According to documents filed by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Ruth Madoff was required to surrender her passport on December 18, 2008, as a condition of her husband's bail agreement.

As she was not charged with any crime at that time, one can only speculate as to the government's reason, or reasons, for seizing her passport.

Given the fact that Bernard Madoff had an office in London, the government may have feared that his wife would travel there and destroy documents and/or empty the firm's coffers. There may also have been concern that Ruth would raid her home in Cap d'Antibes, France, where the Madoffs may have secreted documents, negotiable securities and cash, or that she would purchase an around the world air ticket, enabling her to visit any number of countries where she and Bernie, or trusted confederates, may have hidden large assets.

Then, there is the possibility that the government has suspected from the very beginning of its investigation that Ruth played a role in her husband's criminal enterprise and thus should not be given the opportunity to flee from the United States to a place where her extradition could pose difficulties or be downright impossible.

Whatever the case may be, if the government's legal pretext in taking her passport was linked to the conditions of her husband's bail agreement, Ruth's passport should have been returned on, or shortly after, March 12, the day his bail agreement became histoty on his remand to the Metropolitan Correctional Center.

The issue of Ruth Madoff's passport is highly relevant: if it has in fact been returned to her, she would presumably be free to leave the country with a great deal of cash. If, on the other hand, the government still holds her passport, is it because she will eventually face criminal charges? If that is not the case, given that Bernie is no longer out on bail, why should she be limited from traveling abroad?

Seeking clarity about Ruth's status, we e-mailed the Southern District two questions directed at acting U.S. Attorney Lev Dassin only to be informed via return e-mail that he is not responding to inquiries therefore not answering the question of whether or nor she has her passport.

We have also asked Ruth's attorney, Peter Chavkin, whether his client's passport has been returned. We await his reply.

In not simply responding "Yes" or "No" to our queries, is the government revealing more than it is saying?

Oh, to have been flies on the wall during Ruth's visit with Bernie yesterday afternoon at the Metropolitan Correctional Center!

Why, we wonder, given that Ruth and Bernie were inseparable during their days of high living, did it take the erstwhile "Josie College" so long to pick herself up and make the six-mile trip downtown in the company of one of her attorneys?

After trying in vain to reach Ruth's lead attorney, Peter Chavkin, this afternoon, first by telephone--we left a message on his voice mail--and then via e-mail, concerning the timing and purpose of his client's visit, we can only conclude there's something fishy afoot here.

Whatever the reason for Ruth's long-delayed reunion with Bernie, we don't think it was a simple case of "Missed you, honey."

Could it be that Ruth was delivering a message to Bernie via a pre-agreed upon code-"The Penthouse is leaking," i.e. The Feds are getting too close to our concealed safes for comfort," or "I want to dig up the window boxes on the terrace," i.e. "Better get somebody over to Cap D'Antibes ASAP to dig my stash up," or I took my cheapo watch to the jeweler's to get the battery replaced," i.e. "Don't worry about my having enough chump change because I finally got those pricey watches we managed to hide from the Feds sent to that fence we tried to deal with in December."

Or could it be that Ruth knows that her "innocent spouse" jig will soon be up and that rather than missing Bernie, she simply wants a heads-up from him on what conditions are like at the Metropolitan Correctional Center?

Stay tuned for the next installment of "Josie College and Good Old Bernie's Jailhouse Reunion."

The VIP Room of Northshore Towers, a three-building luxury condominium complex on New York's Queens-Nassau County border--a microcosom of the many communities throughout the U.S. that have fallen victim to Bernard Madoff's economic terrorism--was filled to capacity last evening for a "Meet the Authors" session billed as:

Gerald and Deborah Strober Discussing a Brand New Book...The First Published of its Kind!! Catastrophe: The Story of Bernard L. Madoff the Man Who Swindled the World."

Before we proceed, full disclosure is in order; this meeting was ably organized and avidly promoted by our cousin Scott Strober, a resident of the Towers, along with his wife Linda, and their daughters Samantha and Emily.

