Legal Disclaimer

This page is NOT the usual legal fine print!

In fact it is the opposite. It aims to reinforce claims made on this site, and it aims to take responsibility.

I AM the AUTHOR of this site. Effectively, because I have written 90% of the content of it and I control the content of it.

But I am not the OWNER of this site. And this is the most important point that I am going to stress in the following.

Google owns this site! And I am very grateful to Google to provide this service free of charge. And I praise Google for what it does. And it is Google who is approached with any legal issues by third parties such as Martin Armstrong when they arise because they own the site. Google has its own Content policy that I am bound to, a content policy that curbs abuses of many kinds. This content policy is a GIFT to me because it provides me with guidance and it would not allow me to do here what I am accusing others of doing every day, for example on their own unregulated web sites.

This site is a regulated public service. Its aim is to make information more accessible, information that is mostly publicly available otherwise but difficult to find. By doing so it aims to prevent harm.

This site is not commercial. It is not monetized. I am not associated with ANY party who sells any products and services even remotely connected with the content of this site. So there are no claims with regards to any products and services being promoted. From that perspective - a dis-claimer is not even conceivable.

I will demonstrate the effectiveness of that Google OWNERSHIP relationship of this site by example, with a proof as usual. There are multiple types of challenges that Google will act on if prompted by third parties, challenges covered by the Content policy, and the following demonstrates one of it.

Martin Armstrong's Copyright Infringement Claim

Copyright infringement claims are typical reactions of fraudsters who are being exposed. The fraudsters try to smear their opponents, discredit them, harass them, weaken them by doing so. Martin Armstrong launched his own claim against this site: DMCA (Copyright) Complaint to Google

The above is a claim made on behalf of Martin Martin Armstrong that YOU can check. It contains 7 claims, out of which Google rejected 6. The 7th claim was ambiguous because it was concerned with a public file that was hosted by Martin Armstrong' s content delivery network whose ownership was not visible by inspecting the URL itself. So to avoid any issues, I deleted the entire page and created a new one with different title and the new URL. Here it is:  The Greatest Trade of the Century - Free Copy

The above proves that anyone who thinks that any of my pages violates that content policy can simply take my content down by complaining about it. Hence by extension it is the proof that the content of this site could not be successfully contested by Martin Armstrong and his inner circle because he tried and failed, and that is all I need, because that implicitly validates and shields the content of my site against any claims that Martin Armstrong may have against it.

Truthfulness

Some of the experiences I report on the blog part of this site are strictly my own, like Martin Armstrong’s Death Threat. However, I would make the same statement under oath in court which would not even be required because I have written evidence. Now you know why you can't even guess my name. Because I am a genius and I knew what to expect from that notorious unrepentant convicted felon years ago before I even had the facts.

This site makes various claims regarding the truthfulness of third party claims and regarding the statements of third parties such as Martin Armstrong himself. It does this in a very consistent way, page for page. First hand claims are made and subsequently proven with evidence that readers can follow via hyperlinks, or by verbatim quoting material that I own. As shown above, Martin Armstrong challenged some of these on the grounds of copyright infringement claims and failed. Because some of my material is covered by the Fair Use Doctrine. Third party claims are quoted with their respective sources, and I have disclaimers on such pages, so I don't need one here. Some things just cannot be proven 100% using my tools, such as whether it actually was Martin Armstrong himself who vandalized his Wikipedia page.

Even more so, Martin Armstrong himself confirms my claims with direct evidence of his defeat which I document on a separate page The Defeat of Martin Armstrong.

Website visitors are welcome to do their own due diligence to investigate the actual performance of the Armstrong/Socrates system, and any of the validity claimed by Martin Armstrong or this website.  However I have some doubts whether anyone can do this within a reasonable amount of time to an extent that I did it on this site. The website exposes massive issues in Socrates, the trading software system. And I am claiming that it does not work. Because common sense dictates that if it did work, then Martin Armstrong would not have lost $700 million trading with it but he would be a multi billionaire and own 80% of the stock market.

References

I tried to give references and web links whenever possible, and present the matter as factual as possible. Some of the links for Armstrong's site are linked to the saved copies at the Internet Archive web.archive.org, to preserve the integrity of Armstrong's actual content. Some links might break over time as web sites become defunct.Visitors can verify the content and check if Armstrong modified the content by visiting Armstrong's own site.

Contrast

Compare this with the fine print on Armstrong's scam site: Terms and Conditions of Use

... Further, we do not warrant or make any representations concerning the accuracy, likely results, or reliability of the use of any information, materials and/or links to other web sites.