June 10th, 2009

Senator Patrick J. Leahy

Chairman Senate Judiciary Committee
US Senate Martin A. Armstrong
rci Fort Dix CaiC[
Washington, DC 20510 P
#12518-050
PO Box 2000-
Fort Dix, NJ 08640

Re: Confirmation
Dear Senator; ^Y3 Sotomayor

I am writing to the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding the confirmation of

Judge Sonya Sotomayor since I am one of her top most famous cases and the media
seems to be focusing on my case as well.

I am the longest person ever held in civil contempt in the history of this
nation by any federal judge - about 7-J years. The government was lied to by a
major New York Bank, Republic National Bank, to stop a lawsuit that Princeton
Economics, Int'l, Ltd. gave notice it would file if missing funds were not returned
as a result of their own staff illegally trading in accounts placed with them. They
ran to the Government telling them I conspired with their own staff to hide losses
from Japanese investors . I was charged criminally within less than 1 0 days and once
I self -surrendered, then the SEC and CFTC filed civil actions against myself and
the foreign corporations, refusing to serve them, installing a equity receiver with
no personal jurisdiction, who denied all counsel, and then pled the corporations
within 30 days to the SEC injunction, despite the fact that they employed more than
200 employees all outside the US and were regulated by Japan, China, London and
Australia.
When they realized that Republic lied and that the accounts did not belong to
Japanese investors and any trading in the United STates was proprietary and did not
flow to investors since ( 1 ) we merely borrowed yen at fixed rates and that is all
that was owed, and (2) we purchased pre-existing portfolios of Japanese stocks as
part of the bailout going on in Japan with each note approved by the Japanese Ministi
of Finance, the Government attorneys did not want to go to trial yet would not admit
the truth and drop the charges. I was offered a §5K1 and told by AUSA Richard Owens
they "knew" I stole nothing, but informed me they would not drop the charges, wanted
me to plead guilty and testify against Republic. I declined because I did not in any
way conspire with Edmond Safra.
The Government abused the courts, created a civil contempt, and proceeded to
arbitrarily imprison me for more than 7 years to torture me under the pretense of
getting the SEC and CFTC to seek a civil contempt. Article III subordinates equity
to law and never at common law could chancery ever haul an indicted defendant out
of a criminal case and prevent a trial by using contempt denied counsel because it
is pretending it is not criminal. This was a structural error under Article III
and the Judiciary will not address anything because they are embarrassed by what
took place.
I am informing you because the pretense was that I have no rights post-indictmem
simply because I was a corporate officer of a foreign corporation. Never mind that
18 USC §3481 states that post-indictment rights apply to "all persons" and that I
was summoned twice to depositions post-indictment that were also forbidden by FRCrm
Procedure 15(e). Never has any judge ever defended the constitution no less myself
and the Judicial process has become a joke no different than a banana republic for
judges do not rule in favor of citizens in criminal cases, only the Government. This
would be considered "liberal" to rule against the government.
 Judge Sotomayor has disappointed me in that while she wrote a concurring opinion
in Armstrong v Guccione, 470 F3d 89 (2d Cir 2006) stating that I should not be held
"indefinitely" and most likely resulted in my favor, she overlooked a very critical
structural error that now stands for the proposition that merely being a officer
of a corporation, you have forfeited all your rights and can be held no different
than a terrorist in Cuba, denied access to the courts for even Judge Sotomayor held
I had no right to appeal in civil contempt when Congress expressly provided for such
a right, 28 USC §1826. Sir William Blackstone made it clear that always equitable
decrees were immediately appealable, and only matters at law required finality, 3
Blackstone, chp 4, p55. Judge Posner, of the 7th Circuit made it clear that the final
judgment rule under 28 USC §1291 was not constitutionally required, and that whatever
pretense that existed holding civil contempt was not appealable, was legislatively
overruled by 28 USC §1826, Matter of Witness Before Special Get 1981 Grand Jury, 722
F2d 349, 351 (7th Cir 1983). ~ " " '

There is no check and balance against judges or the executive. They can do what-
ever they want and in practical reality, the Constitution is now just a scrap of
paper. Once Rule 10 was adopted by the Supreme Court, they unconstitutionally withdrew
the third branch from our tripartite design. The constitution, statutes, and human
rights cannot and do not exist and the Senate is reduced to being irrelevant, for
if the Supreme Court has pure discretion to enforce the law, then there is no law!

Article III does not even mention the word discretion. Congress enacted 18 USC
§4001(a) stating a citizen shall not be detained except under statute of Congress.
You will see the Second Circuit ignored the civil contempt statute 28 USC §1826 that
prohibited civil contempt to be used beyond 18 months and cited instead the criminal
contempt statute 18 USC §401 to circumvent §4001(a). The problem there, is this is
a misdemeanor USSG §4Al.2(c) that the Second Circuit previously admitted, US v Galanta,
298 F2d 22 (2d Cir 1962) that Congress limits to 1 year 18 USC §3559(a) (6), yet the
judges do whatever they want. The Supreme Court held that the same statute cannot be
used differently civilly and criminally "because we must interpret the statute consist-
ently whether we encounter its application in a criminal or noncriminal context,"
Clark v Martinez, 543 US 371, 160 Led2d 734, 746 (2005). Whatever laws you pass mean
absolutely nothing for judges assume discretion to dispense with the law to support
whatever prosecutors want. This is not the way a free democratic society is to function.

