AMERICAblog: Madoff receives top limit in sentencing - 150 years in prison
nessa
· 5 months ago
"White House spokesman Robert Gibbs is talking about the message this sends to the market but hell, how about sending a message from the White House? Obama wants others to get their hands dirty cleaning up this mess but he's too willing to take a pass. How pathetic is it that a judge takes more of a stand against Wall Street than a president who ran on the theme of "change"? Is Obama really that timid and afraid to confront such clear abuse?"
You can not have it both ways, when the DOJ wrote that offensive DOMA brief all the blame fell on Obama, but when a ruling is handed down in Federal court today suddenly Obama has nothing to do with it, does not the federal judge answer to his DOJ? You cannot have it both ways. In this instance, I defend the President; with all due respect you seem to be way off base here. I agree with Gibbs it does send a message that is what Justice tends to do.
Charlotte
· 5 months ago
Federal judges don't report to the Department of Justice, they hear and decided the outcome of cases. A judge basically runs his own little fiefdom and can only get smacked down by being overruled by a higher court or impeached for unlawful conduct. This judge, I can almost guarantee you, was not appointed by Obama, and even if he was, that's not the point. The DOJ has the responsibility of prosecuting or defending cases before federal judges. In the case of DOMA, the Obama administration decided to defend a law that they claim is unjust.
nessa
· 5 months ago
Anything Federal reports to the Federal Government and Obama is head of the federal government. He may not have hired that Judge but that does not mean federal judges do not fall under the President. Also Presidents do pick federal judges. Not all the attorneys on the brief were Obama's picks but it still fell at the feet of Obama, I still stand by my original statement but I appreciate your response.
Charlotte
· 5 months ago
I'm not sure you understand the judicial system, or the separation of powers. Yes, presidents pick federal judges, in this case Chin was appointed by President Clinton. However, judges do not have marching orders from the president. They are suppose to decide cases independently of the president, that is why federal judges are lifetime appointments so they are not beholden to the executive office or their agenda. The judiciary is a distinct branch of government, just like the legislative and the executive.
Federal judges might not get promotions to higher courts if an administration does not like their work, but they can't be fired or held accountable by them unless they have done something illegal.
And yes, the DOMA brief falls squarely on Obama's shoulders, regardless if the attorneys were his picks or not, because the Department of Justice is part of the Executive Branch and he is ultimately responsible for which laws it defends and how.
Asterix
· 5 months ago
I still think the whole thing stinks.
Madoff is experienced enough to know better. I suspect that he's taking the fall for the family and whomever is behind the whole scheme. Said shadow people have probably threatened to dispose of Bernie and his entire family if he squeals.
Russian or Israeli mafia, perhaps?
With Bernie in prison and the rest of the family lawyered up, any further investigation is impossible.
okojo
· 5 months ago
Use Occam's Razor than tinfoil hat antics. Bernie Madoff pled guilty and not cooperating to protect his family first and foremost. The second group is the early investors in the Ponzi scheme, like Carl Shapiro, Jeffrey Picower and Stanley Chais.
Before looking for nebulous opaque elements, look for how the scam operated. The main players wasn't financial service professionals, like Investment Bankers who perpetuated the fraud, the main players were accountants. Picower was a good example, he was a tax lawyer and accountant. Much was done to keep up appearances of legitimacy.
My guess is that this fraud began when Madoff started up his business. It is no surprise that two associates of Madoff's father in law, are heavily involved in this ponzi scam.
Asterix
· 5 months ago
The problem with your scenario is Madoff himself. He ran a legit securities firm for 31 years (also served as NASDAQ non-executive chairman) before starting his Ponzi/affinity scheme. Surely he was familiar with market fluctuations and how they shake out shady investment schemes. He knew about Enron.
He wasn't poor when he started the fraud; why did he do it?
okojo
· 5 months ago
He didn't run a legit securities firm, or a market making business. He ran a front of a legit securities firm and market making business. He was using the ponzi scheme to prop up the investment banking side of his business. He was laundering money from a JP Morgan Chase account to his London office then back to a Bank of New York account that his market making business was using.
