March 18, 2012, 1:29 pm
www.freedomsphoenix.com
On March 6th, Robert Stanford was convicted in a Houston federal court on 13
out of 14 counts of fraud.
The jury decision was delivered three years after Stanford defrauded 30,000
investors in 113 countries in a Ponzi scheme involving $7 billion in
fraudulent high-interest certificates at the Stanford International Bank
located in Antigua.
The corporate media has accurately reported Stanford's use of the
fraudulently obtained money (e.g., purchasing mansions, jets, yachts,
million dollar condominiums). However, the corporate controlled media
conspicuously failed to report that much of the stolen money went to bribing
corrupt members of congress on both sides of the aisle as well as their
parent political parties. The illegally obtained money was given to the
likes of Barack Obama, William Nelson, John McCain, John Boehner, Nancy
Pelosi and Harry Reid.
The mainstream media also failed to mention that both the Republican and
Democratic political parties accepted this fraudulently obtained money as
well. The court-appointed receiver tasked with returning the money to
Stanford investors obtained a federal court order last June against five
Democratic and Republican campaigns. Yet, despite the court order, the
leadership of both parties has still not returned the money! The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee received nearly a million dollars. The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) has accepted almost a
quarter of a million dollars of Stanford's ill-gotten gains. The Democratic
Congressional Campaign Committee have received almost $200,000 of the stolen
money. The Republican National Committee $130,000, and the National
Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) has accepted $83,345." These facts
indict the entire Democratic and Republican apparatus and they are
unquestionably participants in a criminal enterprise system which is
benefitting from the theft of investor monies in the same fashion as did
ex-New Jersey Governor and Goldman Sachs executive, John Corzine, when he
stole tens of millions of dollars from MF Global investors.
Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Republicans. Show all posts
Monday, 19 March 2012
Saturday, 10 December 2011
Stanford's donations still stain lawmakers' hands
American Lawmakers Hypocrisy
These so-called lawmakers should make sure their hands are clean before coming to the table. It would appear that in this situation they all forget to wash.
They should be putting their own house in order before making demands on SIPC and making sure that they - and every other US politician who benefited from Stanford's generosity (with the money he stole from his victims) - pay back the stolen funds.
Could it be that these US politicians think that if they can get SIPC paid out (mostly to the American victims) the whole situation will die down and the pressure will be off them to do the right thing? Because let's face it not one of these "lawmakers" gives a fig about the International Victims whose stolen money they so readily took and now refuse to return, and not one of these politicians have mentioned that apart from the 4,000 US victims, there are another 20,000+ International victims who they do not fight for.
Then again, the International Victims can't be counted on to vote for them, so why should these political hypocrites bother about spending the International Victims stolen money while they sit on their fat backsides in Washington??
By LOREN STEFFY, HOUSTON CHRONICLE
Published 07:31 p.m., Thursday, December 8, 2011
In the battle over insurance coverage for investors who lost money in the collapse of Stanford Financial's U.S. brokerage, it's difficult to know who's on investors' side.
Recently, 27 lawmakers sent a letter to the Securities Investor Protection Corp., which is funded by the brokerage industry and overseen by the government, demanding that SIPC cover investors for their losses. SIPC granted similar coverage to clients of Bernard Madoff and the recently bankrupted commodities trader MF Global.
The 23 Republicans and four Democrats threatened to convene hearings in Washington next week if SIPC didn't act.
That, apparently, is easier than living up to their own shortcomings.
Seven of the lawmakers who signed the letter received campaign contributions from Stanford. Only two - Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Austin, and Rep. Rep. Charles Boustany, R-La. - returned the money. Five others - Republicans Pete Sessions of Dallas, Lamar Smith of San Antonio and Vern Buchanan and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, as well as Democrat Steve Cohen of Tennessee - owe Stanford's estate money, according to the court-appointed receiver in the company's bankruptcy.
The firm's namesake, R. Allen Stanford, liked to spread cash around Washington. The receiver has been trying to recover political donations for almost two years. About $1.8 million remains outstanding, and only about $142,000, has been returned.
Even more disturbing, five committees of the two political parties - the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee, the Republican National Committee and the National Republican Senatorial Committee - have refused to return a combined $1.6 million.
In other words, while lawmakers are quick to call on the brokerage industry to insure the losses of Stanford's investors, they are far less willing to demand the same of themselves or their political parties.
Many of the elected officials who received campaign contributions from Stanford - including both Texas senators and Sessions - donated them to charity. That, however, doesn't let the politicians off the hook.
