did not ask a single question about this letter. Here it is:

This is an incredibly misleading letter to the FISA court because what the letter doesn’t say is that 18-months earlier the sub-source, also known in the IG report as the “primary sub-source”, informed the FBI that the material attributed to him in the dossier was essentially junk.

By July 2018 the DOJ clearly knew the dossier was full of fabrications, yet they withheld that information from the court and said the predicate was still valid. Why?

How is it even remotely possible for Senator Lindsey Graham to conduct an inquiry into Crossfire Hurricane and FISA abuses, and yet completely avoid asking Rod Rosenstein about the content of a letter that was specifically created during his tenure; and goes directly to the heart of his personal involvement.

The content itself is a complete fabrication of information and it was written by Rosenstein’s DOJ a full fifteen months after the DOJ was fully aware the predicate for the FISA application was fraudulent.

This 2018 justification letter was so alarming the FISA Court itself demanded the DOJ send a copy of it to the Senate Judiciary Committee to use in oversight. However, Chairman Graham didn’t ask Rod Rosenstein a single question about it.

There is no way to look at the absence of inquiry without accepting the motive and intent of the committee is to bury information; thereby protecting DC entities.

The hearing was intentionally scheduled to give the appearance of Senator Graham taking action; he isn’t. It’s the all-too-familiar…

.….Chaff and countermeasures!

Jun 5 2020

IRS Asks People to Return Stimulus Checks Sent to the Deceased


Armstrong Economics Blog/Gov’t Incompetence

Re-Posted Jun 5, 2020 by Martin Armstrong

The US Treasury and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced that they have issued over $267 billion worth of economic impact payments over the past two months. Yet, many of those funds were distributed to people who passed away and the government is now asking the people to correct their mistake. As I mentioned at the beginning of May, my family received a check that was made out to my mother who has passed away. The check was even marked “DECD.” Tens of thousands of other checks were distributed and clearly written to deceased individuals.

Now, the IRS wants the money back. As I have stated countless times, the government is incapable of running something as trivial as a bubblegum machine. The government will never admit to their mistakes, and always expects the people to take blame and responsibility.

If you received a check for a deceased relative, here are the steps you must take as noted on the IRS’ website.

If the payment was a paper check:

  1. Write “Void” in the endorsement section on the back of the check.
  2. Mail the voided Treasury check immediately to the appropriate IRS location listed below.
  3. Don’t staple, bend, or paper clip the check.
  4. Include a brief explanation stating the reason for returning the check.

If the payment was a paper check and you have cashed it, or if the payment was a direct deposit:

  1. Submit a personal check, money order, etc., immediately to the appropriate IRS location listed below.
  2. Write on the check/money order made payable to “U.S. Treasury” and write 2020EIP, and the taxpayer identification number (social security number, or individual taxpayer identification number) of the recipient of the check.
  3. Include a brief explanation of the reason for returning the EIP.
Jun 5 2020

Immunity Must Be Overruled for Police & Prosecutors to Save Everyone


Armstrong Economics Blog/Rule of Law

Re-Posted Jun 5, 2020 by Martin Armstrong

 

Once upon a time, we use to live in an honorable society. All systems move toward corruption and they inevitably move to protect their own agents. Ben Franklin wanted to create a legal system based upon the Scottish model where judges were nominated by lawyers and not politicians. He lost that argument and we have been paying dearly ever since. People see these protests and blame the blacks. They are ignorant of what is taking place in our legal system. It is not just about the blacks. The entire system has become so corrupt and this is why the United States has more people in prison than any other nation in the world including Russia. If you simply drive on federal property and forget your drivers’ license, you must serve 30 days in prison. A prosecutor will not get credit for a conviction in the Feds UNLESS you go to prison! Does that mean that Americans are the worst criminals on the planet? Or simply does it mean that it is time to change the system.

Proprietorial abuse is NOT limited to blacks. New York City specializes in prosecuting anyone who competes against the New York bankers. When I asked a lawyer why no New York banker has EVER been criminally prosecuted, he laughed and said, “You don’t shit where you eat!”


This was the prosecutor on my case — Richard D. Owens. We are heading into a civil war because the Supreme Court has held that prosecutors can do anything whatsoever. They can even knowingly seek the death penalty for people they know are innocent because the government should always be above the law.

In my case, under the direction of Owens, they seized Princeton Economics solely because my lawyers gave them one week to return the money they stole or we would file suit, which would end the takeover of Republic National Bank by HSBC.

They seized everything when we were NEVER in default and our clients were supporting us against the banks. The bank was illegally trading in or accounts and tried to claim that their own staff was assisting me from hiding losses they created. The problem was that we bought portfolios, but we were not managing them. We had to repay the note regardless of the performance. The allegation made no sense. We had issued notes buying the portfolios at their original cost with generally 10 years to repay covering their losses which were about 40%.

