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?

In an effort to determine whether Ruth Madoff made a false statement when she applied for Florida voter registration on November 13, 2006--a third degree felony punishable by up to five years in prison and up to a $5,000 fine--we have sent the following e-mail to Florida's Attorney General, Bill McCollum:

Dear Mr. Attorney General,

We are the authors of Catastrophe:The Story of Bernard L. Madoff The Man Who Swindled The World, published in March 2009 by Phoenix Books. We are continuing to follow developments by blogging on our website, www.madoffbreakingnews.com

We are writing at this time to request that you investigate the likelihood that Ruth Madoff made a false declaration on November 13, 2006, when in filing an application for Florida voter registration she listed her Palm Beach property as her legal address.

In fact, the Palm Beach County Property Appraiser denied her application for Florida Homestead Exemption in 2007 on the ground that she was then participating in the New York STAR program, requiring one to maintain a legal address in New York-a decision she appealed and that was denied at that time.

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 permant resident of Florida and cannot hold any residency based benefits in other Florida counties or states."

Thus, as Madoff was deemed not to have been a legal resident of Florida in 2007, she could hardly have had a legal residence in the state on November 13, 2006, when she was still participating in New York's STAR program.

Should your investigation find that Ruth Madoff did make a false statement on her Florida voter registration application, please let us know whether you intend to file charges related to this third degree felony.

Sincerely yours,

 Deborah Hart Strober                Gerald Strober 

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

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. 

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.  

On February 16, we emailed George Stamboulidis, the managing parter of Baker and Hostetler's New York office, reiterating our question of February 11: Did he or anyone else at the firm know prior to December 15, when Irving Picard became the court appointed trustee for BMIS, that he was planning to leave the Gibbons firm for a partnership at Baker & Hostetler?

While Mr. Stamboulidis has not responded to either of our emails, on December 22, the day Mr. Picard joined Baker & Hostetler, he issued a statement that "Irving's depth of knowledge in complicated restructurings and experience as a trustee in major security cases is widely recognized."

On that day, Mr. Stamboulidis was likely savoring Baker & Hostetler's coup in obtaining control over the Madoff bankruptcy, along with the dividend of its power to grant assignments to other law firms and financial asset management companies.

Regarding monetary remuneration sought by Mr. Picard, on February 17, we emailed Richard Bernard, one of the two Baker partners who filed a motion with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York: Could he estimate the likely monthly fee due Mr. Picard? And, as Mr. Picard is now a partner at Baker & Hostetler, would said fee be paid to that firm? Let us also remember that as Mr. Picard's counsel, Baker will receive a separate fee for its Madoff related work.

It's now Friday, February 20, and we're still waiting for Mr. Bernard's response.