There are huge clues that Madoff was crooked from day one of his investment banking business.
Madoff's scam was different than the Enron imbroglio. Madoff's ponzi scheme was simpler, but he needed many passive clients, like charitable foundations, who would take out the bare minimum to keep the fraud going.
He was Middle Class when he started his investment Banking Business, and his first victims were middle class investors. Many of his first investors were promise a certain amount of return. The promise of a certain return has been hovering around Madoff's fraud since he started business, and it looks like he learned it from his Father-in-law, Saul Alpern
Asterix
· 5 months ago
Now that's what I find confusing. Madoff says he started the Ponzi scheme in 1991, but he'd been in business since 1960. If he was running a Ponzi scheme the entire time, I'm amazed that he made it through the 1970s.
okojo
· 5 months ago
It is important to follow the paper trail, first and foremost than rely on the word of Bernie Madoff. Madoff isn't cooperating with the Federal Authorities. The fraud goes well beyond 1991, given that Frank Avellino and Michael Bienes were promising clients a certain return for years and they were one part of the fraud that Madoff's perpetuated.
Madoff also stated that his market making business was legitimate. It wasn't legitimate, he may had made money, but overhead was high that BMIS made little or lost money.
The last thing the authorities are doing is going by anyone's word who was involved in Madoff, as much as following the records and an incriminating paper trail that has already incriminated Jeffry Picower and Stanley Chais.
GoBlue
· 5 months ago
I hate to quote or even paraphrase Ronald Reagan--but "Where's the rest of you?" I clicked on Americablog under my favorites, and this is the only story that appears.
All Comments
You can not have it both ways, when the DOJ wrote that offensive DOMA brief all the blame fell on Obama, but when a ruling is handed down in Federal court today suddenly Obama has nothing to do with it, does not the federal judge answer to his DOJ? You cannot have it both ways. In this instance, I defend the President; with all due respect you seem to be way off base here.
I agree with Gibbs it does send a message that is what Justice tends to do.
Federal judges might not get promotions to higher courts if an administration does not like their work, but they can't be fired or held accountable by them unless they have done something illegal.
And yes, the DOMA brief falls squarely on Obama's shoulders, regardless if the attorneys were his picks or not, because the Department of Justice is part of the Executive Branch and he is ultimately responsible for which laws it defends and how.
Madoff is experienced enough to know better. I suspect that he's taking the fall for the family and whomever is behind the whole scheme. Said shadow people have probably threatened to dispose of Bernie and his entire family if he squeals.
Russian or Israeli mafia, perhaps?
With Bernie in prison and the rest of the family lawyered up, any further investigation is impossible.
Before looking for nebulous opaque elements, look for how the scam operated. The main players wasn't financial service professionals, like Investment Bankers who perpetuated the fraud, the main players were accountants. Picower was a good example, he was a tax lawyer and accountant. Much was done to keep up appearances of legitimacy.
My guess is that this fraud began when Madoff started up his business. It is no surprise that two associates of Madoff's father in law, are heavily involved in this ponzi scam.
He wasn't poor when he started the fraud; why did he do it?
There are huge clues that Madoff was crooked from day one of his investment banking business.
Madoff's scam was different than the Enron imbroglio. Madoff's ponzi scheme was simpler, but he needed many passive clients, like charitable foundations, who would take out the bare minimum to keep the fraud going.
He was Middle Class when he started his investment Banking Business, and his first victims were middle class investors. Many of his first investors were promise a certain amount of return. The promise of a certain return has been hovering around Madoff's fraud since he started business, and it looks like he learned it from his Father-in-law, Saul Alpern
Madoff also stated that his market making business was legitimate. It wasn't legitimate, he may had made money, but overhead was high that BMIS made little or lost money.
The last thing the authorities are doing is going by anyone's word who was involved in Madoff, as much as following the records and an incriminating paper trail that has already incriminated Jeffry Picower and Stanley Chais.