kumanari

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 !

kzuur58

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

sett3r

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.

sett3r

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.

sett3r

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.

sett3r

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 defendent or admitted by the defendant. (See also statutes for proving CONCEALMENT, intent to decieve, 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.

sett3r

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 defendent or admitted by the defendant. (ee also statutes for proving CONCEALMENT, intent to decieve, 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.

sett3r

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 defendent or admitted by the defendant. KZUUR58, do you have a reference to that quote from Fuld, top of page 4? Thanks for a posting this.

sett3r

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 that is not actually announced or ever admitted by the defendant. KZUUR58, do you have a reference to that quote from Fuld, top of page 4? Thanks for a posting this.

mhelburn

This is a shocking and depressing story, but it is similar to what happened to Catherine Austin Fitts. Her experience is chronicled at www.dunwalke.com

kzuur58

We knew there would be those that would not believe the truth because it is so "unbelievable" and too much like a Scorsese movie! Oh well, it's always the ignorant ones lacking innovative and honest thought that hold back everyone else! Martin Armstrong is the ONLY living Financial Genius, and we really need to listen what he has to say. He's telling the truth AGAIN---why do you think he's in Prison--he knew TOO MUCH! Thank-you for the support of those who can see what's real. Marty thanks you all...

paula1944

Isn't Goldman Sachs one of the very private owners of the FRB? Does anyone ever question why there is a revolving door between Treasury, the FRB and Goldman Sachs? Has anyone ever heard of conflict-of-interest? Kleptocracy I believe is the appropriate term for the lot of them. We the people are in serfdom as long as we owe. Keynes was and is wrong. Central banking is wrong. Any system that puts power in the hands of the few is wrong. Folks, take off your blinders, look at the hard, cold facts and stop living in denial. You will see fraud, greed and evil dressed in the best money can buy. The only adjective that should be attached to conspiracy is CRIMINAL.

cdresearch

Martin Armstrong has either no idea what he's talking about, or his views are utter claptrap In short, he wants to maintain the same immorality of huge gaps between the rich and poor, only with less "hassle", particularly for, of course, the richest 5%.

gtl101

They fired Dylan Ratigan on Fast Money over pointing the finger at these thieves.....