April 22, 2009
You sure you can afford that attorney?

I haven't really paid much attention to the Allen Stanford case, but this story about his plea to unfreeze some of his assets so he can pay for his legal representation caught my eye.

"All of Allen Stanford's money, all of his records, and most of his clothing and personal possessions were seized by the Receiver ... the same orders left him with no assets to retain counsel to represent him," according to a court filing on behalf of Stanford.

Attorneys are asking the court for $10 million to be placed into an account in the name of famed Texas attorney Dick DeGuerin to pay for legal fees, expert witnesses, travel and other expenses to defend Stanford.

"The cost of Allen Stanford's representation in this Court and many others through the years it will take to conclude this litigation will almost certainly exceed $20 million," according to documents filed with a federal court in Dallas.

The problem, of course, is that this is money he allegedly stole from his investors. I know I'd be pretty pissed off if money that I'd lost was being used to pursue his defense and perhaps eventually his appeals. Stanford is of course entitled to a defense attorney who will zealously represent his interests, and that attorney is entitled to be compensated adequately. I guess I'm a little queasy about that entitlement extending to millions of what may be other people's dollars in order to pay one of the best attorneys around. I'm sure there must be some case law that addresses this question. Can anyone shed some light on that? Thanks.

In the meantime, my entirely free advice to Allen Stanford is to quit talking to the press. My advice to everyone else is to read the Houston Press cover story on the Stanford Financial Group from last week, and this Texas Monthly feature from the upcoming May issue. And am I the only one who wonders just what the heck it is about Mexia, Texas, that produced both Allen Stanford and Anna Nicole Smith?

Posted by Charles Kuffner on April 22, 2009 to Crime and Punishment

He hasn't been charged with anything so why does he need an attorney?

Once he's charged, he can get a court-appointed attorney just like everyone else.

You have to love his "Ken Lay" defense.

"I am basically stupid and don't know anything about business and let everyone else handle everything."

Including his taxes. He owes over $200 million?

Posted by: Baby Snooks on April 22, 2009 10:10 AM

What's interesting about the Houston Press story is the number of people who went to the SEC which ignored them.

You have to wonder if all the money he spread around the halls of Congress had anything to do with it.

And not just in the Republican part of the halls.

Congress appears to be nothing more than a bordello at this point.

Posted by: Baby Snooks on April 22, 2009 10:30 AM

The question is ; How much money was collected.Nobody says anything. Why is this case given the silent treatment? You may be right Baby snooks. This is very political. How come they don,t come out and help their voters with this problem. Are they afraid of something? What??

Posted by: Bruce on April 22, 2009 2:01 PM

There was this same question with regard to Enron - the Democrats pointed the finger at the Republicans but of course didn't point too much.

How do you determine if someone is a Democrat, a Republican, or a Republicrat? Take a look at the money trail. Most are Republicrats. They take money from anyone. And the bigger the check the better.

Posted by: Baby Snooks on April 22, 2009 5:26 PM

Republicrat = politician .
They are all the same and they promise you everything. Promises and lies!

Posted by: Bruce on April 23, 2009 8:45 AM
Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)