Comments on: Stanford should have been shut down in 2003 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/06/stanford-should-have-been-shut-down-in-2003/ A slice of lime in the soda Thu, 23 May 2013 02:25:55 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: Catherine Burnell Freeman http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/06/stanford-should-have-been-shut-down-in-2003/comment-page-1/#comment-1520 Catherine Burnell Freeman Mon, 11 May 2009 11:04:24 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/06/stanford-should-have-been-shut-down-in-2003/#comment-1520 Dear Sir, I am writing to you concerning the ongoing situation with Allen Stanford and the collapse of Stanford International Bank. I am one of the depositors with Sib that has lost everything I worked hard to scrimp and save over a period of more than 40 years. Because of the freezing of Stanford’s companies I am now left penniless and reduced to having to beg from friends and neighbours. I have just watched a trailer from a documentary on BBC Panorama, this is the link for you to watch it. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8042349.stm After watching this I was shocked and horrified to realise that the DEA, and therefore the Bush administration and the United States Government knew about Allen Stanford and had serious reasons to believe that he was acting illegally as far back as 1990. The US chose to do nothing about his behaviour and illegal activities because they wanted to use him to help them find information about Drug Barons and money laundering. In fact the DEA encouraged him to continue to operate, knowing he was perpetrating a crime. The SEC, who were investigating him were called off and Allen Stanford was allowed – with the blessing of the DEA and the US government – to continue to defraud thousands of honest, hardworking, law abiding citizens of not just the USA, but the UK, Antigua and hundreds of other countries. In law, if a person or party has knowledge of a crime that is being committed and that party stands by and allows the crime to take place and does nothing about it, then they are also guilty of perpetrating that crime. Your government now stands accused of being a willing and knowing participant in the crime carried out by Allen Stanford against the thousands of depositors, who like me have lost everything. I feel that it is no coincidence that the “protection” being offered to Allen Stanford was taken away so soon after the Bush administration was removed from office and President Obama took over in the White House. Mr Obama strikes me as a genuine, honest, caring man and I would like to believe that if he did have any knowledge of what was happening with Stanford, he decide that he would not be party to such a web of deceit. The SEC was therefore given the go ahead to move in and close Stanford down. If this is correct, it happened too late for thousands of depositors and lives have been ruined. The DEA, and your Government have been complicit in this crime and as such, your Government now need to step up to the plate, take responsibility for their lack of judgement and make sure that very single depositor that has lost money with Allen Stanford is repaid in full. This is the very least that can be expected from the USA and President Obama. This scandal will not go away until you have done that, and it will leave a stain on the Presidency of Mr Obama. If he does accept that his Country has an obligation to act and recompense the depositors he will continue to be seen as an honest, genuine, caring President. If he chooses to turn his back on me and the other depositors, he will be seen as no better than Allen Stanford. I would like to ask if the present government thinks the sacrifice of all the thousands of depositors was worth it to catch a few drug lords and acquire bits of information about money laundering? The depositors seem to be viewed as collateral damage and sacrificial lambs, which were given no consideration by your government. The eyes of the world are on President Obama and how he behaves during his new term in office. I trust he will realise how wronged we the depositors have been and takes the necessary steps to right this wrong. Yours sincerely, Catherine Burnell (Depositor at Stanford International Bank, and Patsy to the DEA and the US Government) Dear Sir,

I am writing to you concerning the ongoing situation with Allen Stanford and the collapse of Stanford International Bank.

I am one of the depositors with Sib that has lost everything I worked hard to scrimp and save over a period of more than 40 years. Because of the freezing of Stanford’s companies I am now left penniless and reduced to having to beg from friends and neighbours.

I have just watched a trailer from a documentary on BBC Panorama, this is the link for you to watch it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8042349.st m

After watching this I was shocked and horrified to realise that the DEA, and therefore the Bush administration and the United States Government knew about Allen Stanford and had serious reasons to believe that he was acting illegally as far back as 1990. The US chose to do nothing about his behaviour and illegal activities because they wanted to use him to help them find information about Drug Barons and money laundering. In fact the DEA encouraged him to continue to operate, knowing he was perpetrating a crime. The SEC, who were investigating him were called off and Allen Stanford was allowed – with the blessing of the DEA and the US government – to continue to defraud thousands of honest, hardworking, law abiding citizens of not just the USA, but the UK, Antigua and hundreds of other countries.

