Friday, May 01, 2009

Billy Allen Fletcher's get out of jail free card.

In the previous post I talked about Billy Allen Fletcher's small problem with the feds investigating his business partner's alleged pump and dump scheme. Well Billy Allen Fletcher has introduced a bill to specifically target Ponzi schemes in the State of Texas, but there is a loophole in the bill that you can drive the Federal budget through. It would seem that it places a statute of limitations of six months on how far back the Attorney General can go prior to the date of an indictment in order to identify and seize money and property in association with a ponzi scheme. Currently the AG's ofice has four years in which to go back as I understand the law. So in other words, if it takes more than six months to put together indictments since the last transaction, the AG's office hands are tied. Billy Allen Fletcher as much as admitted in the Texas Monthly story that he had been borrowing money from Peter to pay Paul, which is a textbook definition of a Ponzi scheme.

Now, was this his intention when he wrote the bill? Neither you nor I can say, he has to answer that question himself. But it does look suspiscious that he would introduce a bill with such a glaring problem when his business transactions have been the subject of legal scrutiny since May of 2007.

This bill has been voted out of committee unanimously. I urge you to contact your representative and urge them to either ammend the bill with a longer siezure window, or to vote against it.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rick Casey writes about this today:

May 03, 2009 7:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Looking at Nick Jarvis and a number of his aliases are quickly discovered in less than 30 seconds. To believe that an experienced Cop, and one that was entrusted (problem) with investigating white collar crimes, can't find the same information that the State of Texas has publicly posted.... is very hard to believe....
Also available is the financial filings of Mr. Fletcher in which he has reported that he is in quite a lot of debt, yet does not list the incident of which he speaks. WHY? AND the other question that this raises is how he is going to pay back this debt, relatives and others on a $7,000 a year salary from the State?
Something does not add up and is looking worse.

May 06, 2009 7:27 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home