Stanford losing his mind???

[malaise]

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/stanford_a_wreck_of_a_man_as_defense_team_turns_to.php?ref=mp
<snip>
Allen Stanford has been reduced to "a wreck of a man" and fears he is "losing his mind" as he awaits trial in a Texas prison, according to his attorneys. They've brought in celebrity lawyer Alan Dershowitz to argue that the conditions in which Stanford is being held are hindering his ability to prepare a defense, and to request his immediate release.

The former high-living billionaire is in a bad way, according to a motion filed yesterday by his team -- "malnourished and underweight," "slow in his gait ... and in his speech and thoughts," quickly losing his memory, frequently falling into "mental black holes," and largely unable to use his right eye to read, thanks to the effects of a brutal physical assault.

[htuttle]

1. Every single prisoner in the US goes through that shit

He's lucky to be able to afford his own 'celebrity lawyer' instead of relying on a public defender like most of the rest of us... Rather generous of the courts to allow him access to the stolen loot to pay him, isn't it?

[malaise]

13. Maybe his ReTHUG friends are paying

Coburn et al. I thought he was bankrupt.

[TexasObserver]

21. He's accused, not convicted. Do you understand the difference?

The attitude approving mistreatment of those accused of crimes is not one that belongs among progressives. Even those convicted should be accorded decent care, but this is far beyond that. A man who is accused of crimes is being held without the ability to get out on bail. That's not how our system was designed. You're supposed to be able to live outside of jail while accused, and keeping a guy in jail pending trial is one way the prosecution gains a very unfair advantage.

Hate this guy all you want, but respect the rights we are supposed to have, irrespective of the accused. If he's guilty, the prosecution should have no problem proving it.

[KharmaTrain]

23. There's A Reason His Bail Was Revoked...

Yes, those accused should be able to be on the oustide while accused...and a majority of those who face trial are given that privilidge. When you are accused of breaking the law, while innocent until proven guilty, the government needs the ability to make sure you stand trial (in the most expeditious manner). Stanford's bail was revoked since the judge considered him a flight risk...and surely does so with justifiable cause.

I don't condone the beating that happened and the dangerous conditions in prisons, but that's another issue...a big one. Also I don't condone throwing every guy caught with a joint in the joint either...overcrowded prisons speak poorly of our society on the whole. However, Stanford proved what a slimey bastard he was and ruined many lives with his greed and arrogance. He'll get his day in court to prove if he's guilty...and this makes sure he'll be there and not doing the Roman Polanski to some far flung island.

[elehhhhna]

24. I saw the big SUV's racing to Sugar Land Airport to lock down his aircraft

when he went "missing".

He made various attempts to flee. That makes him a flight risk. Wah too bad for him, huh?

[TexasObserver]

25. "The judge considered him a flight risk."

Yes, that's the excuse they use, but that's not the point of the revocation. The government controls all aspects of this, and the judge - while part of the judiciary - is part of that. The judges live as political animals, with connections to the executive and the legislative. They're often influenced by the Justice Dept and the FBI.

When the prosecutors want someone held without bail, they usually get it, and when a judge denies them what they want, they get their press toadies busy attacking such judge. If the judge wanted to assure that the defendant is not able to flee the jurisdiction, the court has tools to make that happen.

People can have all the animus toward the defendant they want, but denial of bail is an affront to our system. This kind of abuse by the government toward the accused is common. How is a person supposed to work on their defense when they're held in a jail cell under conditions designed to negatively influence his ability to defend himself?

[KharmaTrain]

28. So If They Flee, That's OK??

A judge's priority is to make sure a fair trial is held and in an expeditious manner. This means making sure the prosecution and defendent are both in court. The judge, in both his wisdom and within his power, felt that Stanford would try to skip out to avoid going to trial and face justice. Surely, with a high priced gun like Dershowitz working for him, if the order was unreasonable, you will see an appeal or other legal manuever.

Yes, the judge probably accepted the request of the prosecution in denying bail but I don't see it being political in the least. If anything, this being Texas, you'd think Stanford had greased enough rushpublican palms that he could find a friendly judge. The opposite is occuring here for reasons that this guy has proven sufficiently that he's untrustworthy even to honor the conditions of bail.

I don't see this as animus toward the system...if anything, if Sanford were freed and flew off to Rio, that would be affront to all those who honor their bail arrangements. Surely the prison has a law library and will not prevent Mr. Sanford from meeting with his attorneys and building a case...thousands of others have done the same. Mr. Dershowitz surely remembers a certain O J Simpson who ended up in a similiar revocation of his bail.

Maybe Mr. Sanford should have thought about negative influences when he was fleecing people out of their life savings. Sorry, no pity for this scumbag.

[TexasObserver]

30. Your response isn't a good argument against "see the constitution."

You're concerned about punishing the guilty. I'm concerned about protecting important rights.

The GOP controlled Supreme Court sees it they way you do, and that's why it is the way it is. We live in a country where constitutional rights for citizens accused or suspected have taken a beating for three straight decades. Why? Because too many citizens are just fine with loss of rights, because they're too concerned with catching bad guys and not concerned enough with saving their own rights.

[KharmaTrain]

33. I'm For Due Process...

Revoking one's bail has nothing to do with "punishing the guilty". That decision will be made by a jury of peers. First he has to get there...to fulfill the process to be able to have a fair trial. The prosecution and the judge operated within their rights as they had just cause to believe that Mr. Sanford would try to flee rather than face trial...this isn't punishment, this is ensuring that due process is served. I don't see any violation of his Constitutional rights here...if anything, they're being protected.

