PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues White Collar Crime Pisses Me Off!


gblowfish
06-14-2012, 02:33 PM
They gave this dude 110 years, and that wasn't even half the maximum sentence he could have gotten. His defense attorney wanted 41 months with time served. GTFO! He stole SEVEN BILLION DOLLARS!

Stanford gets 110 years for role in $7B swindle

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/stanford-gets-110-years-role-171331968.html

Ex-Texas tycoon Stanford sentenced to 110 years in prison for orchestrating $7B Ponzi scheme

By Juan a. Lozano, Associated Press | Associated Press*

HOUSTON (AP) -- Former jet-setting Texas tycoon R. Allen Stanford, whose financial empire once spanned the Americas, was sentenced Thursday to 110 years in prison for bilking investors out of more than $7 billion over 20 years in one of the largest Ponzi schemes in U.S. history.

U.S. District Judge David Hittner handed down the sentence during a court hearing in which two people spoke on behalf of Stanford's investors about how his fraud had affected their lives.

Prosecutors had asked that Stanford be sentenced to 230 years in prison, the maximum sentence possible after a jury convicted the one-time billionaire in March on 13 of 14 fraud-related counts. Stanford's convictions on conspiracy, wire and mail fraud charges followed a seven-week trial.
Stanford's attorneys had asked for a maximum of 41 months, a sentence he could have completed within about five months because he has been jailed since his arrest in June 2009.

During Thursday's sentencing hearing, Stanford gave a rambling statement to the court in which he denied he did anything wrong. Speaking for more than 40 minutes, Stanford said he was a scapegoat and blamed the federal government and a U.S.-appointed receiver who took over his companies for tearing down his business empire and preventing his investors from getting any of their money back.

"I'm not here to ask for sympathy or forgiveness or to throw myself at your mercy," Stanford told Hittner. "I did not run a Ponzi scheme. I didn't defraud anybody."

Prosecutor William Stellmach chastised Stanford for his lack of remorse for defrauding thousands of people of their life savings.

"To the bitter end, he was a con man and a coward," Stellmach said during the hearing.

Stanford was once considered one of the richest men in the U.S., with an estimated net worth of more than $2 billion. His financial empire stretched from the U.S. to Latin America and the Caribbean. But after his arrest, all of his assets were seized and he had to rely on court-appointed attorneys to defend him.

Calling Stanford arrogant and remorseless, prosecutors said he used the money from investors who bought certificates of deposit, or CDs, from his bank on the Caribbean island nation of Antigua to fund a string of failed businesses, bribe regulators and pay for a lavish lifestyle that included yachts, a fleet of private jets and sponsorship of cricket tournaments.
Defense attorneys portrayed Stanford, 62, as a visionary entrepreneur who made money for investors and conducted legitimate business deals. They accused the prosecution's star witness James M. Davis, the former chief financial officer for Stanford's various companies of being behind the fraud and tried to discredit him by calling him a liar and tax cheat.

Ali Fazel, one of Stanford's attorneys, said he was disappointed with the sentence.

"It's a harsh punishment. It's tough on him," he said. "He feels like he didn't do anything."

Prosecutors declined to comment after the sentencing.

Angela Shaw, a Dallas-area woman who founded the Stanford Victims Coalition and spoke during the hearing, said while she had hoped the financier would receive the maximum sentence, she was more upset that Stanford didn't apologize in court for what he did.

"It would have gone a long way to show there is some level of remorse and some measure of humanity," she said.

Hittner also ordered Stanford to forfeit $5.9 billion, but that was mostly symbolic because Stanford is penniless.

The jury that convicted Stanford also cleared the way for U.S. authorities to go after about $330 million in stolen investor funds sitting in the financier's frozen foreign bank accounts in Canada, England and Switzerland.

But due to legal wrangling, it could be years before the more than 21,000 investors recover anything, and whatever they ultimately get will only be a fraction of what they lost.

The financier's trial was delayed after he was declared incompetent in January 2011 due to an anti-anxiety drug addiction he developed in jail. He underwent treatment and was declared fit for trial in December.

Three other former Stanford executives are scheduled for trial in September. A former Antiguan financial regulator was indicted and awaits extradition to the U.S.

Stanford and his former executives also are fighting a lawsuit from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that accuses them of fraud.

tredadda
06-14-2012, 02:38 PM
They gave this dude 110 years, and that wasn't even half the maximum sentence he could have gotten. His defense attorney wanted 41 months with time served. GTFO! He stole SEVEN BILLION DOLLARS!

Stanford gets 110 years for role in $7B swindle

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/stanford-gets-110-years-role-171331968.html

Ex-Texas tycoon Stanford sentenced to 110 years in prison for orchestrating $7B Ponzi scheme

By Juan a. Lozano, Associated Press | Associated Press*

HOUSTON (AP) -- Former jet-setting Texas tycoon R. Allen Stanford, whose financial empire once spanned the Americas, was sentenced Thursday to 110 years in prison for bilking investors out of more than $7 billion over 20 years in one of the largest Ponzi schemes in U.S. history.

U.S. District Judge David Hittner handed down the sentence during a court hearing in which two people spoke on behalf of Stanford's investors about how his fraud had affected their lives.

Prosecutors had asked that Stanford be sentenced to 230 years in prison, the maximum sentence possible after a jury convicted the one-time billionaire in March on 13 of 14 fraud-related counts. Stanford's convictions on conspiracy, wire and mail fraud charges followed a seven-week trial.
Stanford's attorneys had asked for a maximum of 41 months, a sentence he could have completed within about five months because he has been jailed since his arrest in June 2009.

During Thursday's sentencing hearing, Stanford gave a rambling statement to the court in which he denied he did anything wrong. Speaking for more than 40 minutes, Stanford said he was a scapegoat and blamed the federal government and a U.S.-appointed receiver who took over his companies for tearing down his business empire and preventing his investors from getting any of their money back.

"I'm not here to ask for sympathy or forgiveness or to throw myself at your mercy," Stanford told Hittner. "I did not run a Ponzi scheme. I didn't defraud anybody."

