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.

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.

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."

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? 

Our conversation with Sammy Antar, the former chief financial officer of Crazy Eddie, Inc., and self-confessed possessor of a criminal mind, is so far-ranging that we are sharing it with our web readers in installments.

In today's installment, Sammy explores the nature of Bernard Madoff's criminality while continuing to burnish his own credentials as an unrepentant bad guy.

"Was Bernie Madoff category one, like me, or [the less sinister seeming] category two? My guess is that he is probably category two," Sammy says. "We all live with criminal temptation every day: some people jaywalk. Of course, I'm not equating that with a large crime, but we all have our levels of temptation. Some of them don't rise to the level of criminality, as they do for me."

Now Sammy, who an hour ago ran ahead of us as we entered the coffee shop, excusing his gaffe by saying, "I'm hyper," and immediately on sitting down at our table downed a cup of Java, summons a waiter, politely asks for a refill, and continues his assessment of the Ponzi King: "I don't think Madoff started out to be a criminal," he theorizes. "I believe that he succumbed to temptation. He may have had a bad quarter or had borrowed from one person to pay the other."

Madoff's success at convincing seemingly savvy movers and shakers to invest with him:

"Madoff increased the comfort level by building a wall of false integrity around him. How did he do it? He donated to charities; he was a fiduciary to these charities by managing their money; he was even on the board of NASD. As a criminal, I did these sorts of things too."

All in the family:

"Look at why Madoff was successful. Madoff and his people shared common backgrounds, religion, and family loyalty, as do the Russian Mob, the Mafia, and our family of Crazy Eddie's. Those are the cohesive groups--the toughest groups to crack. I'm not saying the other family members were involved, but it was his family's cohesiveness that enabled him to be successful for a long period of time."

The con man's appeal for the rest of us:

"Most white collar criminals are charming, likeable people; that's why we're called 'confidence men'--we gain the confidence of our victims." Then, leaning mock-menacingly toward us again, Sammy adds, "We can pick your pocket as we are talking to you."

We criminal are different:

"What you have to understand is that you are dealing with an element of society that doesn't play by your rules: we are economic predators, no different than serial killers. The only difference is that we commit our crimes with a smile while serial killers do it with weapons. The effects of our crimes are just as brutal as violent crime.

"Madoff was almost the classic white collar criminal. He didn't kill twenty or thirty people, but you have fifty billion dollars in damages: he wiped out peoples homes, their life savings; there are probably thousands of people out of work as a result of his crime. He got caught in his old age and will probaby be dead by the time he goes to jail."

Log on tomorrow for the next installment of "Dinner with Sammy," his explanation of the "Fraud Triangle," criteria developed by criminologists to better understand what makes people like Bernie Madoff--and, of course, himself, tick.

We spoke on February 6 with Philip Michael, an attorney for Harry Markopolos, who testified last week before a Congressional committee concerning his warnings to the SEC about Madoff's operations.  In his testimony, Mr. Markopolos stated that he had "feared for the safety of his famiy until the SEC finally acknowledged, after Madoff had been arrested, that it had credible evidence of Madoff's Ponzi scheme." Mr. Markopolos also told the committee members, "For those who ask why we did not go to FINRA and turn in Madoff, the answer is simple. Bernard Madoff was chair of their predecessor organization and his brother was former vice chairman. We were concerned we would have tipped off the target too directly and exposed ourselves to great harm. "

While the media gave significant attention to these statements, Mr. Michael put them in context.

"It got blown out of proportion because of the sexiness of organized crime and Russian mobsters; it sort of sucked the wind out of many other aspects of the story, so there was more emphasis on it than it deserved. In essence, Harry was saying: 'There's no doubt some of the money that ended up with Madoff came from very disreputable sources'--people who were cheating on their taxes or it could have been organized crime money or this woman who had the bank in Vienna. And there was discussion that she was pulling in money from Russians and then forwarding it to Madoff, and then it seemed like she disappeared after the whole thing blew up.

"So Harry's feeling about all that was that Madoff could have figured that [given that these types of people don't take no for an answer] if his scheme were revealed, he, Madoff could really be in danger. Therefore Harry's thinking was: If Madoff knows that I, Harry, reveal what he is doing and that puts Madoff's life in danger, Madoff may try to take care of me so that he won't be put in danger--that if his scheme became known, Madoff might do something very radical because Madoff had to protect himself and his own family from retribution.

"Harry didn't have any actual threats and did not seek protection. But he took the other steps: he tried to remain as much under the radar as he could. That's why he wanted to limit the number of people who knew his name in terms of the information he was providing on Madoff and that's why he concluded that he didn't think there was corruption at the SEC because he said there were people at the SEC who did know his name and if they were corrupt they would tell that to Madoff, and then maybe Madoff would have done something."

 Concerning the attitude of Mr. Markopolos today:

"Elation! That whole burden was lifted off his back. He feels he's finally had his day in court, that he's finally been listened to and taken seriously. He's very grateful for that."

Last evening media outlets posted a 162 page list compiled by Alix Partners for the trustee overseeing the bankruptcy of the Madoff firm. The list includes anyone who responded to advertisements placed by the trustee. Thus not everyone on the list is necessarily a victim since the list includes anyone who might have an interest in the bankruptcy case.

Click the link below for the complete list.

http://media.cnbc.com/i/CNBC/Sections/News_And_Analysis/_News/__EDIT%20Singapore/madoffryanruggiero1.pdf

If William Shakespeare were around today, he might very well be tempted to chronicle "the slings and arrows of Bernie Madoff's outrageous fortune" as we await the Ponzi King's next court hearing.

Absent the commentary of a latter day Bard, however, we spoke yesterday with the noted attorney Gerald B. Lefcourt, a past president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and of the New York Criminal Bar Association, who has much to say concerning the many complex issues confronting Madoff and his legal team.

Plea bargain v. going to trial:

"He should definitely try to work out something that would make his existence more palatable. Based on information that has come to light, a trial would be pretty much a waste of time."

Light v. heavy sentence:

"I am sure that considering the scope of his fraud, the government will ask for a gigantic sentence. Many judges would be sympathetic to that. On the other hand, he may come across a judge who thinks that if he has cooperated as best he could, and identified as many assets as possible, that some consideration should be given to him. But since he's seventy years old, any sentence could be a life sentence."

How soon after the ink is dry on a plea agreement would Bernie Madoff  be sent to prison:

"Once he has pled guilty there is very little reason for him to remain out. Normally, if it's a very serious case and there is no purpose between plea and sentencing to stay out, many judges might remand him at the time of his plea since he is certainly going to jail once he pleads guilty to a fraud of this size, although it is conceivable that there may be reasons for him to stay out: he may be cooperating or he may be obtaining assets or turning over other material as part of some agreement with the government.

"The government itself wanted him out when this case first started because they consented to the bail package. It was only later, and it's not clear whether the reasons are his mailing of jewelry or the public hue and cry, that they then changed their minds midstream. At the time of the plea, unless there is something going on that he's needed for, they would be very forceful in arguing that he should be remanded."

The alternative of shooting the dice by going to trial and prolonging all the comforts of home for a time:

"That's a conceivable way of looking at it if he's thinking: There's no way I'll ever see the light of day once I plead guilty, so I might as well refuse to plead guilty and have them set a trial date, and make them select a jury, even though it's only a few more months."

The possibility of an insanity plea:

"There is insanity as we might talk about it in laymen's terms, and there is insanity under the law. I could very well see this guy as being crazy the way we talk about insanity as laypeople. But under the law there are stringent standards, and considering the fact that he was able to so meticulously carry out all of these events over so many years and sit in meetings and be perfectly rational in inducing people to part with millions of dollars, it is just inconceivable to think that he could ever meet the standards of insanity under the law, which is, essentially, not knowing what you are doing."