It is not an excuse that resources are low so we will dispense with the law. Rule
10 at the Supreme Court is unconstitutional. I have an absolute right to be released
for there is no statutory authority, yet no judge will embarrass another. There is
no rule of law if citizens cannot petition and that petition is honored.

Article III affords no discretion to opt-out of the Constitutional structure.

This Senate is to supervise the Judiciary, but if a citizen tried to write as I did
both to Mr. Leahy and Spector, they never even reply. Contact your local senator and
you get the same cold shoulder.

Proskauer Rose, LLP informed me that a major European bank came to them to review
the law for they were going to open in New York. When they were informed of my case
that corporate officers have no rights, they cancelled their intensions.

A major study of 72 nations conducted by William Easterly, Institute for Internat-

ional Economics and Ross Levine of the University of Minnesota, asked what makes one
nation wealthier than another? The answer was the Rule of Lawl There is no such thing
as long as judges claim discretion. Cur economy is being also destroyed because of
the Judiciary.

The appellate courts know they can use "policy" to deny the Rule of Law and that
"policy" has become only a code word for personal "will" rather than the law set by
 Congress. This is wrong and it is destroying our liberty, as I now illustrate to
the world that America also has its politicial prisoners no different than Burma or
China, and it is destroying the rights, privileges, and immunities, while property
has value only if a judge is willing to enforce it. We might as well be in Nigeria.
Poor nations.are not poor because they lack resources. They are poor because the]
lack the Rule of Law. How can people invest if the law changes or is not enforced?

Focus on "policy" and flush out what is going on. The people have a right to
an honest government 18 USC §1346, yet courts hold that judges and prosecutors are
absolutely immune even for intentional refusals to give the judgment of the law. Thai
is what Jesus Christ himself called corruption in Luke 18 in the parable of the widov\
and the corrupt judge who withheld the judgment of the law claiming discretion.

We need serious reform to save our economy:

(1) Split chancery from law as it stands in most states and remove
discretion from judges to refuse to follow the law established
by the people through Congress, or else this is not a land of
the people for the people.
(2) Create a national Court of Appeals where every citizen has an
absolute right to be heard forcing the circuits to comply.

(3) Increase the resources of the Supreme Court so it too is no longer

a political court, ruling only on what it desires. Congress has
enacted the Declaratory Judgement Act 28 USC §2201, yet the Supreme
Court will not allow such a filing ignoring the jurisdiction of
the court established by Congress.

(a) The Supreme Court should have lessor judges and perhaps the 9
would review only those decisions and that would include the
states, or increase the number to 26 with a Chief Justice.

We need law professors at the higher level, not former prosecutors pretending
to be judges. This is an insult to the unbiased requirement of Article III. One
cannot be unbiased once he has worked for the government. It must be only members
of the people to protect the people just as was intended by the petit and grand jurif
to ensure that the people stood between citizens and the state.
My family fought in the American Revolution. Everything they came to stand for
has disappeared. The Declaration of Independence complained about the denial of the
right to trial by jury and holding mock trials to protect the kings agents. I was
thrown into prison for more than 7 years claiming a jury trial was not my right and
citizens cannot even sue under the civil rights act a judge or a prosecutor ^when no
such immunity exists in the Constitution and in fact Article II, §3 only authorizes
prosecutors to "faithfully" execute the law, yet courts hold they can do anything.
There is no liberty, justice for all, no dignity, .and no freedom. Unless all are
accountable for their actions, nothing exists at

CC/Internet
NY Times
Wall Street Journal
Bloomberg News
London Financial Times
see'SEC case 3 - 13121
 Martin A. Armstrong
June 8th, 2009 #12518-050
Carolyn Hicks, Case Manager PCI Fort Dix Camp
US Court of Appeals, Third Circuit PO Box 2000
21400 US Courthouse Fort Dix, NJ 08640
601 Market Street
Philadelphia, Pa 19106-1790
Re: Confirmation Hearings for Sotomayor
Dear Ms Hicks;
I fully understand that my case is a tremendous embarrassment. Being the
longest citizen ever held in civil contempt in history is bad enough. To be the
symbol that corporate officers no longer have any rights post-indictment even
equal with terrorists, has degraded the concept of the Rule or Law especially
when 18 USC §3481 applies with no exception to "all persons" making everything
done to me in violation of the Separation of Powers. Appearing on the front pages
in most major country newspapers from Europe to Asia, has only highlighted how
dangerous it is to do any business in the United States. Now, the judge who wrote
a separate opinion in the Second Circuit warn-ing I should not be held indefiniely,
Judge Sonya Sotomayor, Armstrong v Guccione, 470 F3d 89 (2d Cir 2006), is now
pending review in the Senate for appointment to the Supreme Court. This is already
propelled me into the lime-light for here I am 2 year after sentencing, still unable
to restore my liberty because of endless procrastination of the Government to still
comply with the plain language of 18 USC §3585(b) that affords no discretion to
perform an otherwise simple administrative act. To avoid the Supreme Court who
ordered the Government to responds they vacated the contempt and transferred me to
Fort Dix before any calculation, told the Supreme Court the contempt no longer was
in place, and thus it was pointless to review history.

