I am pretty sure an Antiguan based offshore bank can certainly not be FDIC insured. If an investor chose to place their money overseas in Mr.Stanford's or any other offshore bank, there may be other reasons why they may want to have their money offshore.

Since I do not reside in Antigua and have nothing to gain (or lose) by exposing my identity, it is irrelevant who I am. However, I do reserve my right to freely express my views when erroneous statements are made about the American legal system, or general common law principles. Others can do their own research and judge whether my remarks make sense or not. Fortunately, I am at the point of my career where I can spend a minute or two (and much more if I choose to) to make an online comment without it affecting my personal or professional obligations. Best wishes on your future "commentaries". ....just be careful to be more prudent with your facts.

I thought that it was just the low IQ people defending Stanford and saying he is innocent....but a person's IQ cannot be that low otherwise they wouldn't be able to write. Also, he was not a religion since only in defending ANY religion do people ignore reason and common sense. For religious people, look at any religion, except YOURS of course. Therefore these had to be people who benefitted significantly from the fraud or stands to lose the most if he gets convicted.

The man came to Antigua 20yrs ago touting that he was a billionaire investor who can tranform the island when he KNEW that he was bankrupt just a few years earlier and didn't have squat. I think that makes you a LIAR. He then with his slimy CFO (who is now looking for redemption but too late) start spending depositor's monies to build a brand and a name to attract even more money and was very successful at that. They then had to fabricate their Financial Statements to show all the money spent as INVESTMENTS earning massive 14% returns and bribed auditors and regulators to sign off on them. That makes both CRIMINALS or (un)common thieves. ONE of them accepts that the sweet run is finally over and is trying to cut a plea deal but the OTHER either has amnesia, is in deep denial or just wants to lay the full blame on his partner in crime, depending on which mood he is in. That IS the TRUTH.

Enough of what others may describe as "...diatribic discourse" between a known person and those hiding behind "...PSUEDONYMS. " It is dangerous to engange such persons that seemingly intended as a calculated distraction from internationally recognized and practiced "...LEGAL PRINCIPLES," particularly, as they affect criminal trials.

Such time consuming exercise is not suited to me in researching and preparing for my next commentary.

Maybe, whomever you are, impostor or otherwise, you may wish to utilize such time in preparing your briefs for your valuable clients.

Nonetheless, continue to visit with the assurance that your right of response, however opinionated, shall prevail. Best wishes.
Biblical teachings have taught that "...Better to live on a corner of a roof, than living in a home with a quarelling woman" [Provverbs 25 :24].

Meant quotation marks - not italics....

I hope Peter Morganstern is taking notes!

GoodJobBob- My friend, "edify" (or edification) wasn't my word....Mr. Pompey used it and I merely quoted it (read his second post)....FYI, that's generally why people use italics...to quote another. Going to law school is only half of the equation.....ex perience matters as well.

At the risk of getting in the middle of your spat with Mr. Pompey, I will observe that I didn't go to law school, yet I've kicked ** on several people who had. Also, I don't think "edify" is the word you're looking for, since it has moral or spiritual implications while your disagreement with Mr. Pompey is purely academic. As Ayn Rand famously said: "words have meanings."

RAWLSTON POMPEY - Actually, some opinions are indeed silly and should be dismissed as such. When you attempt to incoherently "edify" an attorney with almost 25 years of experience in multiple disciplines of law in the US, about an issue of US law....when you yourself have never studied nor practiced law in the US (please correct me if I am wrong)....that is, in my opinion, quite silly.

this davis guy is giving me crams i am lmao.. he was the boos running the operations,now because the world police say they will give him 30 years if he make some story up ,he start talking.now if i am 63 years of age and this case is depending on me putting away stanford and my self or 30 years, 30 plus 63 thats 93 how many people live to see that, so plead innocent thats y education sometimes needs o be explain ,what the system call education by having some gce and cxc does not make u so call educated ,well by the systems because thats the criteria they set ,but far from the truth. free stanford

set the man free america u got no case ,thats all america do is kill the the people they think is making a change and its not in their interest, gadafi ,sadam. but castro out lived them enbargo and i can go on and on america is so corrupt talking about world police waste of the worlds time,y they not going in to syria ? what?no oil let go stanford he is inocent he did nothing what any other financial institution do .if all the people go to any bank right now and pull their money what would happen? ,,guess what they would say its a run on the bank ,so a bail out would come so funny. banks do the same thing they give bonuses with peoples money ,its all peoples money so again free stanford ,a letter from most antiguans.

Am so tired of all these bloggers who kept on reporting that Mr Stanford wasn't spending his money. We know! Talking about Dallas Texas i know Mr Stanford is no Mark Cuban the Owner of the MAVRICKS NBA TEAM and we talking cash money.
So as an investor i see expensive yatch and private jet, an airline company, on the news i heard of land purchases and even possible an entire island, the many developments in A&B and the millions given, carnival, sailing week and all the other sponsorship and donation, just in the caribbean, the millions on 20/20 where by hitting a six you can be rich or after entering the games for free just by catching a ball is money in your pocket, we all sat and watch the expensive rings the winning team got along with there big check, the millions pump in the caribbean to get them ready for 20/20, all this was done right infront our eyes. As an investor i would surely be having SERIOUS problem and asking SERIOUS questions.The American insurance thing, the Murdoff thing was kept low,but Mr Stanford was right in your faces and you never once thought then to take your money and run.

In addition to this criminal case, there's also David Vitter's SEC v SIPC action and in the UK Judge Gloster is deciding if Grant Thornton can unfreeze money in the UK (presumably to hand over to the GOAB, since they've pushed themselves to the front of the line). I've given up on living long enough to see the outcome of the Leroy King extradition proceedings.

There's lots to follow.

Clearly, you have been following the trial, because DAVIS was asked a specific question; he dodged it and told the Prosecutor he should ask STANFORD.

He was in fact, in a round-about way telling the jury that "...ONLY STANFORD" could answer such question.
Every accused person has the "...RIGHT OF SILENCE" (5th Amndt). The maxim is none may "...INCRIMINATE HIMSELF" even if it appears that he is guilty as midnight. Thus, he who asserts "...MUST PROVE."

Never thought of any view point as silly, not even yours. Thought all opinions are perfectly legitimate, even when they may run counter to or be perceived as contrary to other viewpoints.

Clearly, had you been familiar with criminal trials, you may have known that WARNINGS were not issued before "...SUMMATION," that is, at the END of the Prosecution and Defence cases. You were expected to have understood that in "...paragraph 2" of first commentary. Blame me for wrongly assuming that you knew.

For simplicity- WARNINGS are never given during "...EVIDENCE IN CHIEF," nor during "...CROSS EXAMINATION." Not even in "...KANGAROO COURTS" this happen. That would make a mockery of the trial.

I am not hear to defend Davis, Stanford or anyone who have a hand in this alleged ponzi scheme. However I am don't understand why James Davis is a credable witness when he was the CEO of the company as and Stanford's lawyer saidQuote:

Davis "ran the company, he managed the business, he handled the money," Scardino said. "Stanford was kind of an absentee CEO, the visionary, the guy who had the ideas."

www.wkrn.com/story/16584888/testimony-to-begin-in-trial-of-financier-stanford?clienttype=printable
Again I am not hear to defend anyone but I believe in rationality than emotionality based on some of the commets. I just want to see the culprits get there just justice to them and the investors get there money back. Xxxxx I am sure has used investors money as his personal "piggy bank," and I would like to know if he paid any of them back? As a government's witness is he entitled to?

The incident you refer to was one where Mr. Davis made specific reference to future testimony by the defendant, (his words were something to the effect of "you'll have to ask Mr. Stanford about that") which prompted a demand for a mistrial by the defense, since Sir Allen retains his right against self-incriminat ion. The judge denied he mistrial, but instructed the jury to disregard that one statement.

It had nothing to do with the witness, his motives or believability, it had to do with the 5th amendment.

ME GO THROW ME CORN, ME NO CALL NONE FOWL, A SAYING CLUCK, CLUCK, CLUCK, clack...clack.. .clack...SO who the cap fit, mek dem wear it....It's A Prophet BOB MARLEY earth strong...me go throw mecorn, me no call no fowl, just a cluck, cluck, cluck... Some will hate you, pretend they love you now....

RAWLSTON POMPEY - I don't wish to engage in a silly argument with you, but I will simply state that your response lacks depth of thought. I have not been following the trial on MSN to the extent that you apparently have, but from experience I will tell you that if the judge struck certain testimony, that is entirely common-place. It might have been hearsay, or otherwise impermissible. That is totally different, however, to the argument you first postulated, and to which I responded.

Just figure you should be engaged for edification as you have clearly demonstrated no experience in criminal trials. Been there countless times. In the Court's "...SUMMATION" of the evidence in its "...TOTALITY", both Prosecution and Defence, is the function of trial judges.