In law, if a person or party has knowledge of a crime that is being committed and that party stands by and allows the crime to take place and does nothing about it, then they are also guilty of perpetrating that crime. Your government now stands accused of being a willing and knowing participant in the crime carried out by Allen Stanford against the thousands of depositors, who like me have lost everything.

I feel that it is no coincidence that the “protection” being offered to Allen Stanford was taken away so soon after the Bush administration was removed from office and President Obama took over in the White House. Mr Obama strikes me as a genuine, honest, caring man and I would like to believe that if he did have any knowledge of what was happening with Stanford, he decide that he would not be party to such a web of deceit. The SEC was therefore given the go ahead to move in and close Stanford down. If this is correct, it happened too late for thousands of depositors and lives have been ruined.

The DEA, and your Government have been complicit in this crime and as such, your Government now need to step up to the plate, take responsibility for their lack of judgement and make sure that very single depositor that has lost money with Allen Stanford is repaid in full. This is the very least that can be expected from the USA and President Obama. This scandal will not go away until you have done that, and it will leave a stain on the Presidency of Mr Obama. If he does accept that his Country has an obligation to act and recompense the depositors he will continue to be seen as an honest, genuine, caring President. If he chooses to turn his back on me and the other depositors, he will be seen as no better than Allen Stanford.

I would like to ask if the present government thinks the sacrifice of all the thousands of depositors was worth it to catch a few drug lords and acquire bits of information about money laundering? The depositors seem to be viewed as collateral damage and sacrificial lambs, which were given no consideration by your government. The eyes of the world are on President Obama and how he behaves during his new term in office. I trust he will realise how wronged we the depositors have been and takes the necessary steps to right this wrong.

Yours sincerely,

Catherine Burnell
(Depositor at Stanford International Bank, and Patsy to the DEA and the US Government)

]]> By: Byron Ratliff http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/06/stanford-should-have-been-shut-down-in-2003/comment-page-1/#comment-1496 Byron Ratliff Sat, 09 May 2009 14:00:21 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/06/stanford-should-have-been-shut-down-in-2003/#comment-1496 See previous comments. I got cut off before I was able to complete my comments. We have heard that there may have been some politicians who had knowledge of the Stanford situation but turned the other way and allowed it to continue. If this is true, it needs to be brought to the attention of the American people and these politicians brought to justice. It seems that the SEC and FBI have liability in this matter due to their "non-response". To my knowledged, they still have not officially brought charges against and proven anything against Allen Stanford. WE ARE IN SUPPORT OF A CLASS ACTION SUIT OF THE SEC AND/OR FBI. See previous comments. I got cut off before I was able to complete my comments.
We have heard that there may have been some politicians who had knowledge of the Stanford situation but turned the other way and allowed it to continue. If this is true, it needs to be brought to the attention of the American people and these politicians brought to justice.
It seems that the SEC and FBI have liability in this matter due to their “non-response”. To my knowledged, they still have not officially brought charges against and proven anything against Allen Stanford.
WE ARE IN SUPPORT OF A CLASS ACTION SUIT OF THE SEC AND/OR FBI.

]]> By: Byron Ratliff http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/06/stanford-should-have-been-shut-down-in-2003/comment-page-1/#comment-1495 Byron Ratliff Sat, 09 May 2009 13:51:50 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/06/stanford-should-have-been-shut-down-in-2003/#comment-1495 My wife and I are victims of the Stanford situation. First of all, thank you for caring enough to publish your article in support of the victims. We have saved all our lives to one day be able to retire. Based on Stanford projects, this was to be the year. We purchased land and started construction on our retirement home in late 2008. We are now 40% complete on the house and have had to stop construction due to the Stanfors issue. We are now faced with an outstanding construction loan of approximately $300,000 and no way top pay it. WE are trying to sell the it but the realtors is saying it's going to be extremely difficult to sell a 40% complete house in today's market. The bank is telling us we need to payoff the loan. Our assets are all frozen (International bank as well as brokerage accounts here in the states)by the SEC. We are facing the possibility of losing everything if we are not able to get funds relesaed. We heard that the SEC had sufficient information to take receivership in 2006 and possibly earlier but they were told to step down by the FBI. Meanwhile the SEC alloweed Stanford to continue selling the CD's a\nd the investors"frailing in the wind", losing thousands of dollars just so ther FBI could investigate Stanford on some money laundering scheme. "THAT IS NOT RIGHT AND SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE ABOUT THIS". My wife and I are victims of the Stanford situation. First of all, thank you for caring enough to publish your article in support of the victims. We have saved all our lives to one day be able to retire. Based on Stanford projects, this was to be the year. We purchased land and started construction on our retirement home in late 2008. We are now 40% complete on the house and have had to stop construction due to the Stanfors issue. We are now faced with an outstanding construction loan of approximately $300,000 and no way top pay it. WE are trying to sell the it but the realtors is saying it’s going to be extremely difficult to sell a 40% complete house in today’s market. The bank is telling us we need to payoff the loan. Our assets are all frozen (International bank as well as brokerage accounts here in the states)by the SEC. We are facing the possibility of losing everything if we are not able to get funds relesaed.
We heard that the SEC had sufficient information to take receivership in 2006 and possibly earlier but they were told to step down by the FBI. Meanwhile the SEC alloweed Stanford to continue selling the CD’s a\nd the investors”frailing in the wind”, losing thousands of dollars just so ther FBI could investigate Stanford on some money laundering scheme. “THAT IS NOT RIGHT AND SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE ABOUT THIS”.

