As most folks following the upfolding Stanford Financial Group scandal know by now, Laura Pendergest-Holt was the first Stanford executive arrested in connection with the scandal.
If only a few of the allegations contained in the motion below are true, it looks as if the Justice Department and the SEC are well on their way to trampling the Constitutional rights of Ms. Pendergest-Holt, R. Allen Stanford and the other targeted Stanford executives in a manner that we’ve seen before.
Just wondering Tom, since it appears Stanford trampled all over the rights, if not the pocketbooks of many people who invested in his nonsense, what constitutional rights are being violated with Ms. Pendergest who reportedly badly misled investors in the Ponzi scheme?
We have seen scandals in the past few years where billions upon billions of dollars have been swindled from investors and pensioners. Were thier ‘constitutional rights’ violated?
How about Madoff? What does he deserve?
Gary, at this point, there is a fundamental difference between Madoff and Pendergest-Holt — Madoff has admitted his guilt to defrauding investors; Pendergest-Holt has not. Interestingly, Madoff has been treated better by his prosecutors than Pendergest-Holt has by hers.
I have no problem with the book being thrown at Madoff. With regard to Pendergest-Holt, I’m not so sure. Was she even sophisticated enough financially to know what was going on at Stanford? If not, should she be treated the same as Madoff?
The Constitutional rights that we have are the product of centuries of the arbitrary and capricious use of state power against its citizens. When we begin to think that it is acceptable to use that power against fellow citizens because they might be guilty of a crime, it is a very short step to acceptance of the use of that power regardless of whether a law has been violated.