Prosecutor William Stellmach chastised Stanford for his lack of remorse for defrauding thousands of people of their life savings.

"To the bitter end, he was a con man and a coward," Stellmach said during the hearing.

Stanford was once considered one of the richest men in the U.S., with an estimated net worth of more than $2 billion. His financial empire stretched from the U.S. to Latin America and the Caribbean. But after his arrest, all of his assets were seized and he had to rely on court-appointed attorneys to defend him.

Calling Stanford arrogant and remorseless, prosecutors said he used the money from investors who bought certificates of deposit, or CDs, from his bank on the Caribbean island nation of Antigua to fund a string of failed businesses, bribe regulators and pay for a lavish lifestyle that included yachts, a fleet of private jets and sponsorship of cricket tournaments.
Defense attorneys portrayed Stanford, 62, as a visionary entrepreneur who made money for investors and conducted legitimate business deals. They accused the prosecution's star witness James M. Davis, the former chief financial officer for Stanford's various companies of being behind the fraud and tried to discredit him by calling him a liar and tax cheat.

Ali Fazel, one of Stanford's attorneys, said he was disappointed with the sentence.

"It's a harsh punishment. It's tough on him," he said. "He feels like he didn't do anything."

Prosecutors declined to comment after the sentencing.

Angela Shaw, a Dallas-area woman who founded the Stanford Victims Coalition and spoke during the hearing, said while she had hoped the financier would receive the maximum sentence, she was more upset that Stanford didn't apologize in court for what he did.

"It would have gone a long way to show there is some level of remorse and some measure of humanity," she said.

Hittner also ordered Stanford to forfeit $5.9 billion, but that was mostly symbolic because Stanford is penniless.

The jury that convicted Stanford also cleared the way for U.S. authorities to go after about $330 million in stolen investor funds sitting in the financier's frozen foreign bank accounts in Canada, England and Switzerland.

But due to legal wrangling, it could be years before the more than 21,000 investors recover anything, and whatever they ultimately get will only be a fraction of what they lost.

The financier's trial was delayed after he was declared incompetent in January 2011 due to an anti-anxiety drug addiction he developed in jail. He underwent treatment and was declared fit for trial in December.

Three other former Stanford executives are scheduled for trial in September. A former Antiguan financial regulator was indicted and awaits extradition to the U.S.

Stanford and his former executives also are fighting a lawsuit from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that accuses them of fraud.

Wow! Just wow. He stole $7 billion and he feels like he didn't do anything.

cosmo20002
06-14-2012, 02:42 PM
"They gave this dude 110 years, and that wasn't even half the maximum sentence he could have gotten."

You're upset he only got 110 years? You're afraid he'll be living it up when he gets out at age 172 when he should really be doing more time?

mikey23545
06-14-2012, 02:49 PM
You prefer other types of crime where human life is lost?

gblowfish
06-14-2012, 03:02 PM
"They gave this dude 110 years, and that wasn't even half the maximum sentence he could have gotten."

You're upset he only got 110 years? You're afraid he'll be living it up when he gets out at age 172 when he should really be doing more time?

Anything that makes he parole more difficult, I'm all for. And as to Mikey's question, I'm also against crime where people get killed or wounded. White collar criminals get off way easier, and are rarely prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Iz Zat Chew
06-14-2012, 04:10 PM
The issue is compounded, plus made easier for people like R.A. Stanford when you have people on the losing end that are greedy. If people weren't greedy they wouldn't jump at a get rich quick scheme.

The big greedy leading the little greedy. I wonder how many of the little greedy get stung by the emails about the lottery, dead doctor or extended family that died with millions in the bank? Too bad they can't catch those types too.

tredadda
06-14-2012, 05:23 PM
The issue is compounded, plus made easier for people like R.A. Stanford when you have people on the losing end that are greedy. If people weren't greedy they wouldn't jump at a get rich quick scheme.

The big greedy leading the little greedy. I wonder how many of the little greedy get stung by the emails about the lottery, dead doctor or extended family that died with millions in the bank? Too bad they can't catch those types too.

So investing for your future and possibly retirement is greedy? Do you consider investing greedy?

Iz Zat Chew
06-14-2012, 05:58 PM
So investing for your future and possibly retirement is greedy? Do you consider investing greedy?

Not in the slightest. But if you think that all of those out there that would tell you that you can basically make money for a small investment I think you would want to watch your wallet.

I have a small 401k and an even smaller savings account. I try to let my money make money for me, what I have of it anyway.

When someone tells you about an investment plan that sounds too good to be true it probably is.

tredadda
06-14-2012, 06:14 PM
Not in the slightest. But if you think that all of those out there that would tell you that you can basically make money for a small investment I think you would want to watch your wallet.

I have a small 401k and an even smaller savings account. I try to let my money make money for me, what I have of it anyway.

When someone tells you about an investment plan that sounds too good to be true it probably is.

This man was selling CDs which is considered one of the safest investments a person can make. I would not say they are being greedy. Many of these people were tricked and deceived by this man. They weren't being greedy as you imply.

cosmo20002
06-14-2012, 06:21 PM
Not in the slightest. But if you think that all of those out there that would tell you that you can basically make money for a small investment I think you would want to watch your wallet.

I have a small 401k and an even smaller savings account. I try to let my money make money for me, what I have of it anyway.

When someone tells you about an investment plan that sounds too good to be true it probably is.

And that's what this was? Or are you just making stuff up again?

Iz Zat Chew
06-14-2012, 06:31 PM
This man was selling CDs which is considered one of the safest investments a person can make. I would not say they are being greedy. Many of these people were tricked and deceived by this man. They weren't being greedy as you imply.

What ever you want to believe.

Was the guy a banker? Stock Broker? Or a door to door CD Salesman?

Every CD I've ever bought was at a bank or credit union and my money was insured. Apparently the door to door guy didn't have the FDIC ( or whatever the current insurance is ).

Iz Zat Chew
06-14-2012, 06:33 PM
And that's what this was? Or are you just making stuff up again?

