Allen Stanford Arrested and Charged with Fraud

[Furball]

An acquittal does not mean that the person was not actually guilty in the first case. It just means that the case was not proven to the extent that jurors or judges were convinced.

Wrong.

In Scotland we have 3 verdicts - guilty, not guilty and not proven.

 

[fredfertang]

ECB have just anounced that they have terminated all contracts with Stanford, this was inevitable anyway but at least this sorry affair is over without causing any real long term damage to English cricket. Shame the same can't be said for cricket in the West Indies.

Sounds a little hasty

I hope they have taken some decent legal advice - we wouldn't want the douchebag making them look as silly as Kerry Packer made their predecessors appear

 

[zaremba]

Hehe. We should have had more lawyers on CW ages ago, would've made things soooooo much more interesting.

Imagine a world without lawyers. What a miserable place.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Boycott: Stanford exit gives us chance to put morality ahead of money again

CBA trawling through the whole thread, but had to post this inspired piece of Olympic level hypocrisy from Sir Geoffrey in The Torygraph.

If you put money ahead of principle, and ahead of a genuine love of sport, this is where it takes you.

&

It smacked too much of the England team prostituting themselves for money. You should never sell the England shirt for a fistful of dollars.

Yeah, trouble is Geoff, some of us have memories that go back to the early 80s when you effective "sold" your England shirt to Apartheid era South Africa.

 

[Evermind]

Zalztman blog on Stanford very hardto fowlllow when drunk, FYI. pls do not attempt.

 

[Evermind]

that was note to self ,mostly

 

[Richard]

CBA trawling through the whole thread, but had to post this inspired piece of Olympic level hypocrisy from Sir Geoffrey in The Torygraph.

If you put money ahead of principle, and ahead of a genuine love of sport, this is where it takes you.

&

It smacked too much of the England team prostituting themselves for money. You should never sell the England shirt for a fistful of dollars.

Yeah, trouble is Geoff, some of us have memories that go back to the early 80s when you effective "sold" your England shirt to Apartheid era South Africa.

You know, some people realise they've made errors.

 

[zaremba]

You know, some people realise they've made errors.

If that was Geoff Boycott's way of confessing his sins, it was done with typical good grace

 

[BoyBrumby]

If that was Geoff Boycott's way of confessing his sins, it was done with typical good grace

Quite. If Boycs ever recanted or apologised for anything he'd said or done I've no doubts Atlas would drop the globe and the heavens would be rent asunder. He is to self awareness what Julian Clary is to heavyweight boxing.

 

[GIMH]

Imagine a world without lawyers. What a miserable place.

Two engineers are on there way back from a conference when their car crashes at a high speed and they are both killed. They get to the gates of heaven, but are turned away, and sent to hell.

They get to hell and are welcomed with open arms. Satan cracks the whip and gets them working, and before you know it hell is fitted with the most awesome air conditioning and is incredibly comfortable.

God phones up, "alright Satan, how's it going down there?"

Satan, "yeah it's great, those engineers you sent down have turned the place right around."

God, "the thing was, that was a mistake, so you'll need to send them back!"

Satan, "you've got no chance, they're staying here!"

God, "You send them back or I'll sue!"

Satan, "Oh yeah, and where are YOU gonna find a lawyer?!"

 

[Fusion]

Two engineers are on there way back from a conference when their car crashes at a high speed and they are both killed. They get to the gates of heaven, but are turned away, and sent to hell.

They get to hell and are welcomed with open arms. Satan cracks the whip and gets them working, and before you know it hell is fitted with the most awesome air conditioning and is incredibly comfortable.

God phones up, "alright Satan, how's it going down there?"

Satan, "yeah it's great, those engineers you sent down have turned the place right around."

God, "the thing was, that was a mistake, so you'll need to send them back!"

Satan, "you've got no chance, they're staying here!"

God, "You send them back or I'll sue!"

Satan, "Oh yeah, and where are YOU gonna find a lawyer?!"

 

[fredfertang]

Two engineers are on there way back from a conference when their car crashes at a high speed and they are both killed. They get to the gates of heaven, but are turned away, and sent to hell.

They get to hell and are welcomed with open arms. Satan cracks the whip and gets them working, and before you know it hell is fitted with the most awesome air conditioning and is incredibly comfortable.

God phones up, "alright Satan, how's it going down there?"

Satan, "yeah it's great, those engineers you sent down have turned the place right around."

God, "the thing was, that was a mistake, so you'll need to send them back!"

Satan, "you've got no chance, they're staying here!"

God, "You send them back or I'll sue!"

Satan, "Oh yeah, and where are YOU gonna find a lawyer?!"

So very cruel ...........................

 

[sirdj]

Silence = Guilt sounds to me like a mind firmly closed

I would have thought that the only basis upon which Stanford might be advised to break his silence at the moment would be if he were absolutely "bang to rights" - if he believes he is innocent the most idiotic thing he could do is comment publicly in circumstances where he can't possibly know the detail of the case against him.

So what you are saying is that he should only say that he is innocent if he is 100% innocent. But if he has been up to any fraud at all he should keep quiet as he does not know what exactly the FBI have on him?

 

[sirdj]

Why even bother having a trial then? Ah, heck, the cops wouldn't accuse this person of a serious crime unless he was guilty, therefore he's guilty. Screw it, chuck him in prison then.

No....have your little trial...........its fine by me.
BTW Its not some keystone cop accusing him of anything, its the SEC. Its not an ordinary person being accused. Its an extremely wealthy douchebag with a lot of influence in a lot of wealthy countries with a lot of top politicians.

