Fact Check: Martin Armstrong was held ilegally in contempt of court for more than the permitted time.

Fact Check: "Martin Armstrong was held illegally in contempt of court for more than the permitted time."

What We Know

Martin Armstrong, a former financial adviser, was held in contempt of court for failing to comply with court orders related to a civil case involving the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). His contempt was primarily due to his refusal to return corporate assets and records to a court-appointed receiver. Armstrong's incarceration for contempt lasted over seven years, which has raised questions about the legality and duration of his confinement (source-4, source-6).

The maximum duration for civil contempt under U.S. law is typically limited to the time necessary to compel compliance with the court's order. In Armstrong's case, the courts ruled that his continued incarceration was justified due to his non-compliance, despite the lengthy duration (source-2). However, the question of whether his confinement exceeded legal limits has been a point of contention.

Analysis

The claim that Martin Armstrong was held "illegally" in contempt for more than the permitted time is nuanced. While it is true that Armstrong's time in jail for contempt exceeded seven years, which is significantly longer than typical civil contempt cases, the courts upheld the validity of his contempt charges. The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately rejected his appeal, indicating that the legal system found sufficient grounds for his prolonged detention (source-5).

Critically, the legal framework surrounding civil contempt allows for extended detention as long as it serves the purpose of compelling compliance with a court order. Armstrong's case was complicated by his ongoing refusal to comply with the court's directives, which the courts interpreted as justification for his continued confinement (source-1). However, some legal experts and commentators have argued that the duration of his confinement raises serious questions about the application of contempt laws and the potential for abuse of judicial power (source-4).

Conclusion

The claim that Martin Armstrong was held illegally in contempt of court for more than the permitted time is Partially True. While he was indeed held for an extended period that exceeds typical limits for civil contempt, the courts maintained that his detention was legally justified based on his non-compliance with court orders. Thus, while the duration raises significant legal and ethical questions, it does not conclusively support the assertion of illegality in his confinement.

Sources

1. 20200203145704876_19-392 Armstrong.pdf
2. Armstrong v. Guccione - Opposition
3. Petition
4. In Fraud Case, 7 Years in Jail for Contempt
5. US court rejects ex-trader's 7-year contempt case
6. Martin Armstrong Out of Jail After 11 Years, Including 7 for Contempt ...
7. U.S. judge ends 7-year contempt jailing of trader
8. Jailed 7 Years for Contempt, Adviser Is Headed for Prison