]]> By: murphy m buell http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/06/stanford-should-have-been-shut-down-in-2003/comment-page-1/#comment-1493 murphy m buell Sat, 09 May 2009 13:11:32 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/06/stanford-should-have-been-shut-down-in-2003/#comment-1493 As A Stanford Victim I would love to see The SEC taken to court and GIVE US OUR MONEY BACK! 32 years of hard work-gone in one night.UNACCEPTABLE. Good Ole' USA! Work hard and broke-don't work and get PAID! As A Stanford Victim I would love to see The SEC taken to court and GIVE US OUR MONEY BACK! 32 years of hard work-gone in one night.UNACCEPTABLE. Good Ole’ USA! Work hard and broke-don’t work and get PAID!

]]> By: Sarah http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/06/stanford-should-have-been-shut-down-in-2003/comment-page-1/#comment-1480 Sarah Sat, 09 May 2009 00:21:45 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/06/stanford-should-have-been-shut-down-in-2003/#comment-1480 Dear CG - if you're referring to the agreement, you can participate in more discussion in the forum of the Stanford Victim's Coalition. If you are a victim of this situation and are not yet a member, please go to www.sibfraud.com website. It's free to join the coalition of US and international investors. Otherwise, you can request a copy of the agreement from the Texas Banking Authority. Dear CG – if you’re referring to the agreement, you can participate in more discussion in the forum of the Stanford Victim’s Coalition. If you are a victim of this situation and are not yet a member, please go to http://www.sibfraud.com website. It’s free to join the coalition of US and international investors. Otherwise, you can request a copy of the agreement from the Texas Banking Authority.

]]> By: CG http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/06/stanford-should-have-been-shut-down-in-2003/comment-page-1/#comment-1471 CG Fri, 08 May 2009 18:50:17 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/06/stanford-should-have-been-shut-down-in-2003/#comment-1471 Does anyone know where we to get the rest of the 237 pages? Does anyone know where we to get the rest of the 237 pages?

]]> By: Charles Landrem http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/06/stanford-should-have-been-shut-down-in-2003/comment-page-1/#comment-1450 Charles Landrem Fri, 08 May 2009 15:37:00 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/06/stanford-should-have-been-shut-down-in-2003/#comment-1450 All financial advisors who peddle any type of CD's, securities or financial advise should, by law, be required to post a bond. The companies that they represent should have a background check posted on a website so that people can see what the companies are about and their financial worth. No more pie in the sky scams. You would not buy a used car without a test ride. Bottom line is DO NOT trust your financial advisor. All financial advisors who peddle any type of CD’s, securities or financial advise should, by law, be required to post a bond. The companies that they represent should have a background check posted on a website so that people can see what the companies are about and their financial worth.
No more pie in the sky scams. You would not buy a used car without a test ride. Bottom line is DO NOT trust your financial advisor.