The guy was convicted of stealing $7 billion. Are you obfuscating again?

Aparently so.

You are still a stupid fucker.

tredadda
06-14-2012, 07:13 PM
What ever you want to believe.

Was the guy a banker? Stock Broker? Or a door to door CD Salesman?

Every CD I've ever bought was at a bank or credit union and my money was insured. Apparently the door to door guy didn't have the FDIC ( or whatever the current insurance is ).

Wow. Only you can somehow blame this guy's massive fraud on the investors who bought supposed safe investments. Regardless CDs are safe investments, not a "get rich quick" scheme that these "greedy" people bought into. I love how you assume things that are not even in the article such as the investors being greedy and getting what they deserve. Sad really.

cosmo20002
06-14-2012, 07:49 PM
The guy was convicted of stealing $7 billion. Are you obfuscating again?



That's not at issue. You said the victims were just greedy, without knowing ANYTHING about the facts. Well, keep trying. You'll get one eventually.

Iz Zat Chew
06-14-2012, 08:28 PM
Wow. Only you can somehow blame this guy's massive fraud on the investors who bought supposed safe investments. Regardless CDs are safe investments, not a "get rich quick" scheme that these "greedy" people bought into. I love how you assume things that are not even in the article such as the investors being greedy and getting what they deserve. Sad really.

You get to see it any way you want to, how many of the people that lost money in the ponzi scheme ran by this guy lost their ass and were still financially OK? Think about it. Are you going to invest millions? If you have that kind of money what the fuck are you doing here?


On another matter, cosmo you are still a stupid fucker.

tredadda
06-14-2012, 08:32 PM
You get to see it any way you want to, how many of the people that lost money in the ponzi scheme ran by this guy lost their ass and were still financially OK? Think about it. Are you going to invest millions? If you have that kind of money what the **** are you doing here?


On another matter, cosmo you are still a stupid ****er.

:facepalm:

Easy 6
06-14-2012, 09:01 PM
You prefer other types of crime where human life is lost?

Apparently, people DID lose their ****ing lives.

You can be such a typical, heartless conservative sometimes... 'welp looks like the big moneys boys snookered ya purty good haha'.

Iz Zat Chew
06-14-2012, 09:28 PM
:facepalm:

I have to tell you, I am not impressed with your little attempts to diss what I say. If you have no words just don't respond. That would say more than your little icon.

tredadda
06-14-2012, 09:38 PM
I have to tell you, I am not impressed with your little attempts to diss what I say. If you have no words just don't respond. That would say more than your little icon.

Damn, I was trying so hard to impress you. Anyways I easily refuted your argument but debating with you is like debating a brick wall. You refuse to budge even if wrong. You consistently make statements that you can't actually back up just like you were making in this thread. You seriously blamed the investors for this guy being a crook and bilking them out of billions. You said it was because people are being greedy, yet you can't back it up except based off of your own warped opinion. Heaven forbid a bank or someone who works for one can be deceptive to people. It is obviously not their fault, it is the fault of the investor for being "greedy". Not everyone lost everything, but that does not mean they were not deceived and stolen from. You make foolish statements and wonder why I give an icon?. I gave you an icon when I realized the argument is pointless.

Pitt Gorilla
06-14-2012, 09:58 PM
You prefer other types of crime where human life is lost?Where did he claim anything like that?

Iz Zat Chew
06-14-2012, 10:05 PM
Damn, I was trying so hard to impress you. Anyways I easily refuted your argument but debating with you is like debating a brick wall. You refuse to budge even if wrong. You consistently make statements that you can't actually back up just like you were making in this thread. You seriously blamed the investors for this guy being a crook and bilking them out of billions. You said it was because people are being greedy, yet you can't back it up except based off of your own warped opinion. Heaven forbid a bank or someone who works for one can be deceptive to people. It is obviously not their fault, it is the fault of the investor for being "greedy". Not everyone lost everything, but that does not mean they were not deceived and stolen from. You make foolish statements and wonder why I give an icon?. I gave you an icon when I realized the argument is pointless.

The point is that I am not wrong. The fact that you don't want to believe what I say has no bearing on how correct the statement is. The argument is not pointless, I stand that most of the people that were involved with buying into the ponzi scheme were out to make quick big money. I don't think for a moment that you would ever be in the position to buy into something like that.

The end story is that greed drove the big rollers to buy into something that was too good to be true. They were scammed and they were gulible.

cosmo20002
06-14-2012, 10:11 PM
The point is that I am not wrong. The fact that you don't want to believe what I say has no bearing on how correct the statement is. The argument is not pointless, I stand that most of the people that were involved with buying into the ponzi scheme were out to make quick big money. I don't think for a moment that you would ever be in the position to buy into something like that.

The end story is that greed drove the big rollers to buy into something that was too good to be true. They were scammed and they were gulible.

See, now would be the time to back this up by showing how it was too good to be true and that any reasonable person should have known better. Were they promised a 50% annual return? If so, you maybe would have a valid point. But instead, you're just saying it, without any indication that you have anything to back it up.

tredadda
06-14-2012, 10:13 PM
The point is that I am not wrong. The fact that you don't want to believe what I say has no bearing on how correct the statement is. The argument is not pointless, I stand that most of the people that were involved with buying into the ponzi scheme were out to make quick big money. I don't think for a moment that you would ever be in the position to buy into something like that.

The end story is that greed drove the big rollers to buy into something that was too good to be true. They were scammed and they were gulible.

News flash genius.

1. You don't make a "quick buck" off of CDs.

2. Con men are successful because of their ability to look legit.

3. You have still yet to prove your point with ANY facts. It is strictly a baseless opinion.

4. In the end, the con man is wrong and the bad guy, not the investors who were duped.

I am just amazed how you can turn the finger from the guy convicted of FRAUD and somehow make it the fault of investors and state that they "got what they deserved".

Where is this too good to be true scheme that you claim? Do you have ANY evidence to back it up? If you take small amounts from lots of people you can make a ton of money. Wal Mart didn't become the behemoth it is by selling to the "big rollers". This same principle applies. Unless you can back anything you say with evidence to support your statement then it will continue to be ridiculed.

mikey23545
06-14-2012, 10:13 PM
Where did he claim anything like that?