When the prosecutors finally figured out that the bank lied, they summoned me to a private reverse proffer session where Richard D. Owens admitted they knew I had never stolen anything. Yet he added, they would not drop the charges. They wanted me to plead to a conspiracy with Edmond Safra who was dead. I refused. To prevent me from helping our clients in suing the banks, they then imposed a gag order on me to prevent me from assisting my clients for LIFE!.

They used the charge of contempt without any description of a crime or any specific order to produce anything to purge the contempt, which is unconstitutional, but law means nothing in New York City. Clients even offered to put up the $1.3 million in cash to end the contempt and the court denied it, resulting in my lawyers simply saying this was just to prevent a trial making it impossible to produce anything. This was all just to protect the bank.

What is blatantly obvious is that $1 billion in our notes were sold to the bank to hide our profit. HSBC then redeemed our notes for $606 million, pocketing about $400 profit in foreign exchange so they could hide that from the public.

Because of this immunity that the Supreme Court has bestowed on police and prosecutors, there is ABSOLUTELY nothing you can do to defend yourself whatsoever regardless of your race, religion, or gender. Equal protection of the law does not exist! They are above the law and police have been abusing their position routinely. A friend who knew someone involved at HSBC commented it was a deal “too good to pass up,” which has always stuck in my throat wondering how much was paid back in bribes. Any of the major firms that compete against the bankers in New York are charged in New York, destroyed, and their bones are picked over by the New York bankers – i.e. Drexel Burnham (Philadelphia) and REVCO (Chicago). When a New Yorker is involved, MF Global, they are never charged.

Until the Supreme Court abolishes this unreasonable immunity, why should we ever expect this tension to subside?  The protests are far better off in front of the Supreme Court for until that law is changed, there will NEVER be any reform. They have charged the three officers involved in Floyd’s death. That will not create lasting reform until the law no longer protects them.

Jun 2 2020

Supreme Court is Once Again Inspiring Civil War


Armstrong Economics Blog/Civil Unrest

Re-Posted Jun 2, 2020 by Martin Armstrong

Raxe Riot-Detroit_1967

 

QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong, I find it really amazing how you have forecast politics, markets, war, disease, and even said in 2014 race riots would return. I understand it is not you personally. What do you see from here with these riots even taking place in London?

PH

ANSWER: Civil Unrest has been taking place for a very long time. If you step back and correlate it to the economy, you will notice that it rises when people start to struggle. The race riots right now would NOT takes place has we also accelerated the unemployment dramatically to where there are officially 40 million people who have lost their jobs. There have been plenty of deaths inflected by police since 2014. This would have normally peaked out by 2018, but the economic conditions show this cycle will continue into 2027 if the Supreme Court does not overrule its previous decisions.

On May 25, Minneapolis, Minnesota police officers arrested George Floyd, a 46-year-old black man, after a deli employee called 911, accusing him of buying cigarettes with a counterfeit $20 bill. Seventeen minutes after the first squad car arrived at the scene, Mr. Floyd was unconscious and pinned beneath three police officers, showing no signs of life.

The death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police has re-energized a national debate over misconduct by law enforcement officials that the Supreme Court may be poised to enter. Both the left and the right finally agree on one thing – qualified immunity for government officials is unsupported by the Constitution and was even one of the express complaints in the Declaration of Independence:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

There can be no equal protect of the law as long as an government employee is above the law. Both prosecutors and police should be held to the same standards as any citizen. Until that happens, then the Supreme Court has placed the nation is jeopardy of civil war. There are plenty of good police, but they will be gunned down because of the abuses of the bad ones. Protecting bad prosecutors and police puts at risk others in the same field and the nation itself.

To understand Shakespeare’s famous line “the first thing we do let’s kill all the lawyers” must be understood in its context. Private citizens were not allowed to hire lawyers – only the king. So this saying comes from a tax rebellion where the “lawyers” were the king’s prosecutors who were seizing people’s property (farms and houses) because they were unable to pay his taxes. Prosecutors are by no means trustworthy simply because they hold that position. They are human just like police and have knowing prosecuted people wrongfully for political purposes.

If the Supreme Court does not ABOLISH all immunity for prosecutors and police, they will lead the country into civil war just as the Dread Scott decisions did in 1860 holding black were not covered by the Constitution in a stupid attempt to defuse the rising tension between North and South.

While looting is wrong, if the underlying legality is not changed, this is going to get far worse.

Jun 2 2020

Flynn’s Attorney, Sidney Powell, Responds to Latest Brief by Judge Emmet Sullivan…


Posted originally on The Conservative Tree House on June 1, 2020 by 

Michael Flynn’s defense attorney Sidney Powell calls-in to FBN with Lou Dobbs to discuss the latest filings in the case against her client.   WATCH/LISTEN: