*Looking Behind the Curtain4!9!09

kumanarileft a comment

How long should the rope be to reach the top of the lamp post ? It's time......., as it is quite obvious there is no justice, there's just us !

kzuur58left a comment

Thanks for your question, but Marty sends me these and I publish them for him. After all, he is still in Federal Prison with no computer. I will forward your question to him, OR, you can write to him directly at: Martin A. Armstrong 12518-050, Fort Dix Camp, P.O.Box 2000, Fort Dix NJ 08640

sett3rleft a comment

I found the part on bottom of page 3 and top of page 4, about Lehman taken out as a competitor, very compelling. I am not saying Lehman Brothers was righteous, but the act of Treasury Paulson acting to take out a competing firm of GS, provides evidence that Mr. Paulson was playing favorites - which goes to show he is/was compromised professionally in his capacity as United States Secretary of Treasury, and also, that his judgment was impaired during this time of U.S. History. It is a compelling argument, when in concert with many omissions which Paulson, also, assured. This is in the context of how too many omissions in the course of proving, intent to defraud (or intent, in another offense) are what prosecutors use to prove fraud. Where fraud is true, prosecutors can show a pattern of omissions in a course to achieving a certain goal or objective, that is not actually announced by the defendant or admitted by the defendant. See also statutes for proving CONCEALMENT, intent to deceive, dishonesty in a professional capacity, professional misconduct, etc. Offenses that perpetrators do not often admit, nor announce during the course of perpetrating the offense. KZUUR58, do you have a reference to that quote from Fuld, top of page 4? Thanks for a posting this.

sett3rleft a comment

I found the part on bottom of page 3 and top of page 4, about Lehman taken out as a competitor, very compelling. I am not saying Lehman Brothers was righteous, but the act of Treasury Paulson acting to take out a competing firm of GS, provides evidence that Mr. Paulson was playing favorites - which goes to show he is/was compromised professionally in his capacity as United States Secretary of Treasury, and also, that his judgment was impaired during this time of U.S. History. It is a compelling argument, when in concert with many omissions which Paulson, also, assured. This is in the context of how too many omissions in the course of proving, intent to defraud (or intent, in another offense) are what prosecutors use to prove fraud. Where fraud is true, prosecutors can show a pattern of omissions in a course to achieving a certain goal or objective, that is not actually announced by the defendant or admitted by the defendant. (See also statutes for proving CONCEALMENT, intent to deceive, dishonesty in a professional capacity, professional misconduct, etc. Offenses that perpetrators do not often admit, nor announce during the course of perpetrating the offense.) KZUUR58, do you have a reference to that quote from Fuld, top of page 4? Thanks for a posting this.

sett3rleft a comment

I found the part on bottom of page 3 and top of page 4, about Lehman taken out as a competitor, very compelling. I am not saying Lehman Brothers was righteous, but the act of Treasury Paulson acting to take out a competing firm of GS, provides evidence that Mr. Paulson was playing favorites - which goes to show he is/was compromised professionally in his capacity as United States Secretary of Treasury, and also, that his judgment was impaired during this time of U.S. History. It is a compelling argument, when in concert with many omissions which Paulson, also, assured. This is in the context of how too many omissions in the course of proving, intent to defraud, are what prosecutors use to prove fraud. Where fraud is true, prosecutors can show a pattern of omissions in a course to achieving a certain goal or objective, that is not actually announced by the defendant or admitted by the defendant. (See also statutes for proving CONCEALMENT, intent to deceive, dishonesty in a professional capacity, professional misconduct, etc. Offenses that perpetrators do not often admit, nor announce during the course of perpetrating the offense.) KZUUR58, do you have a reference to that quote from Fuld, top of page 4? Thanks for a posting this.