Where did I say he claimed it, tard-boy?

I was asking a question.

tredadda
06-14-2012, 10:15 PM
See, now would be the time to back this up by showing how it was too good to be true and that any reasonable person should have known better. Were they promised a 50% annual return? If so, you maybe would have a valid point. But instead, you're just saying it, without any indication that you have anything to back it up.

He never does. He just states his opinion as if it were fact. This is why no one takes anything he says seriously.

mikey23545
06-14-2012, 10:16 PM
Apparently, people DID lose their ****ing lives.

You can be such a typical, heartless conservative sometimes... 'welp looks like the big moneys boys snookered ya purty good haha'.


:spock:

Iz Zat Chew
06-14-2012, 10:38 PM
He never does. He just states his opinion as if it were fact. This is why no one takes anything he says seriously.

Where are your facts? I haven't seen any out of your or your girlfriend cosmo. When someone says something you don't agree with you don't come up with anything factual only YOUR opinions. Basically the first thing you do is attack with no backing. Show me anywhere in this argument that you've posted substantiated facts.

Iz Zat Chew
06-14-2012, 10:39 PM
News flash genius.

1. You don't make a "quick buck" off of CDs.

2. Con men are successful because of their ability to look legit.

3. You have still yet to prove your point with ANY facts. It is strictly a baseless opinion.

4. In the end, the con man is wrong and the bad guy, not the investors who were duped.

I am just amazed how you can turn the finger from the guy convicted of FRAUD and somehow make it the fault of investors and state that they "got what they deserved".

Where is this too good to be true scheme that you claim? Do you have ANY evidence to back it up? If you take small amounts from lots of people you can make a ton of money. Wal Mart didn't become the behemoth it is by selling to the "big rollers". This same principle applies. Unless you can back anything you say with evidence to support your statement then it will continue to be ridiculed.

I see no substantiated facts here, just your opinion. Where is your substantiated evidence?

tredadda
06-14-2012, 10:46 PM
Where are your facts? I haven't seen any out of your or your girlfriend cosmo. When someone says something you don't agree with you don't come up with anything factual only YOUR opinions. Basically the first thing you do is attack with no backing. Show me anywhere in this argument that you've posted substantiated facts.

You are too easy, but I will bite even though you are typical. When challenged and asked for facts you respond with................not facts...........but expecting the person who challenged you to prove their side since you can't.

Fact
1. Former jet-setting Texas tycoon R. Allen Stanford, whose financial empire once spanned the Americas, was sentenced Thursday to 110 years in prison for bilking investors out of more than $7 billion over 20 years in one of the largest Ponzi schemes in U.S. history.
This makes him a con man. What do con men do?

2. prosecutors said he used the money from investors who bought certificates of deposit, or CDs

3. CDs are similar to savings accounts in that they are insured and thus virtually riskfree; they are "money in the bank

Do you need more facts? Now your turn. Prove these people were "high rollers" who got what they deserved.

Iz Zat Chew
06-14-2012, 10:53 PM
You are too easy, but I will bite even though you are typical. When challenged and asked for facts you respond with................not facts...........but expecting the person who challenged you to prove their side since you can't.

Fact
1. Former jet-setting Texas tycoon R. Allen Stanford, whose financial empire once spanned the Americas, was sentenced Thursday to 110 years in prison for bilking investors out of more than $7 billion over 20 years in one of the largest Ponzi schemes in U.S. history.
This makes him a con man. What do con men do?

2. prosecutors said he used the money from investors who bought certificates of deposit, or CDs

3. CDs are similar to savings accounts in that they are insured and thus virtually riskfree; they are "money in the bank

Do you need more facts? Now your turn. Prove these people were "high rollers" who got what they deserved.

Prove that they weren't. The only people mentioned are "investors". Who are the real investors in the country? Bubba down on 4th street? How many people that make less than the magic $250K do you think were involved with your hero there? I know quite a few people that are under the Obama magic "rich" number and none of them go anywhere but to the neighborhood bank to save their money and or buy CD's.

I see nothing in your "evidence" that is factual regarding the people that lost the money other than "investors". NONE of your bold evidence tells me shit about who was doing the investing.

Keep trying, I have the rest of the year.

tredadda
06-14-2012, 10:54 PM
I see no substantiated facts here, just your opinion. Where is your substantiated evidence?

1. So not making a quick buck off a CD is not a fact? You might need to research what a CD is before you make yourself look like a bigger fool than you already do.

2. If con men are not successful based off of looking legit, how are they successful?

3. I have stated that you have yet to back up anything with facts and you state that it is my opinion? Prove it. Show the facts.

4. Post #6 shows how you blamed the investor for being "greedy". That is a fact.

Again, back up anything you have stated with facts. I know you won't because I can see through your game. You are a fool who just spouts whatever he thinks without actually being able to back it up. When someone calls you out on it you get defensive, label your opinions as facts, and demand that they back up their statements before ever proving yours. When they do bring up facts you spin it and call them opinions in spite of it.

tredadda
06-14-2012, 10:57 PM
Prove that they weren't. The only people mentioned are "investors". Who are the real investors in the country? Bubba down on 4th street? How many people that make less than the magic $250K do you think were involved with your hero there? I know quite a few people that are under the Obama magic "rich" number and none of them go anywhere but to the neighborhood bank to save their money and or buy CD's.

I see nothing in your "evidence" that is factual regarding the people that lost the money other than "investors". NONE of your bold evidence tells me shit about who was doing the investing.

Keep trying, I have the rest of the year.

Nope I will not prove anything else to you. Until you can back up your ANYTHING you say without resorting to your typical "prove it" defense. You are a buffoon and not worth my time anymore. If you want to have a serious debate then so be it, but I refuse to argue this circular argument with a fool such as yourself. Now I know why you are the joke of D.C.

