The New York Law Journal reported today that in a letter Ira Lee Sorkin wrote to U.S. District Court Judges Denny Chin and Louis Stanton, and U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Burton Lifland, Bernie Madoff's lead attorney said that he had spoken to Ruth Madoff's lawyer Peter Chavkin and , "we agree that Mrs. Madoff owns certain assets...free and clear of any wrongdoing by Mr. Madoff, or to which she had a legitimate untainted property interest."

We asked the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York if he agreed with Sorkin's claim concerning Ruth Madoff's assets. The U.S. Attorney refused to comment on this question as well as to the question we posed that if Mrs. Madoff does not own "certain assets" why then has the government not seized the Madoff's Manhattan apartment.

The U.S. Attorney notwithstanding, are there any victims of the Bernard Madoff's criminal enterprise who could possibly believe that the assets owned by Ruth Madoff were accumulated with funds not associated with the Ponzi scheme? 

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."

When last Thursday federal marshals seized the 8700 square-foot Palm Beach mansion owned by Ruth Madoff since 1994, most media attention was focused on the question of whether the government had the right to take over the property, as her application for Florida Homestead Exemption had been granted on January 12, 2009.

In order to clarify the situation, the Palm Beach Property Appraiser's office posted a note on its website stating that: "A Florida Homestead exemption does not mean a property is exempt from any court-ordered judgment related to a homestead property in Florida. Florida's Homestead Exemption does not guarantee a property cannot be seized in a criminal or civil court ordered judgment."

What the media did not focus on--and what Madoff Breaking News.com is reporting as an exclusive--is the likelihood that Ruth Madoff falsely swore when on November 13, 2006, she applied to register to vote in the state of Florida.

In order to qualify for Florida voter registration, she would have had to have listed her home at 410 N. Lake Way in Palm Beach, as her legal address. In 2007, when she first applied for Florida Homestead Exemption, however, her application and subsequent appeal were denied.

Why?

The Florida authorities must have determined that Ruth Madoff, for the purposes of participation in the New York STAR program, had, as required by New York law for STAR eligibility, listed her Manhattan apartment as her primary residence. As the Palm Beach County Property Appraiser's website states: " To qualify for Florida's Homestead Exemption tax-saving benefit, the property must be the owner's primary residence, must be a permanent resident of Florida, and cannot hold any residency based benefits in other Florida counties or states."

If, as seems likely, that Ruth Madoff did file a false oath in applying to vote in Florida--a third class felony in that state--she would be subject to up to five years in prison as well as up to a $5,000 fine, small potatoes, perhaps for her. That is, if federal prosecutors in New York's Southern District conclude that she participated in history's greatest Ponzi scheme ever.

Ruth Madoff's timing in trying to construct a legal identity in Florida as early as November 2006 and applying for Florida Homestead status in 2007, at least a year before the fraud unraveled, suggests that the Madoffs may have been hedging their bets on the future by creating a fail-safe situation wherein if they lost most assets, they would still retain their home in Florida.

It that was their reasoning, they received poor legal advice concerning that state's homestead provisions.

 But then, it is our contention that Bernie has already paid the price of having received flawed legal advice, and on a far weightier matter, namely pleading guilty and going directly to jail.

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

When Ike Sorkin left the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse last Thursday following his failed attempt to spring Bernie Madoff from the Metropolitan Correctional Center, he was hounded by photographers, reporters, and, of course, your Catastrophe bloggers.

Refusing to indulge in the predilection of such publications as the New York Times and the New York Law Journal to portray the silver-haired, perpetually rumpled Ike as the second coming of Clarence Darrow, Deborah shouted the first question--we like to be first whether turning out books or grilling lead defense attorneys--as to whether if he lost in the Court of Appeals Bernie Madoff's lead attorney would be taking the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Responding with a quip, he said " I'm heading for the State Supreme Court," meaning just across the street, right here in New York City.

Was Ike going over there to represent another white collar criminal? Or was he on his way to a hearing concerning the malpractice suit brought against him by a disgruntled former client--a development we were the first to divulge on this website.

We also wondered: Why did Bernie Madoff plead guilty to eleven felony counts on the fateful morning of March 12, rather than taking his chances with a jury up the road and thus remaining in his penthouse for a while?

While the government continues to insist that there was no deal with Bernie, we believe otherwise.

Consider this: In our last blog, Deborah wrote of Ruth's possible role in her hubby's decision to plead, thus assuring the immediate revocation of his bail. Was Bernie pressured by her to give up the comforts of home--albeit temporary--to ensure that she wouldn't be prosecuted as his accomplice in crime?

Time will tell.

Now, as Ike made his escape from the pursuing media, it was my turn to shout out: Had he bothered to inform Bernie of how Alberto Vilar, a convicted swindler whose case has been described by the U.S. Attorney as "strikingly similar" to his, by opting to go on trial, had been able to remain at home for more than three years?

Taken by surprise at the mention of Vilar, Ike paused momentarily. Then, recovering and reverting to his customary nonchalance, he retorted with his customary "No comment" and went on his way.

Shouldn't Ike have told Bernie how Vilar, arrested on May 26, 2005; indicted thirteen days later on twelve felony counts, including conspiracy, securities fraud, mail fraud and wire fraud; held following his arrest at the Metropolitan Correctional Center for about one month and then released on bail, was able to enjoy the comforts of his luxurious apartment at United Nations Plaza for so long, even during his nine-week trial?

Having been found guilty on all counts on November 19, 2008, Vilar was remanded a month later to the MCC.

Have he and Bernie met there? If so, has the Ponzi King learned from Vilar, and not Ike Sorkin, of the temporary rewards of not being so quick to plead?

If the Government is telling the truth--usually an iffy proposition--that there is no plea agreement with Bernie, why ever did he trade the luxuries of home, not to mention Ruth's homecooking, for the Spartan digs of the MCC?

 That brings us back to our initial question: What incentive did Bernie have in pleading guilty on March 12?

We will continue to question Ike by e-mail as to Bernie's motivation in doing so and as to whether pressure by Ruth figured into his decision to forsake bail and go directly to jail.

Don't hold your breath, though, unless you are able to read something into Ike's "No comments."

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 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." 

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.