If Stanford was a fraud as the government contends, then the money is stolen. Donating stolen money doesn't eliminate the potential theft. Even if no theft is proved, the receiver is operating under a court order to recover money on behalf of investors, and donating it doesn't absolve lawmakers of the court's order.
Meanwhile, the Securities and Exchange Commission, which is charged with overseeing SIPC, ordered the fund to pay investors in June. So far, it hasn't. As recently as last week, SIPC's chairman sent a letter to one member of Congress saying SIPC disagrees with the SEC's decision.
Sen. David Vitter, R-La., had been trying to arrange some sort of settlement between the SEC and SIPC. Those efforts apparently fell through.
"The SEC needs to take definite action before the end of the year, and I'm afraid that's going to mean suing SIPC," he told SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro.
The SEC, of course, is making up for past mistakes. Having bungled earlier investigations into Stanford, it then took more than two years to reach a decision on SIPC coverage.
It may be getting tough now, but suing SIPC means investors, who have been strung along for almost three years, must wait even longer to find out if their losses are covered. Sadly, in this case, that's progress.
These so-called lawmakers should make sure their hands are clean before coming to the table. It would appear that in this situation they all forget to wash.
They should be putting their own house in order before making demands on SIPC and making sure that they - and every other US politician who benefited from Stanford's generosity (with the money he stole from his victims) - pay back the stolen funds.
Could it be that these US politicians think that if they can get SIPC paid out (mostly to the American victims) the whole situation will die down and the pressure will be off them to do the right thing? Because let's face it not one of these "lawmakers" gives a fig about the International Victims whose stolen money they so readily took and now refuse to return, and not one of these politicians have mentioned that apart from the 4,000 US victims, there are another 20,000+ International victims who they do not fight for.
Then again, the International Victims can't be counted on to vote for them, so why should these political hypocrites bother about spending the International Victims stolen money while they sit on their fat backsides in Washington??
By LOREN STEFFY, HOUSTON CHRONICLE
Published 07:31 p.m., Thursday, December 8, 2011
In the battle over insurance coverage for investors who lost money in the collapse of Stanford Financial's U.S. brokerage, it's difficult to know who's on investors' side.
Recently, 27 lawmakers sent a letter to the Securities Investor Protection Corp., which is funded by the brokerage industry and overseen by the government, demanding that SIPC cover investors for their losses. SIPC granted similar coverage to clients of Bernard Madoff and the recently bankrupted commodities trader MF Global.
The 23 Republicans and four Democrats threatened to convene hearings in Washington next week if SIPC didn't act.
That, apparently, is easier than living up to their own shortcomings.
Seven of the lawmakers who signed the letter received campaign contributions from Stanford. Only two - Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Austin, and Rep. Rep. Charles Boustany, R-La. - returned the money. Five others - Republicans Pete Sessions of Dallas, Lamar Smith of San Antonio and Vern Buchanan and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, as well as Democrat Steve Cohen of Tennessee - owe Stanford's estate money, according to the court-appointed receiver in the company's bankruptcy.
The firm's namesake, R. Allen Stanford, liked to spread cash around Washington. The receiver has been trying to recover political donations for almost two years. About $1.8 million remains outstanding, and only about $142,000, has been returned.
Even more disturbing, five committees of the two political parties - the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee, the Republican National Committee and the National Republican Senatorial Committee - have refused to return a combined $1.6 million.
In other words, while lawmakers are quick to call on the brokerage industry to insure the losses of Stanford's investors, they are far less willing to demand the same of themselves or their political parties.
Many of the elected officials who received campaign contributions from Stanford - including both Texas senators and Sessions - donated them to charity. That, however, doesn't let the politicians off the hook.
If Stanford was a fraud as the government contends, then the money is stolen. Donating stolen money doesn't eliminate the potential theft. Even if no theft is proved, the receiver is operating under a court order to recover money on behalf of investors, and donating it doesn't absolve lawmakers of the court's order.
Meanwhile, the Securities and Exchange Commission, which is charged with overseeing SIPC, ordered the fund to pay investors in June. So far, it hasn't. As recently as last week, SIPC's chairman sent a letter to one member of Congress saying SIPC disagrees with the SEC's decision.
Sen. David Vitter, R-La., had been trying to arrange some sort of settlement between the SEC and SIPC. Those efforts apparently fell through.
"The SEC needs to take definite action before the end of the year, and I'm afraid that's going to mean suing SIPC," he told SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro.
The SEC, of course, is making up for past mistakes. Having bungled earlier investigations into Stanford, it then took more than two years to reach a decision on SIPC coverage.
