Allen Stanford’s Motion to Vacate lodged on 24th April 2014 Raises Interesting Issues

As many of you may know Allen Stanford appealed his conviction on 24th April 2014.

In his “Motion to Vacate” Allen Stanford has cited various reasons not least of which that the CDs were regulated only in the sovereign nation of Antigua and that the SEC had no jurisdiction and no authority to go after him.

Should Allen Stanford successful in his argument its conceivable that it could have implications for any appeal by the SEC against SIPC and also in the lawsuit that KLS is bringing against the SEC.

The Motion to Vacate makes interesting reading whether you agree with Stanford’s assertions or not and could potentially affect victims entitlements should Stanford be successful.

Some of the more interesting claims made in Stanford’s “Motion to Vacate” which you may or may not agree with are:

  1. The SEC had no jurisdictional or regulatory authority over SIB.
  2. Allen Stanford was denied due Process, and the venue for their complaint was improper.
  3. There was a blatant violation of Stanford’s Fourth Amendment right to protection from illegal search and seizure.
  4. Fraud upon de Court in this matter

Stanford’s motion also calls into question the report by Ms Van Tassel. When questioned Ms Tassel had experience in only two other matters that involved ponzi schemes, one involved a computer re-seller where no written report was submitted and a second involving real estate.
Stanford’s motion argues that Ms Van Tassel was Senior Managing director of FTI Consulting which was not a CPA firm and her company was unlicensed (in Texas) to perform the work it performed.

You can read the Allen Stanford’s “Motion to Vacate” HERE

For a full and open debate on the Stanford receivership visit the Stanford International Victims Group – SIVG official Forum



Cassidy: SEC should appeal ruling against Stanford victims

Rep. Bill Cassidy, R-Baton Rouge, is asking Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Mary Jo White to appeal a D.C. Court of Appeals ruling that victims of the Stanford Ponzi scheme aren’t eligible for compensation from a fund established by the Securities Investor Protection Corp.

The court ruled that the losses, painful as they were, came from foreign certificates of deposit issued by banks that aren’t part of the corporation’s industry members who fund the account to reimburse victims of financial fraud.

In 2012, Allan Stanford, the former board of directors chairman of Stanford International Bank (SIB), was sentenced to 110 years in prison for what the federal government said was orchestrating a 20-year investment fraud scheme in which he misappropriated $7 billion to finance his personal businesses. Many of the victimized investors are from Baton Rouge and Lafayette.

The SEC had urged the Investor Protection Corporation to reimburse Stanford victims for some of their losses. The corporation refused, and an appeals court found that it had valid reasons to reject the payouts.

“Stanford Victims’ financial futures have been damaged by the Ponzi scheme, and now threatened by SEC inaction,” said Cassidy, a candidate for the U.S. Senate. “Since similar cases have ruled in victims’ favors, I urge the SEC to appeal the U.S. Court of Appeals ruling. The Stanford Ponzi Scheme devastated many Louisiana families, we must do all we can to help these families achieve justice.”

Read more here:

For a full and open debate on the Stanford receivership visit the Stanford International Victims Group – SIVG official Forum

KLS Stanford Update August 21, 2014



Dear Stanford Clients:

We write to update you on the progress of the claim against the Securities and Exchange Commission. As communicated in our previous update, Kachroo Legal Services, P.C. (the “Firm”) submitted its appeal on behalf of all clients to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in February. In response, the United States filed its Appellee’s Brief on March 10, 2014.

Thereafter, on March 27, 2014, in direct response to the Appellee’s Brief, the Firm prepared and submitted on behalf of all clients a Reply Brief. The Reply Brief addressed specific issues raised by the Government and focused specifically on the following points:


  1. The SEC’s alleged failure to adequately perform an operational task, which is not subject to the misrepresentation exception of the Federal Tort Claims Act;
  2. That the SEC’s alleged breach was of a duty to warn and not communicate with due care;                                           and
  3. The Government’s interpretation of the amended registration process is flawed.