Oh an I invest and I invest a good deal of money every month and I make nowehere near $250,000. Also how is he my hero? I am pissed by what he did, you blame the "greedy investors". I think if anyone finds this guy to be their hero it is you.

cosmo20002
06-14-2012, 11:08 PM
Where are your facts? I haven't seen any out of your or your girlfriend cosmo. When someone says something you don't agree with you don't come up with anything factual only YOUR opinions. Basically the first thing you do is attack with no backing. Show me anywhere in this argument that you've posted substantiated facts.

You're just hilarious. You make a strong assertion, you get asked to back it up, and your response is that someone needs to prove that you are wrong.

I've been open to the possibility that you might be right about the investors taking a risk on offer that was too good to be true. But you're so defensive and idiotic about giving anything to back you up, its pretty clear that you're just pulling from your ass again.

tredadda
06-14-2012, 11:10 PM
You're just hilarious. You make a strong assertion, you get asked to back it up, and your response is that someone needs to prove that you are wrong.

I've been open to the possibility that you might be right about the investors taking a risk on offer that was too good to be true. But you're so defensive and idiotic about giving anything to back you up, its pretty clear that you're just pulling from your ass again.

Or better yet, when you give him facts and he refuses to acknowledge them and then label them as opinion and basically give a "try again" statement. All this without ever backing up anything he says.

Iz Zat Chew
06-14-2012, 11:40 PM
Nope I will not prove anything else to you. Until you can back up your ANYTHING you say without resorting to your typical "prove it" defense. You are a buffoon and not worth my time anymore. If you want to have a serious debate then so be it, but I refuse to argue this circular argument with a fool such as yourself. Now I know why you are the joke of D.C.

Oh an I invest and I invest a good deal of money every month and I make nowehere near $250,000. Also how is he my hero? I am pissed by what he did, you blame the "greedy investors". I think if anyone finds this guy to be their hero it is you.

Considering that you haven't proven anything regarding your point of view I can only assume that you are exagerating the case to make a point. I simply stated that the investors were greedy and you can guess right along with me that the money stolen was not from penny ante investors like you and me. How many investments did you make that were not with a 401k, a Roth IRA, CD's or simple savings accounts? How many of those investments were done through a brokerage house? Were you stupid enough to invest through the internet?

The joker was your hero because you are going to great lengths to defend his product. He is a common criminal and took advantage of those that had the funds to invest and I would bet you that his scheme, like other ponzi schemes, was one of higher than normal interest.

You think I'm a joke? You think way to highly of yourself as you are participating in an argument you can't win because you have no facts to back your side - and you want to poke fun at me?

Iz Zat Chew
06-14-2012, 11:43 PM
Or better yet, when you give him facts and he refuses to acknowledge them and then label them as opinion and basically give a "try again" statement. All this without ever backing up anything he says.

Hello there dipshit, you didn't provide any facts other than the story that was exceptionally vague and failed to define the points as you tried to present them.

Want to know what the funniest thing about the argument is? You are being supported by the biggest a##hole on the board! Your lone supporter is fucking stupid. Kind of puts you in the same group.

tredadda
06-15-2012, 12:14 AM
Hello there dipshit, you didn't provide any facts other than the story that was exceptionally vague and failed to define the points as you tried to present them.

Want to know what the funniest thing about the argument is? You are being supported by the biggest a##hole on the board! Your lone supporter is ****ing stupid. Kind of puts you in the same group.

Yet you still won't back anything you say up with any facts. Why is that? Why do you refuse to do that? It is so simple. Why do you feel the need to always force the burden of proof on others when they call you out on things?

YOU labeled these investors as being "greedy" and "high rollers" with ZERO proof to back it up. When approached about proving it the best argument you could come up with is "prove me wrong" instead of you proving your case I could tell what kind of person I was dealing with. You were called out on it and instead of proving what you stated to be true, you turn the argument. That is a classic tactic of someone who talks out his a#$.

I have supported the investors and stated it was wrong for them to get scammed and YOU blamed them, not the con man.

YOU label my apparent lone supporter as stupid, but based off of this debate (and I use the term loosely) he has said nothing to show he is stupid. You disagree with his point of view so by your definition that makes him stupid.

YOU call him my lone supporter, but who supports your opinion? Who on here has sided with you and stated "that Iz Zat Chew guy is dead on in his response"? So far you are all alone. I really feel sorry for you because you just respond without even thinking and feel like you are somehow the smarter one for it. I give up because no amount of facts are going to sway you. You are dead set on a certain way of thinking and no fact will sway that. The only statements that are facts are ones that you agree with, all others are just opinions.

Lastly, what was vague about him bilking investors out of $7 billion over 20 years? What was vague about him using money that he got from investors buying CDs? It was pretty convincing if it got him a sentence of over 100 years. What was vague about the definition of a CD? I got that off the wikipedia site which specifically gave the definition of a CD.

The ball is now in your court to substantiate ANYTHING that you have posted. I am not worried though. You won't, you will still call my facts opinions, refuse to back up your statements with anything other than your own twisted opinion. Go for it champ. PROVE the people were rich. PROVE they were being greedy. PROVE they deserved it. You are a sad little man if you feel that ANYONE rich or poor deserves to get conned out of money they earned.

Pitt Gorilla
06-15-2012, 12:47 AM
Where did I say he claimed it, tard-boy?

I was asking a question.Are you really this dumb? Follow your own simple logic. I DIDN'T say that you said he claimed it. I was asking a question.

blaise
06-15-2012, 04:43 AM
Anything that makes he parole more difficult, I'm all for. And as to Mikey's question, I'm also against crime where people get killed or wounded. White collar criminals get off way easier, and are rarely prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

There is no parole in Federal Prison.

Iz Zat Chew
06-15-2012, 05:23 AM
Yet you still won't back anything you say up with any facts. Why is that?

I have supported the investors and stated it was wrong for them to get scammed and YOU blamed them, not the con man.

YOU label my apparent lone supporter as stupid.

The ball is now in your court to substantiate ANYTHING that you have posted. .


I delelted all of the stuff that was a rehash of your argument through the posts.