It may be getting tough now, but suing SIPC means investors, who have been strung along for almost three years, must wait even longer to find out if their losses are covered. Sadly, in this case, that's progress.
Tuesday, 2 August 2011
Both parties scheme for Ponzi cash
By Jim McElhatton - The Washington Post
The fundraising arms for Democratic and Republican members of Congress don’t agree on much, except when it comes to all the big donations they’ve gotten over the years from jailed financier R. Allen Stanford.
In recent days, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) and other party organizations appealed a court order to return more than $1.7 million combined they received that were tied to Mr. Stanford’s alleged multibillion-dollar bilking of thousands of investors. He’s in jail awaiting trial on charges of running a Ponzi scheme while a court-appointed receiver tries to recoup money for investors.
The appeals come a month after a federal judge in Texas ordered the organizations to return the money. But in a recent court filing, attorneys for the DSCC and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which owe more than $1.2 million combined, asked for a stay before having to turn over the money. They want to post bond or a letter of credit pending an appeal.
Meanwhile, in a separate set of court papers, attorneys for the NRCC, the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee and Republican National Committee filed a notice to appeal the ruling, too.
“After thoroughly reviewing the court’s decision and the relevant law, and in light of an important change in the precedent on which the court relied, we believe we have an excellent chance of success,” said Kirsten Kukowski, spokeswoman for the RNC.
The combined legal efforts of the political parties show the lengths political committees mdash; Democrat and Republican alike — will go to protect party coffers with control of Congress and the White House up for grabs in 2012.
“Stanford aimed most of his campaign contributions to congressional leaders and party bosses, and eventually started giving heavily to presidential candidates as well, which coincided with the weakening of offshore disclosure and tax regulations that directly benefited Stanford’s shady business,” said Craig Holman, legislative representative for the D.C.-based watchdog group Public Citizen.
“Like other campaign contributions tainted by scandal, candidates and the party committees should try to show that they personally have not been influenced by the money and turn Stanford contributions over to charity,” he said.
Federal law allows campaign committees to part with donations in several ways. They can return contributions, donate them to charity or send the money to the U.S. Treasury.
But Ralph Janvey, receiver in the Stanford case, wants the money returned to investors. In addition to taking the major-party fundraising committees to court, the receiver previously sent letters to dozens of other politicians who received Stanford money over the years. More than a year later, he’s still waiting.
According to the most recent accounting last month, politicians have returned $132,500, with nearly $1.8 million still not yet returned, though most of that is still in the hands of the party fundraising groups fighting in court.
Aside from the political committees, Rep. Charles B. Rangel, New York Democrat, appears to be the biggest beneficiary of Stanford cash among those who have yet to return donations. The Rangel Victory Fund received $25,000 from Mr. Stanford, his associates and businesses, money that Mr. Janvey says is directly tied to the Ponzi scheme.
Other beneficiaries include the New Jersey Democratic State Committee and Rep. Pete Sessions, Texas Republican, with $10,000 each. Rep. Gregory Meeks, New York Democrat, received $6,600.
Phone and email messages left with the members of Congress were not returned, nor was a message left with the New Jersey Democratic State Committee.
Among dozens of politicians who have returned the contributions are Sen. Richard C. Shelby, Alabama Republican, who sent back $14,000; former Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, Connecticut Democrat, who returned $27,500 from his presidential and Senate campaigns; and Sen. Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, who returned $8,000.
In court documents, attorneys for the major-party committees put forth several arguments for why they should be allowed to keep the contributions, including arguing that the lawsuits seeking the return of the money weren’t filed on time.
U.S. District Judge David Godbey disagreed, noting in a 61-page ruling that the committees “fail to create a fact issue concerning the Ponzi scheme’s existence or the contributions’ source and make no attempt to show that the contributions were made in exchange for consideration of reasonably equivalent value.”
The judge ordered the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee to return $1,037,347; the NRCC, $260,291; the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, $218,273; the National Republican Senatorial Committee, $90,960; and the Republican National Committee, $140,241.
Kevin Sadler, attorney for Mr. Janvey, said in an email that the ruling represented an important victory for the receivership and thousands of victims of the Ponzi scheme.
“As important as this decision is, there remain hundreds of other defendants, individuals, companies and organizations, which, like these political committees, received hundreds of millions of dollars of investor funds diverted by Allen Stanford and his fraud scheme,” Mr. Sadler said.
“Such funds rightfully belong only to the receiver, whose duty it is to recover these funds and use them to compensate the victims of the Stanford fraud.”
Mr. Stanford’s trial recently was postponed from September to January. He has pleaded not guilty to charges of bilking investors of about $7 billion.
