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."

• U.S. Attorney for Southern District of New York Press Release dated 3/10/09 "Bernard L. Madoff Charged In Eleven-Count Criminal Information"
• U.S. v. Bernard Madoff Charges dated 3/10/09
• Letter from Acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York dated 3/10/09 to Ira Lee Sorkin regarding [count by count] the "present position of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York regarding the application of the U.S., Sentencing Guidelines to this case."

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. 

As a friend of ours, a lawyer, advised us years ago regarding the criminal justice system, "Don't ever be a victim."

Consider the following:

Last evening, it was announced that Bernard Madoff will appear in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan on Thursday, March 12, at 10:00 a.m., where he is expected to plead guilty to federal charges related to his $50 billion Ponzi scheme.

According to an order signed by U.S. District Court Judge Denny Chin, "The court will rule on whether, and the manner in which, victims may be heard at the proceeding." The Ponzi King's victims have until 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday the 11th to e-mail requests to be heard at the hearing, hardly a magnanimous gesture on Chin's part as under federal law victims have the right to be heard at any hearing concerning a defendant's plea proceeding. [The Crime Victims' Rights Act of 2004; 18 U.S.C. 3771]

We are troubled by the time frame imposed by Judge Chin for victims to make known their interest in being present when Madoff appears in court. Further, as Chin suggests that he that he will not decide until Wednesday whether any of those individuals will be allowed to speak, if he does comply with federal law we wonder: in what manner will their presentations be made?

Please note that:

The order was issued on a Friday evening; it does not guarantee any of Madoff's victims their rights under the Victims' Rights act; and Judge Chin has given Madoff's victims less than five days--two of them weekend days--to decide whether to apply to be heard in his courtroom.

As many of Madoff's victims reside hundreds, if not thousands, of miles away from Manhattan's Foley Square, we wonder: how will many of the newly impoverished among them-those who can offer the most compelling testimony as to why Madoff deserves major prison time--be able to pay for airline tickets absent the benefit of seven-day advance purchase plans? And how will they be able to arrange for reasonably-priced hotel accomodations on such short notice?

Why must Judge Chin be so hasty in holding this crucial hearing on March 12?

Could he not have waited a week?

Shouldn't Bernard Madoff's victims view the judge's actions as being but the latest instance of the favoritism shown him by the Southern District court that began with his original bail arrangement?

And isn't Ira Sorkin, formerly an SEC official and a former assistant U.S. attorney in the office now prosecuting Madoff, once again succeeding in playing the system for all its worth? 

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?

In our last posting, we mentioned that we were awaiting Baker & Hostetler's response concerning the process whereby the firm chose Eugene F. Collins Solicitors in Dublin, and Lovells LLP in London, to assist in Madoff-related activity in Ireland, the United Kingdom and on the European continent.

Having not yet received a response from Baker & Hostetler, we decided to send e-mails and/or to telephone the retained firms directly.

To that end, on Wednesday we called and left a message for David Cantrell, the managing partner of Eugene Collins, following up yesterday with an e-mail.

We also called Lovells, where we spoke briefly to Joe Bannister, a London-based partner with expertise, according to his biography, in "financial services insolvencies."

Responding to our query as to how Lovells had been selected by Baker & Hostetler, Bannister replied, "I'm not in a position to comment on Lovells' position in relation to that. Could I ask you to speak to Cary Kochberg please?"

Of course he could ask.

We then put in a call to Kochberg at Lovells' London office and were informed by his P.A. that he was in a meeting. Leaving our telephone number, we followed up with an e-mail. Calling again today, we were informed by Kochberg's P.A. that he was again in a meeting.

Was this the continuation of yesterday's meeting?

It is increasingly clear that neither Baker & Hostetler nor the firms it has retained have any interest in answering questions regarding the process by which these firms were selected.

While this may be standard procedure in the world of high-profile law firms dealing with high stakes cases, neither the victims' nor the the publics' need to know exactly how Irving Picard and his counsel, Baker & Hostetler, operate, is being satisfied.

What is known is that Picard, Baker, Eugene Collins, Lovells, Lazard Freres and any other entity to be retained in the future will share--likely substantially--in the nearly $1 billion already recovered by Picard.

To date, neither Picard nor Baker & Hostetler--the firm he joined as a partner one week after the court awarded them their plums--has shown serious interest in transparency.

That does not bode well for Bernard Madoff's victims.

We are checking our e-mails day and night--but not holding our breaths for--Baker & Hostetler partner Richard Bernard's response to our query of February 17.

Yesterday, seeking clarification concerning yet another issue, namely the hiring of law firms in Ireland, and the United Kingdom to assist Baker & Hostetler in its role as counsel to Irving Picard, the court-appointed Madoff bankruptcy trustee, we e-mailed David Sheehan, another of the firm's partners involved in the Madoff case as one of Picard's counsels.

We are advised by attorneys familiar with bankruptcy proceedings that it is common practice for law firms serving as trustees' counsels to retain additional firms to deal with specific aspects of those cases.

Given that the Madoff case is highly unusual, however, we sought clarification from partners of the firms thus far retained by Baker & Hostetler concerning the process by which the above-mentioned firms were retained.

Thus we put in a call to David Cantrell, the managing partner of Eugene F. Collins Solicitors, a firm in Dublin, Ireland, dealing with at least three Madoff-related cases, leaving an explicit message.

We're still awaiting his reply.

We also called Robin Keller, a New York-based partner at Lovells LLP, the firm hired by Baker & Hostetler to handle cases in the United Kingdom and on the European continent. When informed as to why we were calling, she replied that another of her firm's attorneys would be in touch with us.

We're still awaiting that attorney's reply.

In our e-mail to David Sheehan we inquired about the process by which Baker & Hostetler had retained Eugene F. Collins Solicitors and Lovells: Had competitive bidding been involved? Did either firm have a prior professional relationship with Picard and/or Baker & Hostetler?

We're still awaiting his reply too.

Oh, and we copied Kevin McCue, Baker & Hostetler's spokesperson for the Madoff account.

But it's downright Kafkaesque: Keven McCue does not answer the telephone number to which media calls are directed, instructing the caller instead, via voice mail message, to e-mail him.

Needless to say, we're still awaiting Kevin McCue's return e-mail.

To those in the legal profession such evasion may be commonplace. To us and, very likely, to many of Bernie Madoff's victims, the attorneys' wall of silence is quite disturbing.

This is hardly your typical bankruptcy case. The predicted "substantial to very substantial" monies [according to a bankruptcy expert] to be paid Picard and Baker & Hostetler, as well as the hourly remuneration to Eugene F. Collins--$575 per hour for partners, representing a ten percent discount from the firm's normal rate--and Lovells--$875 per hour for partners for work in the U.K. and $640 per hour for work in Europe--will come out of the victims' pockets via funds already secured or to be recovered by Picard from Madoff's criminal enterprise.

Surely Bernard Madoff's many victims deserve answers to the questions we have posed to the various attorneys and to Baker & Hostetler's elusive spokesperson. And they also have the need to be assured that those retained are the ones best eqipped to deal with the enormous complexities of the Madoff case, as well as to zealously protect their interests.

We fear, however, that the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York; trustee Irving Picard; and Baker & Hostetler, his counsel, see this case as just business as usual and do not seem to grasp that Bernard Madoff's victims, as well as the concerned public, have the right to, deserve and cry out for total disclosure.