Kenneth Rijock

Kenneth Rijock

Friday, November 7, 2014

ALLEN STANFORD FILES HIS APPELLATE BRIEF


Allen Stanford has filed the initial brief in the appeal of his conviction, for operating a massive Ponzi scheme in Antigua's Stanford International Bank, and for which he received a 110-year sentence. Stanford has had a number of procedural problems with the Fifth Circuit: first, he flagrantly disregarded their rules, and filed a 299-page brief, which exceeded the maximum word requirement. He later was forced to reduce the brief to 174 pages, but he still violated the Court's regulations on what can properly be appended. Should he not timely correct those errors, the Court has threatened to reject his brief, and dismiss the appeal, and I have not yet seen him make those corrections in the court file.

The points on appeal that he has listed are voluminous:

(1) The SEC has neither jurisdiction nor regulatory authority over Stanford International Bank, or over the certificates of deposit.
(2) Stanford's conviction under a defective indictment violated his Constitutional rights to a Fair Trial and Due Process.
(3) The trial court's denial of a continuance of the trial violated 18 USC §3161(C)(2) and Stanford's rights to a Fair Trial and Due Process.
(4) Simultaneous civil and criminal prosecutions, based on the same underlying events, violated Double Jeopardy.
(5) An illegal Search and Seizure resulted when the civil Receiver was used as a "Writ of Assistance" to the Prosecution.
(6) The trial court's improper responses to Jury Notes 2 and 3, violated Stanford's Constitutional rights.
(7) The enhancement of Stanford's sentence, based upon information not found in any count in the Superseding Indictment, nor submitted to the jury, nor proven beyond a reasonable doubt, violated Stanford's rights under the Sixth Amendment.
(8) The trial court demonstrated partiality in favor of the Government, in violation of Stanford's rights to Due Process and a Fair Trial.
(9) Under the Cumulative Error Doctrine, the issues presented by the Appellant demonstrate that the trial court's error denied Stanford his Constitutional rights to a Fair Trial and Due Process.

Readers who wish to review the complete text of the Revised Brief can access it here*. The signature recites that it is a Pro Se filing, but since Stanford has no legal education nor experience, one must assume that he had the able assistance of other inmates at United States Prison Coleman 2, a high security facility, and where his presumptive release date is April 17, 2105, eighty-nine years from now.

_____________________________________________________________________
http://www.scribd.com/doc/244653054/Allen-Stanford-s-Revised-Appeal

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.