By MICHAEL ROTHFELD
R. Allen Stanford, who has gone through a carousel of defense lawyers, an addiction to medication and a jailhouse beating, is now complaining of another malady, a person familiar with the matter says: amnesia.
The former Texas financier says he cannot remember events prior to his arrest in June 2009, the person said.
U.S. District Judge David Hittner in Texas ordered in January that Mr. Stanford be weaned off anti-anxiety medication and anti-depressants at the recommendation of psychiatrists. The judge declared Mr. Stanford unable then to help defend himself against charges of masterminding a $7 billion Ponzi scheme.
Doctors are expected soon to report back on Mr. Stanford's condition. The judge will decide if the trial can go forward in January. Mr. Stanford's lawyer declined to comment.
Roy Lubit, a forensic psychiatrist in New York not involved in the case, said medication and withdrawal are unlikely to cause memory loss. "If it's being cut back at a reasonable pace, that shouldn't stop them from being competent," he said.
Dr. Lubit and Colin Koransky, a forensic psychiatrist in California, both said a head injury—Mr. Stanford suffered one in the beating—could cause amnesia for recent events but is unlikely to affect older memories.
Showing posts with label addicted. Show all posts
Showing posts with label addicted. Show all posts
Friday, 16 September 2011
Thursday, 5 May 2011
New Allen Stanford Indictment Unlikely to End Delays
A federal grand jury in Houston has returned a new, 14-count indictment against alleged fraudster Allen Stanford, who was already accused in 2009 of running a $7 billion Ponzi scheme. But the new charges are unlikely to move the case closer to a trial.
Stanford was initially charged along with three former executives and the former top banking regulator in Antigua, the home of Stanford's offshore bank. But the co-defendants' cases were separated from Stanford's last year. The new indictment charges Stanford alone.
As in the earlier case, he is accused of conspiracy, wire fraud, mail fraud, obstruction of an SEC investigation and conspiracy to commit money laundering.
The new indictment removes two counts of wire fraud and five counts of mail fraud, and Stanford is no longer accused of conspiracy to commit securities fraud. Still, Stanford faces up to 250 years in prison.
A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment, citing a court-imposed gag order in the case.
While the new indictment sharpens the focus on Stanford as a lone defendant, it is unclear whether it will do much to advance a case that has been hopelessly stalled for months.
Stanford's original trial, scheduled for January, was postponed indefinitely after he became addicted to prescription drugs while in federal custody and a judge ruled him incompetent. Because of that, he is also unable to answer the new charges against him and will not attend an arraignment scheduled for May 19. Stanford's court-appointed defense attorney, Ali Fazel, says that as a matter of law, Stanford cannot enter a plea.
"He has been found incompetent," Fazel said. "We are on standby."
The fate of Stanford's initial co-defendants—former chief investment officer Laura Pendergest-Holt, former accounting executives Mark Kuhrt and Gilbert Lopez, and former Antiguan banking regulator Leroy King—also remains unclear. Pendergest-Holt, Kuhrt and Lopez have all pleaded not guilty. King, who holds dual citizenship in the U.S. and Antigua, has been fighting extradition to the U.S.
Fazel notes that as a matter of law, the judge in the case could put the co-defendants on trial at any time, but instead has chosen to delay their cases until after Stanford's trial, which has been postponed indefinitely.
"The other defendants are free on bond and have had months to study the charges," Fazel said. Citing the judge's gag order, however, Fazel to speculate on why the co-defendants are being allowed to wait for trial.
"Make of that what you will," he said.
The new indictment comes at a time when investors and others touched by the Stanford scandal have been turning up the heat on the authorities in hopes of moving the case along. The delays have confounded efforts by a court-appointed receiver to recover assets for Stanford's alleged victims, because most of the missing funds are believed to be in overseas accounts. Without a guilty verdict and a forfeiture order, the funds are off limits to U.S. authorities, meaning investors are likely to see just pennies on the dollar.
The receiver, Dallas attorney Ralph Janvey, has instead been focusing his efforts in the U.S. Janvey has filed dozens of so-called "clawback" claims, including against dozens of former Stanford employees and investment advisors. One such claim targets two advisors widely credited with helping authorities make their case against Stanford: Charles Rawl and Mark Tidwell of Houston.