Following our reading of excerpts from Catastrophe, the floor was opened for questions. Many hands were raised. While none of our interlocutors identified themselves as victims of Madoff's massive Ponzi scheme, it was clear from the tone of their queries and statements that they too are traumatized, their illusions concerning the transparency of financial institutions, as well as the integrity and ability of the Securities and Exchange Commission to protect the public against fraud, forever shattered.

While researching Catastrophe, having read literally thousands of blogs posted by the vox populi--they ranged from victims' accounts of the utter devastation of their lives to expressions of outrage from those who merely learned of Madoff's treachery--we sensed their pain and disillusionment.

Standing before a roomful of neighbors of the elderly couples who may soon be literally without a roof over their heads, however, we realized that we had not yet fully grasped their misery.

Last evening's "Meet the Authors" forum was a most worthwhile, albiet painful, enhancement of our learning curve.

For having given us that opportunity, we are deeply grateful to our Strober cousins and those Northshore Towers residents who joined us last evening in their VIP room.

We've tried in vain to get Ike Sorkin to own up: did he ever bother to inform Bernie about the Vilar case? [See our last posting]

Tired of Ike's "No Comment" whenever we seek to shed some light on the Madoff saga, we are turning to Ruth, hence the following letter, which we left with the doorman at her Manhattan apartment building this afternoon.

Dear Ms. Madoff,

We are the co-authors of Catastrophe: The Story of Bernard L. Madoff The Man Who Swindled The World, the first book to be published about your husband's case.

Our purpose in writing to you at this time is to seek clarification as to why your husband decided to plead guilty to eleven counts of fraud rather than opting to stand trial and thus likely being able to remain under house arrest for months, if not years, as the prosecution prepares its case.

Prior to your husband's decision to plead guilty on March 12, did Ira Sorkin inform either of you that Alberto Vilar, whose case has been characterized by the U.S. Attorney  as being "strikingly similar" to your husband's, by opting to go to trial was able to remain under house arrest for more than three years?

If so, did Mr. Sorkin then counsel your husband to hold off on a guilty plea?

We had actually posed the question to Mr. Sorkin last Thursday morning, following his failed attempt before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals to return your husband to house arrest pending his sentencing on June 16.

Mr. Sorkin responded "No comment." Further, Mr. Sorkin has not responded to our email query of March 23 regarding these questions.

If indeed Mr. Sorkin did not mention the Vilar case to either of you, do you plan to ask him why he failed to do so?

Sincerely yours,

Deborah Hart Strober       Gerald Strober

Could it be that there really was a deal for Bernie Madoff--one whose details will remain in camera?

Otherwise, we simply can't understand why Bernie Madoff would have thrown in the towel and pled guilty on eleven counts last Thursday, rather than taking his chances before a jury.

Could it be that the Feds knew from the get-go that the slightly-built, fine-boned and vivacious Ruth, nee Alpern--dubbed "Josie College" during her years at Far Rockaway High School--and not the low-key Bernie, was the instigator of his massive Ponzi scheme?

Is that why Bernie's seemingly loving mate did not accompany him to court even once in the three months following his arrest?

If indeed Ruth was fingered early on and a deal was in the pipline, Ike Sorkin, and later her new attorney, Peter A. Chavkin, may have thought it the better part of wisdom for the erstwhile High School Queen to publicly distance herself from the Ponzi King.

So what could that deal be?

We believe that the scenario may read as follows:

Bernie pleads, apologizes and goes directly to jail;

The Feds go after and confiscate all of the assets--real estate and cash and jewelry and silverware and other items--Ruth claims are hers;

The investigation of Ruth's complicity is dropped, and, as a bonus, Mark and Andrew are left alone.

We hear that inmate # 61727054 is already tiring of the micro-waved chicken patties served up for his 4:00 p.m. dinner at the Metropolitan Correctional Center and wants out ASAP.

Will he be relieved of the tedium of jail, at least temporarily?

We'll find out come Thursday, when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit will hear Bernie's petition for reinstatement of house arrest until his sentencing on June 16 and remand to The Big House.

Lest Bernie despair about his ultimate destination, there may be an alternative accomodation, namely incarceration in a prison-turned-hotel.