The Court has ordered oral arguments in this case which will occur at the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on September 11, 2014. KLS will continue its work in preparing for the hearing and will update all clients thereafter.

Once oral argument is complete, we shall await the Court’s judgment and shall keep all clients updated. As ever, if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Very truly yours,

KLS Stanford Team
Kachroo Legal Services, P.C.

Read more here:

For a full and open debate on the Stanford receivership visit the Stanford International Victims Group – SIVG official Forum



Convicted Ponzi schemer/banker R Allen Stanford, who is appealing* his conviction, Pro Se, has filed what he captioned “Motion to the Court for the Appointment of a Qualified Law Clerk.”

Stanford’s initial brief is due on September 16, 2014; He must file it by that date. Stanford, in his motion, which includes legalese that indicates it was most likely ghost written by another inmate, states:

“Stanford’s only remaining concern is that he adheres to, and complies with, any and all of this Court’s requirements on submission. Therefore, he now respectfully requests that this Court appoint a qualified law clerk to review his appeal and make certain that it comports to all requirements.” (Motion at 1-2).”

The Clerk of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals not only did not present this motion to the judges, he promptly sent a terse memorandum to Stanford:

“The Court will take no action on your Motion for Appointment of a Qualified Law Clerk, as this Court does not provide such relief.”

Is he actually asking that the judge have one of his law clerks, who are new attorneys that assist the court in case management, assist him ? This has to be the height of arrogance; Stanford asked to proceed Pro Se, and now he is saying that he cannot handle the appeal. Why don’t some of his friends, business associates, or family get him a lawyer ? Where is all that money ?

Given that any review of the brief would entail experience with the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Fifth Circuit Local Rules, and the fundamentals of brief writing, only an appellate attorney, who has experience practicing in the 5th Circuit, would be satisfactory, in my humble opinion. Is Stanford seeking to create grounds for a further appeal, in the event that the one appeal that he has as a matter of right will probably not succeed ? We cannot say, but no Federal Judge is going to create the right to a law clerk in a Pro Se appeal, where none exists in the statutes, or case law.

Stanford is on his last possible extension for the brief, as the Court has already stated that “no further enlargements [extensions of time] will be given.” Furthermore, his request to file a brief in excess of the page limit has been denied. The wheels of justice are about to move forward in his case, whether he likes it or not.

Read more here:

For a full and open debate on the Stanford receivership visit the Stanford International Victims Group – SIVG official Forum

SIPC’s Brokerage Insurance Scam of Allen Stanford’s Victims — Another Reason to Close Your Brokerage Account Now!

Imagine you invest with a broker whose front doors, office plaques, coffee mugs, pencils, brochures, stationery, folders, office signage, and emails all proclaim that your investments are insured by SIPC – Wall Street’s so-called “Securities Investor Protection Corporation.”

Your broker tells you the stock market is overvalued. But he has a very safe, moderate-yield investment opportunity that entails purchasing certificates of deposits.

You like and trust your broker, and maybe have a long history with him. And CDs? Well, everyone knows that CDs are very safe. So you agree with your broker—he’s the expert after all. Indeed, since your brokerage firm, Firm X, is managing all your investments and since you just retired, you decide, at your broker’s urging, to put all your money into Firm X’s CDs–even your IRA funds.

The next day, the next month, or maybe the next year your brokerage firm goes under due to fraud. None of the money you spent on Firm X’s CDs, you learn, was actually invested in other securities to produce a return on Firm X’s CD. Instead, your money was stolen. It was used to pay the brokerage Firm X’s bills, including incredibly lavish salaries for its top brass.

You’re totally devastated. All your retirement savings, which you spent your entire working life accumulating, just went up in smoke. But there’s one silver lining – SIPC, with its promise of up to $500,000 of brokerage account protection.

You call up SIPC and request your insurance payment……………………

The full article can be read here:

For a full and open debate on the Stanford receivership visit the Stanford International Victims Group – SIVG official Forum