The two sued Stanford in 2007, saying they left the company due to rampant fraud, which the company denied. Rawl and Tidwell say they brought their evidence to the SEC, which sued Stanford in 2009. (Read about other whistleblower cases and how the SEC rewards tipsters here.)
Rawl, who has not spoken publicly about the case in two years, told CNBC exclusively this week that he and Tidwell contacted the SEC seeking help with the suit by the receiver, but were told they are on their own.
"The SEC attorneys informed us that, you know, 'We've got your back guys, you're good with us,'" Rawl said. But apparently that goodwill only went so far. Rawl said they were told, "We like you, you're our guys, but we don't control the receiver. There's nothing we can do to help you.'"
An SEC spokesman did not respond to CNBC's request for a comment.
Rawl believes the government is intentionally dragging its feet because authorities took so long to move in on Stanford. A 2010 SEC Inspector General's report found the agency was aware of issues at Stanford as far back as 1997. Rawl alleges the delays in Stanford's criminal case are part of what he calls a cover-up.
"The further that people dig, the more embarrassment on the government's part," Rawl said. "I think certain people hope it just fades away."
Stanford was initially charged along with three former executives and the former top banking regulator in Antigua, the home of Stanford's offshore bank. But the co-defendants' cases were separated from Stanford's last year. The new indictment charges Stanford alone.
As in the earlier case, he is accused of conspiracy, wire fraud, mail fraud, obstruction of an SEC investigation and conspiracy to commit money laundering.
The new indictment removes two counts of wire fraud and five counts of mail fraud, and Stanford is no longer accused of conspiracy to commit securities fraud. Still, Stanford faces up to 250 years in prison.
A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment, citing a court-imposed gag order in the case.
While the new indictment sharpens the focus on Stanford as a lone defendant, it is unclear whether it will do much to advance a case that has been hopelessly stalled for months.
Stanford's original trial, scheduled for January, was postponed indefinitely after he became addicted to prescription drugs while in federal custody and a judge ruled him incompetent. Because of that, he is also unable to answer the new charges against him and will not attend an arraignment scheduled for May 19. Stanford's court-appointed defense attorney, Ali Fazel, says that as a matter of law, Stanford cannot enter a plea.
"He has been found incompetent," Fazel said. "We are on standby."
The fate of Stanford's initial co-defendants—former chief investment officer Laura Pendergest-Holt, former accounting executives Mark Kuhrt and Gilbert Lopez, and former Antiguan banking regulator Leroy King—also remains unclear. Pendergest-Holt, Kuhrt and Lopez have all pleaded not guilty. King, who holds dual citizenship in the U.S. and Antigua, has been fighting extradition to the U.S.
Fazel notes that as a matter of law, the judge in the case could put the co-defendants on trial at any time, but instead has chosen to delay their cases until after Stanford's trial, which has been postponed indefinitely.
"The other defendants are free on bond and have had months to study the charges," Fazel said. Citing the judge's gag order, however, Fazel to speculate on why the co-defendants are being allowed to wait for trial.
"Make of that what you will," he said.
The new indictment comes at a time when investors and others touched by the Stanford scandal have been turning up the heat on the authorities in hopes of moving the case along. The delays have confounded efforts by a court-appointed receiver to recover assets for Stanford's alleged victims, because most of the missing funds are believed to be in overseas accounts. Without a guilty verdict and a forfeiture order, the funds are off limits to U.S. authorities, meaning investors are likely to see just pennies on the dollar.
The receiver, Dallas attorney Ralph Janvey, has instead been focusing his efforts in the U.S. Janvey has filed dozens of so-called "clawback" claims, including against dozens of former Stanford employees and investment advisors. One such claim targets two advisors widely credited with helping authorities make their case against Stanford: Charles Rawl and Mark Tidwell of Houston.
The two sued Stanford in 2007, saying they left the company due to rampant fraud, which the company denied. Rawl and Tidwell say they brought their evidence to the SEC, which sued Stanford in 2009. (Read about other whistleblower cases and how the SEC rewards tipsters here.)