Because this case effect the rights of all corporate officers and downgrades
those individuals allowing the government to now "torture" post-indictment claiming
they alone have no rights whatsoever, I have been told that this case will not just
be a major focus at her confirmation hearings, but once more it is gathering the
world press.

Judge Sotomayor pointed out that Judge Walker's opinion relied on Magio v Zeitz,
333 US 56 (1948), but failed to notice that it also held a turnover order cannot
be used pretrial as it was against myself and is limited to post-trial. Maggio held
a turnover order is indistinguishable from restitution, Id./at 63, and thus I was
being imprisoned for a criminal penalty that could only be imposed post-conviction
denying me trial by jury, 18 USC §§3663-64.

"It is in no sense based on a cause of action for damages for

tortious conduct such as embezslement, misappropriation or
improvident dissipation of assets."
Maggio, 333 US at 63

Judge Sotomayor pointed out "Judge Walker's opinion relies on Maggio..." Id./
470 F3d at 115.Sfe then settled:

"Indeed, the question of whether such indefinite detention is

within a court's inherent power is not before this Court, and
I write to underscore my belief that Judge Walker's opinion
should not be construed to license such indefinite detention."
470 F3d at 116
 I am writing to ensure that the Court is fully aware that this case is in
the eye of the storm, and I would hope that it is resolved based upon the rule
of law, rather than any other procedural reason.
I was not provided a trial by jury. The assets subject of the contempt were
directly charged as the proof of the money laundering count and the contempt was
also submitted to the grand jury as proof of the obstruction of justice. No doubt
the government impermissibly also told the grand jury that I asserted my Fifth
Amendment Privilege and told them, as they told the court itself, that they too
could draw and "adverse inference" to assume my guilt. The district court even
followed that advice making the entire injunction illegal and thus the contempt,
"I do draw an adverse inference from his refusal to testify." SEC v PEI, 73 FSupp2d
420, 423 (SONY 1999). The Supreme Court made that clear that any "adverse inference"
in a civil case was only allowed when there were "[n]o criminal proceedings ...
pending." Baxter v Palmigiano, 425 US 308, 317 (1976). While everyone else in the
nation believes you have the right to remain silent, I was denied that right with
absolutely nothing to support it whatsoever, since they knew they had no case.
I have been now at Fort Dix for 2 years as of June 1st, and once again it is
clear to the world that the Government will never respond on the merits, never once
explain even their theory, and will perpetually argue procedure to create delays
to achieve imprisoning citizens contrary to law as if we were some military hunta
as in Burma.

Judge Bumb below cited Tankersley v Fisher, 2008 WL 275878 (ND Fla 2008) to deny
me bail based upon that case where the time was not credited for a civil contempt.
She uisconstrued the facts, for this was a civil contempt imposed in a civil case
filed before the criminal case. In fact, upon indictment, that judge vacated the civil
contempt because it was improper if not unethical and unconstitutional to coerce an
indicted defendant. In my case, the contempt was create as a ruse after indictment
on the same facts as in the indiectment. Never did such power exist under equity.
Whether Tankersley was decided correctly turns on the facts of his contempt, that
seem not to have been raised. Nevertheless, in the instant case, the contempt was
created post-indictment with the approval of the US Attorney, his help, and direction.
That is a different set of facts to which I am entitled to an evidentiary hearing to
establish whose design this was, why I have been the only indicted defendat this has
been done to since 16411 Who was the government protecting? Since the Government
refuses to release me at any time, then they cannot deny me my right to demonstrate
in an evidentiary hearing the abuse of process they have engaged in.
William Easterly of the Institute for International Economics and Ross Levine of
the University of Minnesota conducted as study of 72 nations to determine what makes
one nation wealth and another poor. They found it is the Rule of Law for a poor nation
can have billions of dollars in resources, but if there is no rule of law and the gov-
ernment always wins, then there is no property rights and capital flees. That is what
this case represents. Proskauer Rose LLP informed me that a major European bank was
ready to buy into New York. Because of this case and that corporate officers no have
no rights post-indictment, they changed their mind. The government always wants to win
and cannot see that they are destroying the essence of a free nation that is the Rule
of Law. Either I am entitled to the plain language of a statute enacted by Congress tc
which Government Attorneys swear an oath to defend and may only execute all laws in a
faithful manner (Art II, §3), or we are a nation of propaganda. That is-'what is at
stake in this case. There has to be a line draw to save:,-£he gqvernment from the folly
of its own making.
\ fted;
cc/J. Andrew Ruymann, AUSA
various interested parties