The fundraising arms for Democratic and Republican members of Congress don’t agree on much, except when it comes to all the big donations they’ve gotten over the years from jailed financier R. Allen Stanford.
In recent days, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) and other party organizations appealed a court order to return more than $1.7 million combined they received that were tied to Mr. Stanford’s alleged multibillion-dollar bilking of thousands of investors. He’s in jail awaiting trial on charges of running a Ponzi scheme while a court-appointed receiver tries to recoup money for investors.
The appeals come a month after a federal judge in Texas ordered the organizations to return the money. But in a recent court filing, attorneys for the DSCC and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which owe more than $1.2 million combined, asked for a stay before having to turn over the money. They want to post bond or a letter of credit pending an appeal.
Meanwhile, in a separate set of court papers, attorneys for the NRCC, the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee and Republican National Committee filed a notice to appeal the ruling, too.
“After thoroughly reviewing the court’s decision and the relevant law, and in light of an important change in the precedent on which the court relied, we believe we have an excellent chance of success,” said Kirsten Kukowski, spokeswoman for the RNC.
The combined legal efforts of the political parties show the lengths political committees mdash; Democrat and Republican alike — will go to protect party coffers with control of Congress and the White House up for grabs in 2012.
“Stanford aimed most of his campaign contributions to congressional leaders and party bosses, and eventually started giving heavily to presidential candidates as well, which coincided with the weakening of offshore disclosure and tax regulations that directly benefited Stanford’s shady business,” said Craig Holman, legislative representative for the D.C.-based watchdog group Public Citizen.
“Like other campaign contributions tainted by scandal, candidates and the party committees should try to show that they personally have not been influenced by the money and turn Stanford contributions over to charity,” he said.
Federal law allows campaign committees to part with donations in several ways. They can return contributions, donate them to charity or send the money to the U.S. Treasury.
But Ralph Janvey, receiver in the Stanford case, wants the money returned to investors. In addition to taking the major-party fundraising committees to court, the receiver previously sent letters to dozens of other politicians who received Stanford money over the years. More than a year later, he’s still waiting.
According to the most recent accounting last month, politicians have returned $132,500, with nearly $1.8 million still not yet returned, though most of that is still in the hands of the party fundraising groups fighting in court.
Aside from the political committees, Rep. Charles B. Rangel, New York Democrat, appears to be the biggest beneficiary of Stanford cash among those who have yet to return donations. The Rangel Victory Fund received $25,000 from Mr. Stanford, his associates and businesses, money that Mr. Janvey says is directly tied to the Ponzi scheme.
Other beneficiaries include the New Jersey Democratic State Committee and Rep. Pete Sessions, Texas Republican, with $10,000 each. Rep. Gregory Meeks, New York Democrat, received $6,600.
Phone and email messages left with the members of Congress were not returned, nor was a message left with the New Jersey Democratic State Committee.
Among dozens of politicians who have returned the contributions are Sen. Richard C. Shelby, Alabama Republican, who sent back $14,000; former Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, Connecticut Democrat, who returned $27,500 from his presidential and Senate campaigns; and Sen. Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, who returned $8,000.
In court documents, attorneys for the major-party committees put forth several arguments for why they should be allowed to keep the contributions, including arguing that the lawsuits seeking the return of the money weren’t filed on time.
U.S. District Judge David Godbey disagreed, noting in a 61-page ruling that the committees “fail to create a fact issue concerning the Ponzi scheme’s existence or the contributions’ source and make no attempt to show that the contributions were made in exchange for consideration of reasonably equivalent value.”
The judge ordered the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee to return $1,037,347; the NRCC, $260,291; the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, $218,273; the National Republican Senatorial Committee, $90,960; and the Republican National Committee, $140,241.
Kevin Sadler, attorney for Mr. Janvey, said in an email that the ruling represented an important victory for the receivership and thousands of victims of the Ponzi scheme.
“As important as this decision is, there remain hundreds of other defendants, individuals, companies and organizations, which, like these political committees, received hundreds of millions of dollars of investor funds diverted by Allen Stanford and his fraud scheme,” Mr. Sadler said.
“Such funds rightfully belong only to the receiver, whose duty it is to recover these funds and use them to compensate the victims of the Stanford fraud.”
Mr. Stanford’s trial recently was postponed from September to January. He has pleaded not guilty to charges of bilking investors of about $7 billion.
Friday, 13 May 2011
House Republicans to dissect SEC's Stanford failure
SEC to say numerous improvements have been made
* Republicans expected to question SEC competence
* SEC near recommendation on SIPC coverage for victims
U.S. securities regulators will argue they have mended their ways at a congressional hearing Friday into the decade-long failure to investigate Texas financier Allen Stanford's alleged Ponzi scheme.
