There's nowhere to watch this movie online. Why wouldn't they offer it online for a fee at least? By the time 2015.75 comes this movie will still be shelved. They should find a way to release it to the online community before it's too late.
share[deleted]
LOL. They put it on Vimeo for $49.99 (preorder). I think it starts showing 30 April 2015. Perhaps the price will come down if this strategy flops. Maybe It'll actually be released in limited theaters in the US or maybe straight to Video rental or streaming. I am curious to read the fact checkers' reviews/articles. I'd love to read the commentaries from more unbiased perspectives. I mean this story seems to be coming from Mr. Armstrong's point of view, only.
shareI saw this tonight in Vancouver. It's a totally one-sided documentary, pro-Armstrong. There was a note at the end that the filmmakers had requested interviews from three people (including the judge in Armstrong's case) who never responded. Thus it's impossible to form any opinion, based on the documentary, as to whether Armstrong was innocent or guilty of the crimes he was charged with.
As for Armstrong's theories, some of them came across as wholly ridiculous (such as the "π-cycle"). Armstrong's view of sovereign debt as a Ponzi scheme seemed overly simplistic.
You can't judge Armstrongs theories based on the movie. Trying to do so without further investigation might not be the smartest thing to do here. There's really a lot more to it. As for sovereign debt. Just check history. It always defaults. Romania 1980 only exception in 6000 years. You may call that simplistic Matthew, in my book it's just thorough fact checking.
There was no crime by Armstrong. The only one pleading guilty to such was national Republic Bank, and they've refunded all money, Marty didn't owe anybody a dime, but government still kept him locked away for another five years.
It's a disgrace.
There was no crime by Armstrong. The only one pleading guilty to such was national Republic Bank
http://www.themartinarmstrongcase.com/
"Armstrong never pleaded to a crime. This is actually still pending in the courts for the Supreme Court also ruled that a citizen cannot be denied use of his funds to hire a lawyer of choice."
"The government wrote the plea script directing Armstrong to read this in front of the press no different than a hostage wheeled out by Iran to pretend that they too are just and honorable and that their hostage agrees with them. "
"Armstrong was not pleading to an actual crime. All the charges were dropped and the single charge the Government wanted Armstrong to plead to was just a conspiracy. They dropped all the original allegations of commingling when they realized that the accounts never belonged to a noteholder and that the only commingling promised was that the accounts would not be commingled with Republic National Bank’s own accounts for bankruptcy purposes."
All facts.
It's a digrace.
Armstrong was not pleading to an actual crime. All the charges were dropped and the single charge the Government wanted Armstrong to plead to was just a conspiracy.
Could you form an opinion if Judge Owen replied, saying 'We treated Martin Armstrong fairly. We utilised the legal power that is entitled to us. And at one point of time he pleaded guilty.'?
share