Is it Enlightenment or Just Waking Up? | Armstrong Economics

QUESTION: I have a couple of questions for Martin’s blog is of any interest; 1. Did the challenges of the justice system in this case over those years contribute towards some kind of enlightenment? What I am asking is have you reached the state of enlightened? 2. Do your models envisage a large uptake of the Socrates service to a point where it actually affects the market? I can’t help but feel that only certain people that have been searching will actually be able to accept the concepts, kind of dyslexic qualities. I’ve tried to steer loved ones towards some of the concepts but can’t even keep them on topic for a few sentences. There is a lot of resistance. Much appreciated, JC ANSWER: I can say that probably like most, I assumed what was taking place in the legal system was at least ethical. I confess I did not look closely. Once entangled in their web, you suddenly see that those attracted to such a profession are usually the worst bullies you will remember from high school. They are typically angry at the world and view everyone’s success with envy. So it always boils down to get even with the world for their own short-comings. AT least 30% of those in prison are innocent. They are guilty of usually trying to help someone. They will also NEVER admit a mistake because it would ruin their personal career. There is so much evidence in so many cases that innocent people are knowingly put to death to save the career of a prosecutor. Even the famous trial of the Rosenbergs for being spies, the prosecutors charged his wife knowing she was not involved to put pressure on him. They then lie to juries and withhold evidence so the jury found her guilty, the judge sentenced her to death, and the prosecutor celebrated with a good night out on the town. Those in that trial were as guilty as any murderer. I would say if you call it enlightenment waking up and viewing just how corrupt the legal process is, then yes it was the completion of my education. It is now apart of me and I would not change that. As far as being given the strength to stand up, everyone has a different threshold where the breaking point is reached. They would put me into the “hole” locked down all the time where most suicides take place. Of course, they then pronounce the person was guilty and had remorse so that was the reason for the suicide. The typical cover your ass explanation. More people committed suicide in prison in 2015 that the previous decade combined. Some people cannot endure it. It is cruel and unusual punishment that judges sanction. The innocent commit suicide, not the guilty. The number of innocent people accused of everything from fraud to killing their own children is just outrageous. If I were president, I would sentence to life in prison any judge or prosecutor who wrongfully ever prosecuted anyone. People are unaware of the abuse of the legal system as I was until you are in the belly of the beast. I ended up with a parasite that entered my left eye. They refused to give me medical attention. I filed with a judge in Camden, NJ, who was a former prosecutor Renee Marie Bumb, who denied me medical attention. I then filed with New York Judge John F. Keenan, he too refused to order medical attention. I had to wait until I was released and saw Dr. Michael Barnish who took a blood test and immediately said you have a parasite. I have lost some of the sites in my left eye as a result and no federal judge will ever order medical care. This is how low the American judicial system has fallen – third world status. When I say you have no rights I am not kidding. There is no justice system in the United States. It’s a joke and nobody will do anything about it. So I am thankful for the strength to endure the torture they inflict upon people to win. I was thrown into a cell so hot underwear was too much to wear. Then cells so cold you can see your breath. To them, as long as there is no mark on your body, no judge will ever say this is torture. This is what they do to maintain their 98%+ conviction rate besides threatening your family. As far as Socrates reaching some point where it actually affects the market, that is just impossible. Markets are driven by the majority who must always be wrong. That is the force that propels markets up and down. Every stock market investigation since 1907 has begun with that idea that one person or group is responsible. That has never been discovered even once. When everyone is bullish, beware. For when the buyers run out, there are no fresh buyers left to carry on the rally so it collapses. Raise your hand straight up over your head. That’s not so difficult. But then keep it there. Soon you will run out of energy and you will lose the strength to sustain that position. It is a question of energy and nothing more. Neither a bull market nor a bear market can be maintained indefinitely. All things must come to an end.
— Read on www.armstrongeconomics.com/armstrong-in-the-media/armstrong-trial/is-it-enlightenment-or-just-waking-up/

Shakespeare had some good ideas about correcting our lawyer infestation

Mark Alexander: An ‘Independent Judiciary’ Reality Check — The Patriot Post

Chief Justice John Roberts’s assertion that we have an “independent judiciary” lacks credibility.
— Read on patriotpost.us/alexander/59715-an-independent-judiciary-reality-check

It seems that some in the judiciary branch are indeed choosing sides. This is why activists go Judge shopping to legislate from the bench. As I like to often quote, “A Judge is nothing more than a lawyer in a robe”.

Is the American Court System Hopeless? Acosta of CNN Should Be Banned & Cannot have a First Amendment Right Legally | Armstrong Economics

QUESTION: Mr. Armstrong; You are rather famous in legal circles and the fact it took the Supreme Court to agree to hear your case before they released you is indicative of the deep corruption in New York. This seems to be like the disgrace of Lord Bacon who took bribes from litigants. Do you think we will ever see sweeping changes to the legal system in the United States which is no longer trustworthy after that insane ruling in favor of CNN? PJ ANSWER: Trump’s argument that CNN was not banned, just Acosta and that CNN could send someone else. For the judge to declare that Acosta has a First Amendment right is one of the most absurd corrupt legal decisions you can possibly deliver. This decision calls into question the validity of the American court system and its inherent bias that infects the rule of law. Trump’s legal position was CORRECT. Acosta has ABSOLUTELY NO such First Amendment right to enter the White House. This ruling claiming it is a personal right of Acosta is nuts. Therefore, everybody reading this blog, including non-Americans, can all demand access at the White House for a press conference claiming they too have a First Amendment right. This decision is absurd and really there should now be demands that swarm the White House based upon that decision for it is stupid. CNN could have sent in another person. Acosta has NO personal right whatsoever or else we all do. It is judges like this who give lawyers a bad name. He should be impeached. If I were Trump, Acosta will be seated in the last row and he will NEVER get to ask a question since not everyone in that room get time to ask a question. Let CNN take that back to the court. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, not the freedom of Acosta to report. Yes, there are times throughout history that there are sweeping rebukes of the corruption in the court system. One such time took place during 1621 when Lord Chancellor Francis Bacon, who was the highest legal judge/officer in the land, was accused of having taken bribes from those appearing in court before him. A process called impeachment, trial by parliament, was revived after a 150-year interval. Bacon was found guilty, dismissed from his job, fined and imprisoned in the Tower. Bacon was charged with 23 separate counts of corruption. He was sentenced to a fine of £40,000 and committed to the Tower of London. However, the imprisonment lasted only a few days thanks to the king and the fine was also remitted. Still, Parliament declared Bacon incapable of holding any future office or sitting in Parliament. He barely escaped degradation, which was the penalty of being stripped of his titles of nobility. There have been plenty of incidents of corrupt judges in the past. Curiously, perhaps there is a 154.8-year cycle in judicial corruption. It will take more gathering of evidence to confirm it, but on the surface interestingly in 1926, there was such an incident. Illinois U.S. District Judge George English (D) was impeached for taking an interest-free loan from a bank of which he was a director. He resigned before his Senate trial for impeachment in 1926.
— Read on www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/rule-of-law/is-the-american-court-system-hopeless-acosta-of-cnn-should-be-banned-cannot-have-a-first-amendment-right-legally/

Just remember that a judge is nothing more than a lawyer in a robe.