Motion to Vacate filed on 24 April 2014, based on:
1) SEC lack of jurisdictional or regulatory authority over SIB
2) Denial of Due Process, and improper venue for their complaint
3) Blatant violation of Stanford’s Fourth Amendment right to protection from illegal search and seizure
4) Fraud upon de Court in this matter
Janvey did not have warrants to seize all documents found in Stanford’s office.
Violation of the U.S. Computer and Wire Act. Janvey hired the FTI consulting, who got access illegally to the database located in Antigua. Once it was discovered, the access was shut off.
Stanford was denied to access some documents for his defense. In addition the denied access to the “select” material which was “mysteriously” relocated to a warehouse in Washington D.C. (there was enough room in Houston to store all the material, why did they move it to Washington?).
Stanford alleges that “select” material was the detailed customer account records of SIB obtained by Janvey illegally via “hacking”, and that the Government, through the Receiver, had very purposefully places well out of defense counsel’s reach.
Davis quickly pled to, for two reasons (a) he had embezzled vast amounts of money from the company, and (b) he was offered a deal that would allow him to avoid prosecution on the embezzling…
Reading the Motion to Vacate; the oral deposition of Karyl Van Tassel, who (unlicensed) firm (FTI) was being paid tens of millions of dollars to produce a certain result:
Attorney Matthew Nielson:
Q. Who prepared the Declaration?
A. (Van Tassel) The Declaration was prepared between FTI and Baker Botts.
Q. Okay. Who did the initial drafting?
A. Baker Botts did.
Q. The entire thing?
Attorney Michael Stanley:
Q. you mentioned how a database had been compiled that had over 40 terabytes of information and 2.5 million documents.
A. (Van Tassel) Yes.
Q. Where do those documents come from?
A. Well, we talked about the Temenos database.
Q. It is fair to say that there have always been investments made with SIB money? I’ll make it a little more clear. When money came in from the depositors, this didn’t sit in a big burlap bag under Allen Stanford’s desk, did it?
Q. Okay. It was actually put into banks and investments were made with that money, right?
A. That’s correct.
Q. Okay. Now, when the depositors wanted to redeem their CD’s, sometimes those redemptions would come from available cash, right?
Q. Okay. Did it – it came from cash they had in the accounts that had not been invested in private equity, right?
A. Or otherwise disseminated throughout the organization, yes.
Stanley started asking about the accounts located in other banks and Van Tassel could not answer how many accounts are, how much money was deposited, how much money is currently available…
Stanley also asked about how many companies received money from SIB (as investment from Stanford). Van Tassel could not exactly answer that question.
Stanley asked her why she said it was a Ponzi scheme from the beginning. Van Tassel said she got that information from Davis’s testimony. Van Tassel did not make any research or looked at the balance sheets to confirm whether SIB was solvent or not.
Attorney Mark Goranson to Van Tassel:
Q. I want to talk a little bit about, you had experience, excluding the Stanford matter, on two other matters that involved Ponzi schemes; is that correct?
A. (Van Tassel) Yes.
Q. Okay. And one involved, I think you said, a computer reseller; is that right?
Q. And who were you retained by?
A. A law firm and I can’t recall the name.
Q. And did you issue a written report in that case?
Q. And the second matter, I believe you said, was a real estate matter.
Q. And the name of the lawsuit?
A. I don’t recall.
Q. And who retained you?
A. I don’t remember the name of the law firm
Jim Davis was an admitted “crook”, “coward”, “fraudster”, “liar” and “thief” who, to avoid 30 years of hard time would have said and admitted to anything asked of him – up to an including, if necessary, the Kennedy assassination. Though not yet faced with prison time, Karyl Van Tassel, Senior Managing Director of FTI Consulting, had an equally compelling reason to “find”, “declare” and provide “attestations” consistent with the predeterminations contained in the SEC’s complaint…
In other words, in all of her “Declarations” in the Stanford matter, Ms. Van Tassel, CPA, was attesting to work performed by a firm that had no license to perform such work – and nowhere in any of the required locations did she or her firm (FTI) indicate by way of disclaimer that “This firm is not a CPA firm”, and that the forensic accounting and investigatory work they were performing was being done with total disregard to the applicable laws in Texas.
FTI aided and abetted the SEC and DOJ in their fraudulent pursuit of SIB, the concealment of an international crime, and ultimately, the purposeful denial of information that would have proven the solvency of SIB; and thus the innocence of RAS. Additional evidentiary support for this conclusion is found in the Receiver’s decision to employ both the unlicensed FTI, and the more widely known and reputable (and appropriately licensed) accounting firm Ernst & Young. As there can be no other reason for retaining both of these firms, and it is thus abundantly clear that the more accommodating and less reputable FTI was needed here to attest to the financial manipulations necessary to corroborate the SEC’s allegation of a Ponzi scheme.
Attorney Dick DeGuerin asked FTI’s lead forensic auditor, Jeffrey Ferguson the following question:
Q. This isn’t a Ponzi scheme, is it?
A. (Mr Ferguson FTI) I haven’t formulated an opinion on that.
(Mr. DeGuerin to the Court): “This is a gentleman who’s a certified fraud examiner, whose firm has [already] been paid $6 million dollars to look at records, and he cannot say under oath that this is a Ponzi scheme.
And then, 3 years later, after the thousands of media slanderings and the total destruction of his global company, his life and an untold number of other lives, based on Karyl Van Tassel’s findings of a “Ponzi scheme”…
BUT Van Tassel said she got that information (that it was a Ponzi scheme) from Davis’s testimony. Van Tassel did not make any research or looked at the balance sheets to confirm whether SIB was solvent or not.