In the UK (and, I think, Australia) there's a system of legal aid which means that the poorest and weakest defendant will have free access to the biggest and best defence lawyers in the country. This is an admirable system in which your concern simply holds no water at all (although if Government cut-backs in the legal aid budget continue, your concern might be more valid).

Which is why petty crooks are brutally handled and bashed around and their family made to suffer too, while the bastard who steals billions is politely ******ed out of his house? And these petty crooks have the same access to the very best lawyers as do these rich bastards?? How magnanimous.

In the USA the system is different. However even there having money won't get you off if the evidence is stacked up against you: see eg Conrad Black and many others.

The only reason why some rich bastards go to prison is because they do not have any more suction politically.

One of the stranger things you've written (from a pretty strong field). If by "do you sit on walls" you mean "do I try to keep an open mind about people's guilt or innocence unless they've had a fair trial", well the answer is yes.

Is that really true?? Does this sense of fairness extend to other forms of crime too?? Would you keep an open mind about killers, rapists and child molesters as well?? Untill they have been found guilty after a fair trial? Would you let your child interact with an alleged molester if he has not yet been tried or accused? or do you have different yardsticks for different crimes?

But if you're in Sydney as your profile suggests, you are in a country where, if you were accused of a serious crime, you would get tried by a jury. You should be glad of this. As I say, you should hope to God that if falsely accused the jurors trying you didn't take the view "well, the cops wouldn't have accused him unless he was guilty."

I am in Sydney as a student and will depart when my studies are over. Personally I would take a judge over a jury trial any day. Like I have said before this is not an ordinary person being "falsely accused" as you say. This is a super rich bastard...........so if super rich me gets falsely accused.........I would be laughing all the way about how I would be getting richer by suing the Australian Government for all they are worth as not even a prejudiced jury will be able to judge me guilty.

 

[sirdj]

Wrong.

In Scotland we have 3 verdicts - guilty, not guilty and not proven.

Not guilty and not proven are just words Ginger. When you are a super rich bastard like Allen it does not matter an ounce. The truth is of no consequence for people like him.

Allen's claims to knighthood are as good as mine. But that does not prevent the douchebag to lie to everyone that he was knighted by Prince Edward Wessex.

 

[fredfertang]

So what you are saying is that he should only say that he is innocent if he is 100% innocent. But if he has been up to any fraud at all he should keep quiet as he does not know what exactly the FBI have on him?

No that is not what I am saying

Lest there be any doubt let me stress I am certainly not asserting Stanford's innocence and his public profile is one I find distasteful - were it a crime, which it should be, then I would have no hesitation in convicting him of being an obnoxious, irritating, little prat.

In truth modern jurisprudence has largely (but sadly not completely) dispensed with a knee jerk reaction to criminal justice and while you have clearly made your mind up about Stanford there are in fact various possible scenarios here and until some hard facts get reported no one on this forum, even you, is going to be in a position to have a genuinely informed opinion as to what has occurred

So irrespective of what you or I may think of the man one obvious, well I think it's obvious, possibility is that he has no knowledge of any fraud and that whatever fraud there is has been perpetrated by someone else within or very close to his organisation.

If that were to be his position then it is axiomatic that he isn't going to have much idea what the authorities are on about and therefore the allegations are something upon which he should not comment until he has had an opportunity to fully consider them.

A right to silence is usually, wrongly but in some ways understandably, viewed as a shield employed by the guilty to try and avoid the consequences of their actions but the reality is that it is an essential civil right in any fair society

 

[sirdj]

In truth modern jurisprudence has largely (but sadly not completely) dispensed with a knee jerk reaction to criminal justice and while you have clearly made your mind up about Stanford there are in fact various possible scenarios here and until some hard facts get reported no one on this forum, even you, is going to be in a position to have a genuinely informed opinion as to what has occurred

I believe in the age old maxim that an honest man has nothing to hide.
By his silence and his running around Stanford is behaving as he has something to hide. While his behaviour is not enough for him to be convicted legally, in my mind he is a douchebag. Now you may state various legalese for why said douchebag should remain quiet and that it is his essential civil right etc etc..........but fact still remains is that speaking can only harm him if he has done something wrong. If he has done nothing wrong then what he says can't harm him.

So irrespective of what you or I may think of the man one obvious, well I think it's obvious, possibility is that he has no knowledge of any fraud and that whatever fraud there is has been perpetrated by someone else within or very close to his organisation.

Fact is that there are only two people in said douchebag's company who are in charge of financial decisions CFO James Davis, and said douchebag. After the SEC interrogation of Stanford CIO Laura Pendergest-Holt, it was pretty clear that these two were making all the decisions and part of her job was to train employees under her to mislead investors.

If that were to be his position then it is axiomatic that he isn't going to have much idea what the authorities are on about and therefore the allegations are something upon which he should not comment until he has had an opportunity to fully consider them.

So basically what you are saying is maybe poor gullible Stanford had no idea that his CFO was up to all this. And maybe its James Davis who is the bad guy. Stanford was too busy frolicking with Caribbean virgins to know that his CFO was up to all this mischief.
Poor Allen Stanford.

A right to silence is usually, wrongly but in some ways understandably, viewed as a shield employed by the guilty to try and avoid the consequences of their actions but the reality is that it is an essential civil right in any fair society

Why wrongly viewed?? If he indeed is 100% honest surely opening his mouth can't land him into trouble?

 

[sirdj]

Looks like the rats are deserting the sinking ship.

Stanford Attorney Quits Following CIO’s Testimony

 

[fredfertang]

So what is your take on this news then?

 

[sirdj]

So what is your take on this news then?

Who me?? I think I have already mentioned what I feel in the statement above the link.