R. Allen Stanford, the Texas financier accused of running a $7 billion Ponzi scheme, has found himself in the legal equivalent of being between a rock and a hard place.

As the accused scammer awaits the start of his fraud trial in a Texas jail, he says he has no money for a lawyer to fend off charges that could land him in jail for the rest of his life.

What’s more, Stanford is hamstrung in trying to access an estate reportedly worth $2 billion because the feds have frozen the assets until Stanford can prove the loot wasn’t obtained illegally.

“Any effort by him to challenge civilly or criminally what the government’s got comes with a risk of exposing himself and forfeiting his rights,” said former federal prosecutor Eric Sussman, who’s not involved in the case. “Obviously, it puts him in a bind.”

Stanford, 59, is caught between two constitutional rights — one that guarantees legal counsel and another that protects a defendant from being forced to testify against himself.

To show his assets are untainted, thus allowing him to pay for legal representation, Stanford would have to testify, defense lawyer Dick DeGuerin told US District Judge David Hittner in Houston. Anything he revealed about his finances could be used against him in the criminal prosecution.

Stanford is accused of leading a fraud scheme involving the sale of certificates of deposit through Antigua-based Stanford International Bank Ltd. He pleaded not guilty and has been in custody without bail since June 18.

Stanford and DeGuerin tried to part ways after the lawyer demanded an assurance of payment. The issue of whether Stanford could pay for his defense came up again after he tried to hire Robert Luskin of Patton Boggs, and Luskin refused to sign on to the case until he and his firm are assured they’ll get paid.