Just so you are happy, there were no greedy people on the receiving end of the ponzi scheme. They went to a Banking Institution and bought the CD's. They were fully insured. They weren't taking a chance at all because CD's are absolutly safe (even though for a period you couldn't get one with much intereest to be paid). They bought the CD's because this guy was go damned charasmatic that he made them feel like they were going to be millionaires by buying theire CD's from him.

Are you happy now?

You win your point. Let me ask you one simple question, how many people do you know that bought this guys con game? Of those scammed how many have been named?

I still maintain most of the people scammed were greedy and had the funds in ready cash to "invest".

Does this mean anything to you? "He used the money from investors who bought certificates of deposit, or CDs, from his bank on the Caribbean island nation of Antigua ~~"

Which grouping of normal everyday Americans do something like that? Like I said before, ALL of my CD's were bought at my local bank / credit union. You should respond regarding your little CD's and where you bought them, did you venture to the Island nation of Antigua? Would you EVER go to Antigua to buy CD's? Surely you wouldn't do it over the internet, would you?

Again, to reiterate what I said before, the deals were sweet enough to entice those, whom I project, that more wealthy than you or I might ever be, probably more wealthy than anyone that would be posting on a website like this. If any of us were financial wizards I doubt we would be hanging around here.

A few more snippits:
Houston retiree Sandra Dorrell, who lost over $1 million

Angela Shaw, a Dallas-area woman who founded the Stanford Victims Coalition after three generations of her family lost $4.5 million in the fraud

Jaime Escalona, a Venezuelan who lost $1.5 million

The Securities Exchange Commission's (SEC) charged Allen Stanford, Pendergest-Holt and Davis of fraud in connection with Stanford Financial Group's US$8 billion certificate of deposit (CD) investment scheme that offered "improbable and unsubstantiated high interest rates". This led the Federal government to freeze the assets of Allen Stanford, Stanford International Bank, Stanford Group Co., and Stanford Capital Management. In addition, Stanford International Bank placed a 60-day moratorium on early redemptions of its CDs.

Sure looks like my "speculation" or "lies" have some manner of truth to them. Care to rebuff me again?

gblowfish
06-15-2012, 09:06 AM
There is no parole in Federal Prison.

I looked this up, and technically you are correct. The law changed in 1987. Crimes committed before then are still subject to parole. Now instead of "parole" they call it "early release with supervision." You earn a certain amount of early release days for each year served as a model prisoner.

blaise
06-15-2012, 09:21 AM
I looked this up, and technically you are correct. The law changed in 1987. Crimes committed before then are still subject to parole. Now instead of "parole" they call it "early release with supervision." You earn a certain amount of early release days for each year served as a model prisoner.

Yeah, so if he just does 100 more years he may get to spend 10 more on supervised release. It's not like supervised release and parole are even in the same neighborhood.

tredadda
06-15-2012, 09:57 AM
I delelted all of the stuff that was a rehash of your argument through the posts.

Just so you are happy, there were no greedy people on the receiving end of the ponzi scheme. They went to a Banking Institution and bought the CD's. They were fully insured. They weren't taking a chance at all because CD's are absolutly safe (even though for a period you couldn't get one with much intereest to be paid). They bought the CD's because this guy was go damned charasmatic that he made them feel like they were going to be millionaires by buying theire CD's from him.

Are you happy now?

You win your point. Let me ask you one simple question, how many people do you know that bought this guys con game? Of those scammed how many have been named?

I still maintain most of the people scammed were greedy and had the funds in ready cash to "invest".

Does this mean anything to you? "He used the money from investors who bought certificates of deposit, or CDs, from his bank on the Caribbean island nation of Antigua ~~"

Which grouping of normal everyday Americans do something like that? Like I said before, ALL of my CD's were bought at my local bank / credit union. You should respond regarding your little CD's and where you bought them, did you venture to the Island nation of Antigua? Would you EVER go to Antigua to buy CD's? Surely you wouldn't do it over the internet, would you?

Again, to reiterate what I said before, the deals were sweet enough to entice those, whom I project, that more wealthy than you or I might ever be, probably more wealthy than anyone that would be posting on a website like this. If any of us were financial wizards I doubt we would be hanging around here.

A few more snippits:
Houston retiree Sandra Dorrell, who lost over $1 million

Angela Shaw, a Dallas-area woman who founded the Stanford Victims Coalition after three generations of her family lost $4.5 million in the fraud

Jaime Escalona, a Venezuelan who lost $1.5 million

The Securities Exchange Commission's (SEC) charged Allen Stanford, Pendergest-Holt and Davis of fraud in connection with Stanford Financial Group's US$8 billion certificate of deposit (CD) investment scheme that offered "improbable and unsubstantiated high interest rates". This led the Federal government to freeze the assets of Allen Stanford, Stanford International Bank, Stanford Group Co., and Stanford Capital Management. In addition, Stanford International Bank placed a 60-day moratorium on early redemptions of its CDs.

Sure looks like my "speculation" or "lies" have some manner of truth to them. Care to rebuff me again?

Damn, that must have been hard for you to actually do that and not just ramble on endlessly with your opinions. You called the investors greedy and high rollers, all I did was ask you to prove it. Why was that so hard. To me rich or poor there is no reason why anyone should get conned out of their money by dishonest people. I am stil done discussing anything with as I know your nature now. Good job. :clap:

Iz Zat Chew
06-15-2012, 10:01 AM
Damn, that must have been hard for you to actually do that and not just ramble on endlessly with your opinions. I am stil done discussing anything with as I know your nature now. Good job. :clap:

I figured you'd chicken shit out. You never provided anything to prove your points, you probably didn't even read the article that was posted. You are being dishonest with yourself. Tell us about all of your banking in antigua and how much you lost in the scam.

By the way, you weren't discussing anything, you were being a spoiled brat that wasn't getting his way. I'll tell you that you did a good job when you do one. ROFL

tredadda
06-15-2012, 10:08 AM
I figured you'd chicken shit out. You never provided anything to prove your points, you probably didn't even read the article that was posted. You are being dishonest with yourself. Tell us about all of your banking in antigua and how much you lost in the scam.