There's a caveat, however: Bernie would have to cop a plea and be sentenced in Europe--that is unless he can hold out until the anticipated conversion of Alcatraz.

We aren't making this stuff up; former penal institutions, with accomodations fit for a [Ponzi] King in former cells ranging from luxe to severe, are proliferating all over the place.

Should Bernie's offices in London's toney Mayfair yield enough incriminating documents to warrant extradition to the United Kingdom, may we suggest Malmaison, formerly a Victorian era prison, located in Oxford, whose on-line brochure informs us that "This one-time prison is now a stunning boutique hotel...fabulous original architecture...as close to staying in a prison as it gets." Your eye will go immediately to the original heavy metal-studded doors, while once you enter the main atrium and see the wrought iron work stairs and three inch steel doors, you could almost forget that you're on a break and not actually doing time."

During Ruth's visits, the two of them could request the "Love Suite package," which includes Champagne, choclolate-dipped strawberries, aromatic oils, candles and a champagne breakfast.

And should Bernie choose to conduct sub-rosa business, he could greet clients in one of the hotel's "intimate meeting facilities for small groups."

Then there's Germany, where he could try to book at the Hotel Alcatraz, in Kaiserslautern--not to be confused with the American prison which is slated to become a hostelry, as are institutions in Munich, Taipei, Avignon, and Costa Rica.

And if the Swiss decide to discover ill-gotten gains sheltered heretofore in secret accounts, there's even a former prison in Lucerne, where Bernie can request the suite that was once the director's office.

Last, and deserving of five stars in Michelin, we believe, is--no kidding--the former KGB prison in Latvia. There guests can "enjoy" being threatened or intimidated by gunfire or hear the wails of other "inmates."

NEWS FLASH: Tune in to WABC-TV [Channel 7 in the tri-state area] tomorrow morning [March 15] at eleven to catch us being interviewed on "Upclose with Diana Williams."

We believe that Bernie Madoff committed perjury in Federal Court during his allocution under oath before U.S. District Court Judge Denny Chin this morning, just moments before his bail was revoked and he was cuffed and sent to the nearby Metropolitan Correctional Center to be processed as an inmate.

Speaking to Judge Chin's demand to "Tell me what you did, " Madoff, in reeling off the litany of his crimes, stated that to the best of his recollection, his Ponzi scheme had begun in the early 1990s, in response to a recession.

Responding for the government to Madoff's statement, however, Assistant U.S. Attorney Marc Litt noted that "the defendant operated a massive Ponzi scheme through his company, Bernard L. Madoff Investment Services, beginning at least as early as the 1980s."

Which time-frame is it Bernie? The 1980s or the'90s? How do you account for this likely ten-year discrepancy?

Is it that you're simply so used to dissembling that you just couldn't resist the opportunity to do so once again, under oath, before you had to exchange your bespoke threads for prison stripes?

Then there's the matter of your Oprah Moment, namely having the chutzpah to stand there in the presence of so many of your victims and talk of being "apologetic" and "deeply sorry and ashamed" for having devastated their lives.

Thank goodness your victims aren't buying your act of contrition and self-redemption. They know that there are at least two other chapters to be written in your miserable saga--the first one about the conspiracy of family members in your crimes of financial terrorism and the second one entitled, "Bernie, Where Did You Hide the Rest of Your Loot." 

Today Louise Elperding and Roger Rubin, the graphologists we commissioned to analyze the Madoffs' handwriting, discuss the meaning behind Ruth's loops and flourishes.

"Ruth Madoff's large and relatively legible signature presents a smooth, superficially sociable facade. On first glance, the writing appears rather pleasant and conventional. Only closer examination betrays a complicated woman rife with contradictions.

"The initials R and M are outsized and somewhat embellished, which might be seen as a narissistic but ingratiating gesture. Though the forms are conventional, they reflect a mask of artifice. They reside almost exclusively in the middle zone [note the low t-stem and h-stem as well as the short upper extension of the fs] which when present in combination suggest self-centered ego demands.