Republicans are expected to demand answers as to why it took the Securities and Exchange Commission so long to probe Stanford despite repeated attempts by SEC examiners to bring the matter to the enforcement division's attention.
The hearing before the House Financial Services oversight subcommittee could fuel Republican calls to take an ax to the SEC's 2012 budget request.
The SEC says it needs a 16 percent budget increase to boost enforcement efforts and to carry out its new responsibilities under the Dodd-Frank law.
The SEC filed civil charges against Stanford in February 2009. He was then arrested in June 2009 and criminally charged with fraud in connection with a $7 billion scheme linked to certificates of deposit issued by his Antigua-based banking company.
Stanford, who has denied any wrongdoing, is scheduled to go on trial in September.
His arrest came the same month as the sentencing of epic swindler Bernard Madoff, whose Ponzi scheme went undetected for years by the SEC despite tips and the suspicions of some agency staffers.
A Ponzi scheme is one in which money from new investors is used to pay out early investors.
Witnesses at Friday's hearing will include SEC Enforcement Director Robert Khuzami, examinations and inspections director Carlo di Florio, and an SEC employee who repeatedly warned about Stanford and was punished after she complained about watered-down examinations.
Also due to appear is SEC Inspector General David Kotz, who issued a report in 2010 faulting the SEC's enforcement staff for repeatedly failing to investigate Stanford.
He laid out numerous recommendations to improve SEC enforcement and examinations, all of which Kotz will tell lawmakers on Friday "have been implemented and closed to our satisfaction," according to prepared testimony posted on the House panel's website.
Khuzami and di Florio will express deep regret that the SEC failed to act more quickly. "More remains to be done, but...we have made great strides to put in place the people and structures to prevent another occurrence of Stanford-type problems."
Republicans are expected to ask why no one has been disciplined at the SEC over the Stanford matter, and why the victims of the alleged scheme are still fighting to get the Securities Investor Protection Corp to cover their claims.
Khuzami and di Florio's prepared testimony says the SEC is close to finalizing a recommendation to SIPC on whether the victims' claims should be covered.
* Republicans expected to question SEC competence
* SEC near recommendation on SIPC coverage for victims
U.S. securities regulators will argue they have mended their ways at a congressional hearing Friday into the decade-long failure to investigate Texas financier Allen Stanford's alleged Ponzi scheme.
Republicans are expected to demand answers as to why it took the Securities and Exchange Commission so long to probe Stanford despite repeated attempts by SEC examiners to bring the matter to the enforcement division's attention.
The hearing before the House Financial Services oversight subcommittee could fuel Republican calls to take an ax to the SEC's 2012 budget request.
The SEC says it needs a 16 percent budget increase to boost enforcement efforts and to carry out its new responsibilities under the Dodd-Frank law.
The SEC filed civil charges against Stanford in February 2009. He was then arrested in June 2009 and criminally charged with fraud in connection with a $7 billion scheme linked to certificates of deposit issued by his Antigua-based banking company.
Stanford, who has denied any wrongdoing, is scheduled to go on trial in September.
His arrest came the same month as the sentencing of epic swindler Bernard Madoff, whose Ponzi scheme went undetected for years by the SEC despite tips and the suspicions of some agency staffers.
A Ponzi scheme is one in which money from new investors is used to pay out early investors.
Witnesses at Friday's hearing will include SEC Enforcement Director Robert Khuzami, examinations and inspections director Carlo di Florio, and an SEC employee who repeatedly warned about Stanford and was punished after she complained about watered-down examinations.
Also due to appear is SEC Inspector General David Kotz, who issued a report in 2010 faulting the SEC's enforcement staff for repeatedly failing to investigate Stanford.
He laid out numerous recommendations to improve SEC enforcement and examinations, all of which Kotz will tell lawmakers on Friday "have been implemented and closed to our satisfaction," according to prepared testimony posted on the House panel's website.
Khuzami and di Florio will express deep regret that the SEC failed to act more quickly. "More remains to be done, but...we have made great strides to put in place the people and structures to prevent another occurrence of Stanford-type problems."
Republicans are expected to ask why no one has been disciplined at the SEC over the Stanford matter, and why the victims of the alleged scheme are still fighting to get the Securities Investor Protection Corp to cover their claims.
Khuzami and di Florio's prepared testimony says the SEC is close to finalizing a recommendation to SIPC on whether the victims' claims should be covered.