By the way, you weren't discussing anything, you were being a spoiled brat that wasn't getting his way. I'll tell you that you did a good job when you do one. ROFL

Didn't take you long to start up again. It is not as you call it "chicken shit out". Debating with you is an exercise in folly and futility. You are a bitter man who has way too much rage. It is unhealthy. I did read the article FWIW. How am I being dishonest? Oh wait you are back to talking out your ass again. I lost nothing in the scam and to even imply as such based on ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE is ridiculous. How am I a spoiled brat that wasn't getting my way? Sad that you conduct yourself in such a way. Now I see why no one takes you or your opinions seriously on here. You are now on ignore as I see no value in engaging you in anything else. Call it what you will.

Iz Zat Chew
06-15-2012, 10:28 AM
Didn't take you long to start up again. It is not as you call it "chicken shit out". Debating with you is an exercise in folly and futility. You are a bitter man who has way too much rage. It is unhealthy. I did read the article FWIW. How am I being dishonest? Oh wait you are back to talking out your ass again. I lost nothing in the scam and to even imply as such based on ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE is ridiculous. How am I a spoiled brat that wasn't getting my way? Sad that you conduct yourself in such a way. Now I see why no one takes you or your opinions seriously on here. You are now on ignore as I see no value in engaging you in anything else. Call it what you will.

Since you never proved your point I'm not worried about you putting me on ignore.

Your weren't debating, you were arguing and name calling - no different that I was doing.

I'd still like to see the proof you said you had, it was never presented.
OOPS, I forgot .. you backed out.

BigChiefFan
06-16-2012, 08:42 PM
How about going after the members of Congress that partook in insider trading?

The real crooks enjoy a life of luxury on our dime, while swindling the system.

Iz Zat Chew
06-17-2012, 05:33 AM
How about going after the members of Congress that partook in insider trading?

The real crooks enjoy a life of luxury on our dime, while swindling the system.

Wouldn't that mean that ALL of the democratic leadership would be prosecuted?

Probably most of the republicans too.

That would automatically cause the flush we need in Washington.

kcpasco
06-17-2012, 07:59 AM
Now after all the lawyers get done dividing up that 330 million sitting in accounts, the investors won't see a penny.

BigChiefFan
06-17-2012, 07:23 PM
Wouldn't that mean that ALL of the democratic leadership would be prosecuted?

Probably most of the republicans too.

That would automatically cause the flush we need in Washington.Sounds like a plan. :D

Iz Zat Chew
06-17-2012, 07:30 PM
Sounds like a plan. :D

I agree, how do we get it kicked off?

BigChiefFan
06-17-2012, 07:35 PM
I agree, how do we get it kicked off?

The Securities and Exchange Commision can prosecute for insider trading. I'd say putting pressure on them would be a start.

Iz Zat Chew
06-17-2012, 07:37 PM
The Securities and Exchange Commision can prosecute for insider trading. I'd say putting pressure on them would be a start.

Write to your congressmen and senators, I'll write to mine. Now all we have to do is get them to stop laughing because they are all most likely part of the criminal element that would be prosecuted.

Brock
06-17-2012, 07:47 PM
The Securities and Exchange Commision can prosecute for insider trading. I'd say putting pressure on them would be a start.

LOL

Iz Zat Chew
06-17-2012, 08:02 PM
LOL

Unfortunately that't what most will do, just laugh. At some point in time we need to take the country back from the politicians that are only out to pad their bank account. They don't give a shit about those they represent.

Brock
06-17-2012, 08:18 PM
Unfortunately that't what most will do, just laugh. At some point in time we need to take the country back from the politicians that are only out to pad their bank account. They don't give a shit about those they represent.

Your problem is you think they're up there to represent you, and not the corporations and interests that put them there.

Iz Zat Chew
06-17-2012, 08:37 PM
Your problem is you think they're up there to represent you, and not the corporations and interests that put them there.

It's not that I think that, it's the way it's supposed to be.

Rain Man
06-17-2012, 08:38 PM
I hate white collar crime, too.

As a completely unrelated story, I had a six-digit contract taken away from my firm three years ago. It was a contract with a local government, and we bid on it just like normal. We were the incumbent, so we were the odds-on favorite to win it again.

Then suddenly we got a notice saying that they were stopping the process and restarting it. We submitted our proposal again, and were stunned when the contract went to a firm that had no qualifications. Upon investigation, we found out that...

...one selection committee member (a manager hereafter known as "the witch") had made multiple attempts to take over or derail the process.

...my firm won both the initial scoring of the written proposals, and we also won the final interview round.

...the witch had listened to our interview and then left before the other interviews. Within an hour, while interviews were still underway, the wimpy purchasing manager sent an e-mail (while the selection committee was still in the interviews and unable to access e-mail) stating that, if the interviews weren't stopped, he would stop the process.

...unable to see what was happening at the time, the project manager sent in the scoring for the interviews from the other 8 or so selection committee members, showing that we had won easily.

...the wimpy purchasing manager and the witch's boss stopped the process, and they kicked the project manager off the team. The witch was then named to lead the selection committee by the purchasing manager (and mostly, the witch's boss).

...the legitimate project manager twice complained, stating that the witch was trying to manipulate the award outcome.

...The witch named only her own employees and her boss to the second selection committee, and kicked off the legitimate selection committee. She kept one committee member, who was the only person who had not ranked us first (and in fact ranked us last, even though every other committee member had ranked us first). She had seen his scores and so knew how he would vote (and he was also the only member of the first committee who reported to her other than the project manager). She did not allow the second selection committee members to interview the bidders.

...the witch and her boss had a long-standing relationship with a grantwriting firm (hereafter known as "the mouth-breathers") and had given them sole-source contracts for many years.

...the mouthbreathers had bizarrely submitted a proposal for the contract despite having no qualifications. They were the only in-state bidder that did not submit any preliminary questions (despite having no experience) and coincidentally came within 2 percent of the non-released project budget. They listed the witch as a reference. In contrast, we were 45 percent over the budget, but won anyway since the budget wasn't released and therefore was only a small proportion of the grading.