Rawl, who has not spoken publicly about the case in two years, told CNBC exclusively this week that he and Tidwell contacted the SEC seeking help with the suit by the receiver, but were told they are on their own.
"The SEC attorneys informed us that, you know, 'We've got your back guys, you're good with us,'" Rawl said. But apparently that goodwill only went so far. Rawl said they were told, "We like you, you're our guys, but we don't control the receiver. There's nothing we can do to help you.'"
An SEC spokesman did not respond to CNBC's request for a comment.
Rawl believes the government is intentionally dragging its feet because authorities took so long to move in on Stanford. A 2010 SEC Inspector General's report found the agency was aware of issues at Stanford as far back as 1997. Rawl alleges the delays in Stanford's criminal case are part of what he calls a cover-up.
"The further that people dig, the more embarrassment on the government's part," Rawl said. "I think certain people hope it just fades away."
Friday, 18 February 2011
Allen Stanford — Incompetent to Stand Trial, Competent to Sue US Government
Source: Walter Pavlo (forbes)
Allen Stanford was recently transferred (en route) to Butner federal prison after a judge ruled that he was not competent to stand trail. This ruling was made after evidence was put forward that Stanford was deeply depressed, was addicted to anti-depressants and had suffered trauma from a beating by another inmate in prison. Clearly, life is not good for Allen Stanford these days.
Now comes news that Stanford is suing the U.S. government for $7.2 billion accusing federal prosecutors and regulators of depriving him of his constitutional rights. That’s an aggressive action for a guy who was ruled not competent to stand trial. The earlier ruling by the judge indicated that Stanford was not able to help in mounting a defense since but it seems that he is able to mount an OFFENSE. Stanford’s defense is being paid for with taxpayer dollars since being declared indigent by the same judge that deemed him incompetent to stand trial. So Stanford is now suing the same entity (the U.S. government) that is footing the bill for his defense. Confused? I am.
I guess Stanford is not going anywhere quickly but while this delay goes on there are many victims, or investors if Stanford is found innocent, waiting. All of Stanford’s assets have been frozen but the trial would provide a way to distribute those funds. With Madoff’s scheme, an early guilty verdict provided a way for the government to move in, recover and begin distributing stolen assets. With Stanford, we’re still awaiting a plea or a trial to figure out what went on.
There is no clear time frame for when Stanford will be competent to stand trial….but my guess is that this is going to take a while.
Allen Stanford was recently transferred (en route) to Butner federal prison after a judge ruled that he was not competent to stand trail. This ruling was made after evidence was put forward that Stanford was deeply depressed, was addicted to anti-depressants and had suffered trauma from a beating by another inmate in prison. Clearly, life is not good for Allen Stanford these days.
Now comes news that Stanford is suing the U.S. government for $7.2 billion accusing federal prosecutors and regulators of depriving him of his constitutional rights. That’s an aggressive action for a guy who was ruled not competent to stand trial. The earlier ruling by the judge indicated that Stanford was not able to help in mounting a defense since but it seems that he is able to mount an OFFENSE. Stanford’s defense is being paid for with taxpayer dollars since being declared indigent by the same judge that deemed him incompetent to stand trial. So Stanford is now suing the same entity (the U.S. government) that is footing the bill for his defense. Confused? I am.
I guess Stanford is not going anywhere quickly but while this delay goes on there are many victims, or investors if Stanford is found innocent, waiting. All of Stanford’s assets have been frozen but the trial would provide a way to distribute those funds. With Madoff’s scheme, an early guilty verdict provided a way for the government to move in, recover and begin distributing stolen assets. With Stanford, we’re still awaiting a plea or a trial to figure out what went on.
There is no clear time frame for when Stanford will be competent to stand trial….but my guess is that this is going to take a while.
Thursday, 20 January 2011
Allen Stanford's Lawyers Say Alleged Ponzi Schemer Needs Luxury Rehab
Lawyers for Allen Stanford say the billionaire allegedly Ponzi schemer is addicted to an anti-anxiety medication and needs to be released from prison and sent to an upscale rehabilitation facility in Houston, Texas.