His arrest wasn't on political charges, but on bona fide violations of security laws...he is accused of stealing billions and there's sufficient proof to get the indictment. There's also sufficient evidence that if he were bailed out, he'd try to flee which would mean he avoids facing his accusers...not just the prosecutors but the many investors who trusted him only to learn he stole their money. This way a trial now moves forward and everyone gets their Constitutional rights to fair trial and due process.

Inversely, we have a Tom DeLay flying around...still facing charges 3 years after his indictment. He, obviously, is putting together his defense and the judge and prosecutors in his case don't see him as being such a risk.

I respect your concern for protecting important individual rights, but when you have been arrested based on sufficient evidence, the rights of the people as represented by a judge and jury should also be taken into consideration.

[htuttle]

29. Sure, I understand that

But if he were in jail for, say, growing pot, police agencies would have seized all of his property through civil forfeiture until he could prove that the source of income used to purchase it was legit.

If he was accused of strong arm bank robbery, I doubt that the bag of money he'd been caught with would be available to hire lawyers with.

He is, in fact, accused of robbery of a sort. The difference is, he has access to the possibly ill-gotten gains during the criminal proceedings to defend himself with.

It's not necessarily that I think he's being granted unfair rights. It's that the millions of other people who have found themselves in the same position awaiting trial have been denied those same rights and considerations, mostly because they are in a less dominant social class. That's what bothers me.

[Tansy_Gold]

2. Am I supposed to feel sorry for him?

How many people's lives did he completely ruin in the process of his high flying billionaire lifestyle?

He needs to find jesus in jail.





Tansy Gold

[joeybee12]

3. Damn! At first I thought you meant Mark SANford! nt/

[Webster Green]

4. Bummer.

:nopity:

[sinkingfeeling]

5. Losing one's memory and having 'mental black holes' is always good when appearing in court. He can

now say over and over, "I can't recall."

[sinkingfeeling]

6. Duplicate post.

[Myrina]

7. First piece of advice: don't do underhanded illegal shit to begin with.

Reduces your chances of spending time in prison by a whole lot.

[Ikonoklast]

8. I call bullshit.

Posturing by defense in order to get off.

Putting this out in the media is the first step in establishing the 'mentally ill' meme for the defense.

Fuck him. He's a thief in a silk suit and Italian loafers; no different from any other criminal, just better dressed.

[devilgrrl]

15. +1

:thumbsup:

[metapunditedgy]

9. One down, but lots of banksters left to go... n/t

[mitchum]

10. Damn! And he was a shoo-in for the prison cricket team!

Tragic

[malaise]

14. LOL

:rofl:

[mitchum]

11. Damn! And he was a shoo-in for the prison cricket team!

Tragic

[Saturday]

12. Oh, I thought you meant the other Sanford.

He lost his mind too.

[malaise]

16. Ages ago

:rofl:

[backscatter712]

17. Here, let me play a song for him...

:nopity:

[spanone]

18. guess that's the price of fucking over people, allen. it's called the justice system.

[malaise]

20. Isn't that the truth

How Stanford is worse than Madoff
http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/19/news/newsmakers/madoff.stanford.prison.fortune/
<snip>
If I ask you who the worst hedge fund fraudster is in the world, there's only one name that will spring to mind. The guy who allegedly looted billions of dollars from unwitting victims. The guy who had been accused of fraud for years, though the government failed to properly investigate for years. The guy who is now seemingly showing no remorse while protesting the conditions in prison. The guy who left many of his victims broke and has been beaten while incarcerated.

Madoff, right? Wrong. I'm thinking of Allen Stanford, accused of running an $8 billion Ponzi scheme. So why should the general public care a lot more about the former Sir Allen Stanford (he is no longer a Knight) than Bernard Madoff's $60 billion crime?

What about caring about the failures of the SEC, which is under withering scrutiny following the release of its internal investigation regarding its handling of the Stanford matter? The report, released the Friday the commission also charged Goldman Sachs with fraud, shows that SEC examiners identified Stanford as a serious risk back in 1997, only two years after Stanford Group Co. had registered as an investment advisor. The SEC also was twice warned that Mr. Stanford was running a Ponzi scheme, yet failed to act for more than a decade. But the SEC's (in)actions aren't the cause, either.

How to (almost) get away with fraud: hide it in plain sight

The Stanford case matters to everyone, not just rich people, not just the government, and not just people who bought Stanford CDs, because the core of the issue lies is the exploitation of that near universal financial instrument, the CD. That's correct - Certificates of Deposit, available from your local bank, (not CDOs or CDSs, from Wall Street investment banks).

[WeDidIt]

19. Tough titty said the kitty when the milk ran dry. n/t

[rocktivity]

22. Either consciousness of guilt or setting up an incompetency plea

I'm leaning toward consciousness of guilt.

If he's that sick, get him medical attention.

x(
rocktivity

[elehhhhna]

26. or just really deeply missing his personal chef. WAH, "Sir" Allen.

This assshat was too arrogant for Texas! And that says a lot.

[City Lights]

27. Having fun now, Allen?

:nopity:

[depakid]

31. Tough to go from 4 star restaurants (on other people's money) to prison food

[RagAss]

32. Well, do the best that you can Allen.