"Furthermore the appearance of a confident social facade begins to give way to a more ambivalent picture. The initial R hitches at the top, and then the down stroke bows, as if resisting forwards motion and, symbolically speaking, the future. The constricted a, d, and o may reveal not merely emotional reserve but callousness and controlled indifference. The stunted t, h, and fs may have originally been seen as simply self-involvement also presenting a more troubling interpretation: they are avoidance of the upper zone, the zone of common values and ideals. The loop at the signature's conclusion is like a protective wall against interaction with others."

In Catastrophe: The Story of Bernard L. Madoff, The Man Who Swindled the World, we gave readers insight into the Ponzi King's possible mental state by a specialist in the field of personality disorders.

Then, in a series of post-publication blogs on this website, we discussed Bernie's possible mind-set with a self-acknowledged, unrepentant white collar criminal.

Now, as Bernie gets ready to don his bullet-proof vest in preparation for Thursday's court appearance, here's the skinny on his, and Ruth's, handwriting, as obtained from a court document and commissioned from prominent handwriting analysts Louise Erpelding and Roger Rubin.

In agreeing to share their analysis with us, however, Erpelding and Rubin offer one caveat: "Graphologists ordinarily prefer not to interpret solely on a signature without a further sample of the person's writing as the signature represents only the most 'public' aspect of an individual and may be at variance with the totality of the writer's character."

That said, here's their take on Bernie's "John Hancock":

"First of all, Bernard Madoff's signature is illegible. Although illegibility per se may not be negative, it does suggest a willingness to appear hidden, opaque, and inscrutable. Futhermore, what looks at first glance like a wanton scribbling is in fact a controlled pattern of movement that is repeated in both signatures and suggests a conscious methodology of deceit.

"The linear movement does not proceed in an orderly direction or at an even pace, which suggests the writer goes his own way and no one else's. The writing path is difficult to follow, which suggests that the writer wishes his image to remain obscure, as well as that his actions may be covert. Finally, the overall impression is that the signature is obliterated, which may be interpreted as a combination of self-concealment and/or self-abnegation.

"Graphologists consider the manner in which letters are connected to be particularly revealing. It represents, among other things, the manner in which the writer relates with others. In Bernard Madoff's signature, the indistinct forms are strung together by an unstable 'thread.' The customary social contract is ignored. The thread connection is an ambiguous manner of proceeding, and may manifest variously as creative problem solving; evasion of a real decision; self-protecting maneuvering; mimicry of attitudes, opinions and behavior from his milieu; political accomodation; or, if degenerated further, psychopathology or criminality."

Log on tomorrow for Erpelding & Rubin's take on the Missus's signature. 

Ira Sorkin, Bernie Madoff's miracle-making attorney--he has kept Bernie out of jail since December 11--is now asking the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to allow another of his clients, none other than Bernie's Missus, to retain the $45 million in municipal bonds she holds with Cohmad Securities, an entity owned in part by Bernie, with offices surprise, surprise, in the Lipstick Building, as well as the cash vested in her $17 million Wachovia account.

Sorkin has not informed the court as to how Ruth could have accumulated her $62 million cache--a tidy sum that does not include the Madoff's East 64th Street duplex, valued for the purposes of Bernie's bail at $7 million and held in her name.

Let us recall that in November and December Ruth made withdrawals totaling $15.5 million from her Cohmad account, the last being $10 million just before her husband's arrest.

Should the court grant Sorkin's request, Ruth will be sitting on a $69 million fortune--not bad for a kid from Queens who, apart from sharing in Bernie's ill-gotten gains, is not known to have amassed any real money save for her advance for co-authoring a cookbook.

Given that book adances for relatively unknown cookbook writers were relatively modest even before the publishing industry tanked, Chef Ruth would have had to have come up with a real spicy meatball of a tome to have earned those millions.

Is it possible, even in this jaded, troubled society that Ruth will be allowed to keep her fortune--garnered, obviously, via Bernie's criminal enterprise--as some of his victims struggle to pay for the bare necessities of life?

Justice may be blind. But it can't be that uncaring.

So why doesn't Judge Louis Stanton just tear up Sorkin's brief and run him out of his courtrrom for having had the chutzpah to make such a motion?