Stanford, a psychiatrist working for his legal team said in court filings, has a traumatic brain injury; is overmedicated on and addicted to Klonopin; has dementia caused by an assault that caused traumatic brain injury; and has major depressive disorder.
The psychiatrist wants him to stay at the Memorial Hermann Hospital Prevention and Recovery Center. A website for that center notes that the center is "equipped with a greenhouse and basketball pavilion" and a virtual tour shows patients playing billiards in a recreation room.
In a Jan. 11 filing, a lawyer for Stanford said that the defense agrees that the accused needs to be inpatient for the first 30 days, but then may complete treatment on an outpatient basis.
"Such placement will comply with the mandates of due process, provide the appropriate medical treatment necessary for rehabilitation, and allow access to his attorneys and family members," Ali R. Fazel argued. "As discussed in cases cited above placement in a Federal Medical Center, prison, will undermine the rehabilitative process and lengthen the recovery period."
The lawyer argued that the federal prison never should have given Stanford the medication he's become addicted to and that it was not a suitable facility for Stanford's recovery.
"The Federal Detention Center should never have prescribed Klonopin to Mr. Stanford, as he does not suffer from an anxiety or panic disorder, nor does he suffer from epileptic seizures," Fazel argued.
"Prescription of this medication created medical and mental problems that Mr. Stanford did not have prior to being incarcerated," Fazel said. "The side effects of Klonopin are well known and available to anyone with internet capability."
Earlier this month, a federal judge indefinitely delayed Stanford's trial, which had been set to begin on Jan. 24.
Now Stanford's lawyers and the federal prosecutors working on the case are awaiting a judge's decision on whether he should be allowed to recover from his additions so he is fully capable of defending himself in court.
Three psychiatrists, including one hired by the government, said that Stanford "suffers from a mental disease or defect that presently deprives him of the ability to effectively assist his attorneys in preparing for trial, or to testify on his own behalf at trial," Fazel said.
Justice Department lawyers had earlier argued that Stanford's lawyers were simply trying to get a "lengthy continuance to further what appears to be his only goal in this case: obtaining pretrial release."
Stanford, a psychiatrist working for his legal team said in court filings, has a traumatic brain injury; is overmedicated on and addicted to Klonopin; has dementia caused by an assault that caused traumatic brain injury; and has major depressive disorder.
The psychiatrist wants him to stay at the Memorial Hermann Hospital Prevention and Recovery Center. A website for that center notes that the center is "equipped with a greenhouse and basketball pavilion" and a virtual tour shows patients playing billiards in a recreation room.
In a Jan. 11 filing, a lawyer for Stanford said that the defense agrees that the accused needs to be inpatient for the first 30 days, but then may complete treatment on an outpatient basis.
"Such placement will comply with the mandates of due process, provide the appropriate medical treatment necessary for rehabilitation, and allow access to his attorneys and family members," Ali R. Fazel argued. "As discussed in cases cited above placement in a Federal Medical Center, prison, will undermine the rehabilitative process and lengthen the recovery period."
The lawyer argued that the federal prison never should have given Stanford the medication he's become addicted to and that it was not a suitable facility for Stanford's recovery.
"The Federal Detention Center should never have prescribed Klonopin to Mr. Stanford, as he does not suffer from an anxiety or panic disorder, nor does he suffer from epileptic seizures," Fazel argued.
"Prescription of this medication created medical and mental problems that Mr. Stanford did not have prior to being incarcerated," Fazel said. "The side effects of Klonopin are well known and available to anyone with internet capability."
Earlier this month, a federal judge indefinitely delayed Stanford's trial, which had been set to begin on Jan. 24.
Now Stanford's lawyers and the federal prosecutors working on the case are awaiting a judge's decision on whether he should be allowed to recover from his additions so he is fully capable of defending himself in court.
Three psychiatrists, including one hired by the government, said that Stanford "suffers from a mental disease or defect that presently deprives him of the ability to effectively assist his attorneys in preparing for trial, or to testify on his own behalf at trial," Fazel said.
Justice Department lawyers had earlier argued that Stanford's lawyers were simply trying to get a "lengthy continuance to further what appears to be his only goal in this case: obtaining pretrial release."