]]> By: Sarah http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/06/stanford-should-have-been-shut-down-in-2003/comment-page-1/#comment-1352 Sarah Thu, 07 May 2009 00:26:26 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/06/stanford-should-have-been-shut-down-in-2003/#comment-1352 Dear Felix - thanks for sticking with this story. I read another article where the SEC used the 'lack of jurisdiction' defence for this case. If you look at the attached weblink, you will see a press release about a regulatory agreement between the Texas banking authority and Antigua concerning international banks dated 2001. You can see the press release at: http://www.banking.state.tx.us/news/press/2001/07-27-01.htm Please read it and keep going with the story. The smell gets worse. Dear Felix – thanks for sticking with this story. I read another article where the SEC used the ‘lack of jurisdiction’ defence for this case. If you look at the attached weblink, you will see a press release about a regulatory agreement between the Texas banking authority and Antigua concerning international banks dated 2001.
You can see the press release at:

http://www.banking.state.tx.us/news/pres s/2001/07-27-01.htm

Please read it and keep going with the story. The smell gets worse.

]]> By: Robert http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/06/stanford-should-have-been-shut-down-in-2003/comment-page-1/#comment-1346 Robert Wed, 06 May 2009 21:27:01 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/06/stanford-should-have-been-shut-down-in-2003/#comment-1346 I agree with a class action against the SEC!!! I agree with a class action against the SEC!!!

]]> By: Robert http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/06/stanford-should-have-been-shut-down-in-2003/comment-page-1/#comment-1345 Robert Wed, 06 May 2009 21:26:27 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/06/stanford-should-have-been-shut-down-in-2003/#comment-1345 A class action against the SEC!!! A class action against the SEC!!!

]]> By: glf http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/06/stanford-should-have-been-shut-down-in-2003/comment-page-1/#comment-1344 glf Wed, 06 May 2009 21:22:53 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/06/stanford-should-have-been-shut-down-in-2003/#comment-1344 I'd like to know if someone at the SEC was bribed to "lose" that letter so that even an initial investigation would be prevented. I’d like to know if someone at the SEC was bribed to “lose” that letter so that even an initial investigation would be prevented.

]]> By: Mark http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/06/stanford-should-have-been-shut-down-in-2003/comment-page-1/#comment-1341 Mark Wed, 06 May 2009 18:41:14 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/06/stanford-should-have-been-shut-down-in-2003/#comment-1341 Insider's letter to the SEC is powerful and well written but the information in it could be gleaned from just a 5 minute look at Stanford International Bank's annual reports. The incompetence over the years shown by the SEC and the Antiguan regulators is staggering, with OR without the benefit of hindsight. They must be held to account. Insider’s letter to the SEC is powerful and well written but the information in it could be gleaned from just a 5 minute look at Stanford International Bank’s annual reports. The incompetence over the years shown by the SEC and the Antiguan regulators is staggering, with OR without the benefit of hindsight. They must be held to account.

]]> By: Felix Salmon http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/06/stanford-should-have-been-shut-down-in-2003/comment-page-1/#comment-1340 Felix Salmon Wed, 06 May 2009 18:40:04 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/06/stanford-should-have-been-shut-down-in-2003/#comment-1340 The point is, Tom, that a glance at Stanford's reported financials would have shown that all the allegations checked out in full. Most crank letters are pretty obvious, while this letter was full of substance -- with attachments and everything. The point is, Tom, that a glance at Stanford’s reported financials would have shown that all the allegations checked out in full. Most crank letters are pretty obvious, while this letter was full of substance — with attachments and everything.

]]> By: Tom http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/06/stanford-should-have-been-shut-down-in-2003/comment-page-1/#comment-1339 Tom Wed, 06 May 2009 17:35:38 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/06/stanford-should-have-been-shut-down-in-2003/#comment-1339 To be fair, how many letters like that does the SEC receive that turn out to be false? If it becomes policy that one anonymous letter triggers a full investigation, I predict they will start getting tons of them regarding any company that has competitors. To be fair, how many letters like that does the SEC receive that turn out to be false? If it becomes policy that one anonymous letter triggers a full investigation, I predict they will start getting tons of them regarding any company that has competitors.

]]> By: otto http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/06/stanford-should-have-been-shut-down-in-2003/comment-page-1/#comment-1338 otto Wed, 06 May 2009 17:32:59 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/05/06/stanford-should-have-been-shut-down-in-2003/#comment-1338 A class action against the SEC citing dereliction of duty? Is that in the realms of the possible for those caught up by that scumbag post 2003? A class action against the SEC citing dereliction of duty? Is that in the realms of the possible for those caught up by that scumbag post 2003?

]]>