The Right Way To Surrender (Update)

It seems like we’ve been waiting forever for the feds to arrest R. Allen Stanford for his alleged Ponzi Madoff scheme.  Well, it’s finally happened, but it’s worthwhile considering the details.



Stanford, 59, was taken into custody yesterday by FBI agents who were waiting outside his girlfriend’s house in Fredericksburg, Va., said Dick DeGuerin, an attorney for the Texas financier.

“Federal agents in black SUVs surrounded his girlfriend’s house this afternoon, and just sat there,” DeGuerin said. “I told him to walk out and introduce himself. So he did, and he asked them, ‘If you’ve got a warrant, take me into custody. If you don’t, I’m going to Houston.’ And they did, so they arrested him.”
Regardless of what you think of Stanford otherwise, he was arrested with style.  It’s not that being arrested is the new black, but if it’s going to happen, it might as well happen with class and dignity.  And that’s precisely how it happened.

This isn’t because Stanford is such a classy buy, being a billionaire notwithstanding, but because he was represented by a real criminal defense lawyer, Dick DeGuerin.  There was no slinking out the back door, or hiding in the basement.  There was no hiding his head.  DeGuerin had his client act with dignity.  An arrest can’t go any better than this.

Now, if only that could be said of both sides of the equation.  Since Stanford’s arrest has been impending forever, DeGuerin had long since advised the U.S. Attorney in Houston that Stanford would be available to surrender at any time.  Yet, the choice was made to take him down in Fredericksburg, Virginia rather than Houston, where he was indicted, and to send out the troops to get him rather than allow Stanford to surrender.  No class at all.

It’s not that the Stanford had a right to surrender, and that the agents had no right to go out and find him wherever he might be.  It’s just each side had an opportunity to show what they were made of.  DeGuerin wins.  No contest.  That’s what you get when you have a real criminal defense lawyer advising you.

Update:  United States Magistrate Judge Frances Stacy has set $500,000 bond, secured by $100,000 cash, for Stanford’s release.  The government (naturally) argued that he should be held without bond since he’s a billionaire, and (naturally) has access to billions.  No doubt, people will rail about the bond given the accusations against Stanford, but they are absolutely dead wrong.

Stanford, through DeGuerin, made clear to the government that he was ready, willing and able to surrender at any moment.  It was the government’s choice to eschew the offer and go out to arrest him despite the offer.  Even then, Stanford offered himself to agents like a gentleman.  It doesn’t mean he didn’t commit the crimes alleged, but it does mean that he didn’t flee.  He had those same billions available to him before, and he (like everyone else in the country) was aware this his indictment was imminent.  If he wanted to flee, he had every opportunity in the world.  He chose to stay.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how it should happen, all around.  Let’s see what happens with the government’s knee-jerk appeal of the Magistrate’s bond determination.


Discover more from Simple Justice

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

3 thoughts on “The Right Way To Surrender (Update)

  1. Windypundit

    I think there’s a general life principle here: If you have no choice, be gracious about it. I tend more toward impotent whining or stunned angry silence myself, so I can see where it pays to get good advice.

  2. Doug Cornelius

    I want to agree with your lumping Stanford and Madoff together. Both were Ponzi schemes (of course, allegedly for Standford).

    But the classic Ponzi scheme promises big returns. Stanford and Madoff, offered smaller, but reliable, returns on the investment. They preyed more on the fear of loss than the thirst of greed.

    Still crooks.

  3. SHG

    I think this is one of the more pervasive misconceptions, that the people investing were receiving huge, unrealistic returns, and therefore knew or should have known that this was a scam.  From what I’ve since learned, the returns were relatively modest but consistent.  Doesn’t change the principles, but certainly makes the victims situation more clear, at least until the the trustee goes after them for the clawbacks.  Then, the victims will be evil again.

Comments are closed.