...the witch and the purchasing manager then released a false reason for stopping the proposal that deflected responsibility from the witch for stopping it. They blamed the project manager, who eventually resigned.

...in the second round, the mouthbreathers changed their proposal by increasing the budget by over 40 percent, to a level that was slightly below our budget. They also changed some proposal elements from their own bad plan to the plan that we had proposed. The proposals were not supposed to be public so no other bidders should have known our price or approach.

...The all-employee selection committee unanimously selected the mouthbreathers. One of them gave gave the mouthbreathers a perfect score in every category and gave my firm a score of zero in every category, despite the fact that we had already done the contract in the past to great accolades (we even got a plaque of appreciation). Another took points off our qualifications because "perhaps they're overqualified". The witch's boss gave the mouthbreathers a perfect score in every category and marked us down in nearly every category. In the end, every selection committee member picked the mouthbreathers by a wide margin.

...two selection committee members did not submit their scores in time. The wimpy purchasing manager said, "it doesn't matter because their scores won't make a difference". This is the same deadbeat who stopped the legitimate process because "one person was not present" at the final interviews.

...of course, in part he didn't want to add the scores because he had already written up the paperwork to award the contract to the mouthbreathers before all of the scores had been submitted.

We obviously filed a protest, and assumed that it would be a pretty obvious correction. However, the protest was denied, and they didn't tell us until they had already sent the contract for approval by the elected officials. They refused to meet with us and gave the contract to the mouthbreathers.

We kicked up a royal fuss. Within six weeks, the organization announced that the department was "being reorganized", and the witch's job and that of her boss (who was also a friend of the mouthbreathers) were being "eliminated". They paid roughly $50,000 to the boss as a "settlement of an employment dispute" under the condition that she not talk about the dispute. When we asked for documentation of the "dispute", we were told that it was a verbal dispute and the payment was made without any written documentation (other than the agreement for the payment and mutual silence).

The mouthbreathers proceeded to royally screw up the study in nearly every way possible. Their work was terrible. When the "reports" were done, it was supposed to be released to big fanfare in public meetings, and all of the meetings were canceled. The reports were put on the website, but in a hard-to-find spot.

When all of the "reports" were on the web site, several months late, we noticed that significant portions of the work were never done, but were paid for. We had made over 20 requests to meet with the elected officials by this time, and eventually one of them ordered the senior staff to meet with us. We informed them of the problem and they reluctantly agreed to do an audit.

After half a dozen open records act requests, we finally got the "audit" and it stated that all of the work had been done and all deadlines had been met.

So my firm is out a lot of money, the taxpayers overpaid for low-quality work, the taxpayers paid for work that wasn't done, and the mouthbreathers made a ton of money. Most of the people involved in this were never punished. The only thing they did was jettison the witch (after offering her a demotion) and jettison her boss with a $50,000 payment and a positive letter of reference (per the secret agreement that I obtained).

I think that most government people are ethical and want to do the right thing. But when you get a group of bad apples, they're really bad. You need federal intervention to kick them out, and we can't seem to get that yet.

Brock
06-17-2012, 08:51 PM
It's not that I think that, it's the way it's supposed to be.

It's never been that way. Let's deal with reality, shall we?

Iz Zat Chew
06-17-2012, 09:35 PM
It's never been that way. Let's deal with reality, shall we?

Reality is that congressmen and senators are supposed to represent the wishes of the constituants. The fact that they don't doesn't mean it wasn't setup that way.

Free country, for now, and you get to hold close to whatever belief you have.

Brock
06-17-2012, 09:37 PM
Reality is that congressmen and senators are supposed to represent the wishes of the constituants. The fact that they don't doesn't mean it wasn't setup that way.

Free country, for now, and you get to hold close to whatever belief you have.

That's fine, your belief is a fairy tale though.

Iz Zat Chew
06-17-2012, 09:40 PM
That's fine, your belief is a fairy tale though.

Have you studied the constitution? I have and even though you think my belief is a fairy tale it is backed by the constitution.

Brock
06-17-2012, 09:45 PM
Have you studied the constitution? I have and even though you think my belief is a fairy tale it is backed by the constitution.

The constitution doesn't prohibit congressmen from being bought. I doubt you've read it.

Iz Zat Chew
06-17-2012, 09:48 PM
The constitution doesn't prohibit congressmen from being bought. I doubt you've read it.

I know you haven't read it. I may not be the most knowledgeable about everything in the constituation but I finished a 10 week course in the constitution and did actually read the whole thing through the 10 weeks.

The senators and the congressmen are supposed to represent their constituants. Being bought might not be defined in the constitution but in the U.S. code you and I are not allowed to participate in insider trading. What makes, or made, it legal for them? Do they not live under the same set of laws that we do?

Brock
06-17-2012, 09:50 PM
I know you haven't read it. I may not be the most knowledgeable about everything in the constituation but I finished a 10 week course in the constitution and did actually read the whole thing through the 10 weeks.

The senators and the congressmen are supposed to represent their constituants. Being bought might not be defined in the constitution but in the U.S. code you and I are not allowed to participate in insider trading. What makes, or made, it legal for them? Do they not live under the same set of laws that we do?

Yeah, I took civics in high school too.

Their constituents are of varying degrees of importance, and number one on the list is the people who supply him with money, i.e. not you.

Iz Zat Chew
06-17-2012, 10:25 PM
Yeah, I took civics in high school too.

Their constituents are of varying degrees of importance, and number one on the list is the people who supply him with money, i.e. not you.

You seem to be lost between what is supposed to be and what is.

Everyone knows they are on the take (illegal) but everyone wants to accept the crime as "they've always done it". If somewhere sometime it's not brought to a head we are going to lose the country. Stand pat thinking that it's OK for them to be crooks if you want to. I will call them what they are.

My constitutional class was last fall, not high school civics. You might want to retake some classes.

You can even do it online.
http://www.hillsdale.edu/constitution/week_00_overview.aspx