Kenneth Rijock

Kenneth Rijock

Tuesday, April 14, 2015

ALLEN STANFORD FILES A REPLY BRIEF IN HIS APPEAL TO THE FIFTH CIRCUIT


For those who are following Allen Stanford's Federal criminal case, Here are the issues that he has framed in the Reply Brief, which was filed in the appeal* that he has pending in the Fifth Circuit. Remember that he is Pro Se in his appeal, though obviously he is receiving jailhouse lawyer assistance from someone not well versed in the appropriate level of objectivity that appellate briefs require; judge for yourself.

His points, which I quote here verbatim :

(1) The erroneous legal strategy employed by the SEC, which resulted in the criminal prosecution of Stanford, was private-sector designed by two disgruntled former Stanford employees.

(2)The SEC did not have jurisdiction, or regulatory authority, over Stanford International Bank, or its certificates of deposit.

(3) The Government failed to respond to Stanford's jurisdiction argument.

(4) The parallel civil and criminal proceedings in the case violated the Double Jeopardy and Takings Clause.

(5) the Government cannot claim the Good Faith Exception.

In his conclusion, Stanford asserts that the Court should not affirm "a conviction that was obtained by and through:

"A wrongful and extraterritorially-applied [sic] interpretation of the Federal securities laws of the United States.

A civil and criminal investigation which were unlawfully coordinated, and conducted as one.

 An original and superseding indictment which were originally founded on non-existing statutory authority, then made duplicitous and constructively amended, and did not name or otherwise identify a single victim or specific loss, and this were fatally and incurably defective.

The undeniable collusion between a Federal Prosecutor (now a Fifth Circuit Judge), and a trial judge, to conceal the substantive differences between the original and Superseding Indictments, in order to expedite and begin trial, a mere five days after arraignment on the latter.

A trial that was in violation of no less than FOUR Constitutional rights, all challenged by the Defense and denied.

An Allen Charge that was unduly coercive, and instructive that the only proper verdict was guilty.

A Sentencing that was unsupported by the facts, and based entirely on supposition**."

We shall continue to report on all major developments in Stanford's appeal; stay tuned.
_____________________________________________________
* Stanford v. United States, Case No.: 12-20411 (5th Cir.).
**Reply Brief at 15-16.






No comments:

Post a Comment

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