They must remain impartial, give directions to the jury only on the law and guide the proceedings for "...FAIR TRIAL." Why did you think Judge Hittner instructed the jury to ignore an answer DAVIS had given. (See Court report of his testimony at MSN). The Jury are judges of the "...FACTS ONLY."

You will hear Defence attorneys reminding the Jury that if the "...PREJUDICIAL EFFECT OUTWEIGHS THE EVIDENTIAL VALUE," then it mus be resolved in "...FAVOUR OF THE ACCUSED."

The real question is what safeguards first world countries in general (remember only about 15% of the SIB CDs were sold to US citizens) will put in place to protect their financial systems and citizens from unregulated/rog ue jurisdictions.

RAWLSTON POMPEY - With respect, you are wrong. It is not the judge's role to cast aspersions on the character of the prosecution witness by warning the jury regarding his motive...the judge is a neutral arbiter of justice who will certainly explain the law and clarify any points or processes of law that may tend to confuse the jury…..but if the testimony is admissible, there is absolutely no reason for the judge to single it out and warn the jury. The defense team will certainly do their duty and point out any biases, self interests and any other motives that will show a propensity on the part of the co-conspirator to lie to protect his own skin.

Sir Allen should just call his personal lawyer Errol Cort to testify. I'm sure he can explain EVERYTHING.

Some interesting commentaries. Bread seemed to have a grasp of criminal trials. He is correct.

Where co-accused, with or without striking deals, have given evidence incriminating others, trial Judges are judicially bound to WARN juries of the DANGERS of convicting other co-accused on such testimony.

Frequently, such evidence is given for one of many reasons- primarily for "...LIGHT PUNISHMENT" or "...ACRIMONY." An accused person may say "...I AM NOT GOING DOWN ALONE." Thus, this is where graves are usually dug.

Yet the depositors in those American banks were given restitution through the FDIC. What protection would investors have if anyone ever trusts an Antiguan bank again?

I hope Lester, Baldwin, Errol and Leroy are practicing their Shaggy defense. One, two three four ...."IT WASN'T ME!"

In Stanford (and Antigua's) case, a bank lost billions, and Stanford and others are being dragged the mud ugly court and the courts of public opinion. In America, a list of banks, won't call names, who the US govt actually took up MORE poor American taxpayers money and bailed them out.

Then, the management of these banks took the additional poor American taxpayers money for bonuses to maintain their jets and yachts. In their backyard, Americans first lost and the their tax propped up the aleady rich, HAHAHAHA unbelievable!

Sir Allen was a citizen, Knight and (until his arrest) resident of Antigua. His government has yet to even charge him, let alone "reel him in"!

Wow....doesn't matter that he was using other people's money like it was his own....many of the 20,000 lost their life savings because he was SPENDING rather than INVESTING. $US7Billion and all to show for it it some pretty buildings? When you lie about what you were spending people's money on it is a CRIME. Also bribing regulators and auditors to sign off on the FAKE investments is a CRIME. Bank of America bought sub-prime securities and lost money when that went bust.....They didn't build houses on Maiden Island for the CEO then broke it down because it wasn't "quite nice enough" and booked the spending as Investments in "highly liquid securites" yielding 14% returns!!! It is illegal and immoral, in other words WRONG to squander other people's life savings and lie about it. I guess the moral compass of some people will always be off...whether it's a suicide bomber, a Nazi, a Hutu or just a few church going Antiguans who thought Allen was a "good man" or better still a "smart businessman".

Trusting Davis' testimony is like trusting the devil. He has cut a deal and will sing like a canary to save himself.
I'm following this case online and am still looking for someone/somethi ng credible....... ......early days yet.

set him free now

this what america do ,just as long u not spending the money in america,y they did not brought all the banks that colaspe in america to court ,all they did was to give them more money and call it a bail out so funny.only in america.set the man free let him come back to his paradise island antigua now ,,,antigua love u allan.

if i was a juror i would take his testimony with a grain of salt.

Stanford is just another super power rouge agent, gangsta, godfather whose gov't had to reel him back in, since he was allegedly making the 25th of every month xmas day for plenty, as he was ho, ho, ho, hoing in his lear jets instead of on a sleigh. Be aware of WHO"RE bringing gifts, RAS is coming to town.

I can't help but wonder if the judge ruling on the SEC v. SIPC action is watching this. Antiguan Bank, Antiguan auditor, Antiguan regulator, Antiguan Knighthood, Antiguan cricket stadium, etc., etc... So far no mention of the SEC except how Leroy King lied to them. It seems unlikely after this weeks testimony he'll force US coverage for SIB.