Free Bernie Madoff

Originally posted by Crakeur
I don't think he should be out of jail but I also am on the fence as to how much sympathy should be given to the "victims." As I've mentioned in other threads, I know a few victims and I am of the belief that their father, who opened and funded their accounts for them, using madoff money, was money they never really were entitled to. Now, these people were reliant upon this money and they had no real clue as to what was going on. I had told them, years ago, that I didn't think all the family money should be invested with Bernie as I had some run ins with his firm in the past and I didn't trust the investment reporting or the people I spoke with at his firm. The father shrugged it all away. "why would I invest anywhere else when I'm guaranteed at least 14% every year?"

My response was always "because, if it isn't real, one day your investment will be worth nothing."

The father had to have had at least an inkling of doubt. They all did.

The only people who deserve sympathy of any kind are the folks who were invested, unwittingly, via feeder funds and who never took a dime out of the accounts.

Maybe some compassion for the charities but they should know better than to invest all their money in the stock market.

To this I would argue that people know there are inherent risks when investing in the market.

Those investors could easily have been wiped out in a non-fraudulent transaction, just as they were through Madoff's fraud.

I also feel some level of sympathy for the feeder-fund dupes, but they knew the risks of investment going into the market. Without risk, markets would not function correctly. Risk is what keeps fraud in check and makes people research their investments before investing.

Since all of Madoff's "victims" were willingly engaging in risk, I don't see Madoff's actions any worse than a casino that operates games that favor the house.

Madoff didn't steal anything from anyone.

Madoff defrauded people and lied, but lieing isn't a crime. Its a civil matter for civil courts, not criminal courts.



[edit on 24-2-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by mnemeth1


How very convenient for you that everything is oh so pointless. Absolutely anything can simply just be dismissed then in favor of your Anarchist Utopian viewpoint. You really do just have it all figured out don't you?

I'm done with this thread, we seem to have reached an impasse. I am not going to convince you that you are misguided and dangerous, and you are not going to convince me that your ideas are sane.

I will keep reading however, to see if you ever answer my question regarding what your own desires regarding the backing of Madoff are. You do quite a good job of just ignoring anything that paints you into a corner. I'm not going to be a party to that or enable you further in this, but your reactions to me will at least be read.

reply to post by ProjectJimmy


Arguing against pointless laws is not pointless.

Government is not my nanny.

Governments job is to protect my natural rights from infringement by others.

reply to post by mnemeth1


I'm not saying they went in knowing the risk, I'm saying the majority of them had to have known, or had some small thoughts, that Madoff wasn't exactly on the up and up. Nobody returns over ten percent a year since inception. Nobody guarantees a positive return on stock trading, let alone one that is over ten percent. Bernie told his investors things that, to me, sound like he's saying "don't ask, don't tell" about the investments. While my clients' dad seemed impressed with Bernie's comments and remarks, I saw them as signs the man wasn't being honest. I've mentioned many of these things before and I won't rehash them but, a big time clue, when your investment manager says you can't tell anyone you're investing with him, you should wonder why. When your investment manager threatens to throw you out if you work for an investment house, other than his, you should wonder why. When your investment firm is run by a pair of brothers and they claim that nobody trades stocks but them and they close out the accounts at the end of each day, or whenever they leave the desk together, you shouldn't take the stock answer of "I don't want to miss any changes in the markets" as good because there are limits you can put in place.

This man gave pat answers to his investors questions and they accepted them. These weren't all rubes. Some of these folks were business savy, intelligent people. Accountants, doctors, lawyers, etc.

If you think that someone like the wilpons or the noels or Carl Shapiro actually believed Bernie was a genius investor running an investing model that couldn't lose, yet couldn't be duplicated by anyone else, ever, you need to let someone else hold your wallet.

reply to post by Crakeur


You are preaching to the choir.

Perhaps this post was intended for someone else.

reply to post by mnemeth1


my bad. the way I read your response to me was that you saw my comments as saying the investors knew the risks, not that they might have known that Bernie was pulling a con.

Originally posted by Crakeur
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

my bad. the way I read your response to me was that you saw my comments as saying the investors knew the risks, not that they might have known that Bernie was pulling a con.

Yes, you make a great point.

The "dupes" may not have been "dupes," but people that knew full well a con was going on, and they wanted in on it.



[edit on 24-2-2010 by mnemeth1]

reply to post by mnemeth1


my guess is that, in the beginning, many of them went in thinking Bernie was legit but, over time, there had to be some thought that, perhaps, the golden boy wasn't so golden.

I'd say there was a lot of "look the other way" and "let's not even discuss that possibility" on those households.

I think there were some that knew. There was an inner circle of investors who were earning insane percentages on their investments, dictating how much they would get. Those folks had to, knowingly, be in on the game.

search around the site, you'll see mention of the inner circle and some names of the possible participants.

reply to post by Crakeur


I don't doubt that at all.

Bunch of crooks the lot of them.

Madoff is another highroller Zionist, With dual Israeli/US citizenship.
He was trying to bolt to the safety of Israel before he was apprehended. Which is why his passport was confiscated, being a "flight risk".

Most of his so called victims were "J word" members of his wealthy Florida country club.

The bigger scam is that the money ended up in the banks of Israel and the participants are part of the entire scam. For they know that their money is safe, and now they can claim their tax writeoffs for the losses on their Federal Income Taxes.

According to Wayne Madsen...

WMR previously reported that Madoff is suspected of transferring much of his ill-gotten gain to Israeli banks, including one, Bank Leumi, that Madoff associate J. Ezra Merkin bought from the Israeli government when Ariel Sharon was prime minister and current Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was finance minister.

The Israeli Zionists OWN us Americans.
Look at Sarah Palin's recent pandering of Israel at the Tea Party convention, now that she is under the employ of Zionst Rupert Murdoch's FOX network.

Free Bernie Madoff ?
I think not, if we could only imprison more of these Zionists we'd have money not shipped to Israel but remaining here to fix the roads and bridges as our Federal tax dollars had intended.

reply to post by nh_ee


on the contrary, I know someone who was invested with him and he tried to get some Israelis invested with Madoff and Madoff met with the guys and, during the course of the meeting, it was revealed that these were gov't officials looking to park a large some of money with Bernie. Bernie left the meeting and, after a few weeks, my guy went to see him, to find out why Bernie hadn't said yes or no to the Israelis. Bernie asked the guy what branch they were with and he said Mossad. Bernie went nuts. Told the guy he should be grateful he wasn't being thrown out of the fund for even suggesting he take Mossad money.

Bernie's money was spent doling out cash to investors as well as on his own family.

I take it you don't understand how a ponzi scheme works. Rather simple really. I take money from you, promise you returns of ten percent. I bring in another investor, I take his money, give you your ten percent, find another investor to give ten percent to the second guy, and so on. A large portion of the money that came in was doled out to those who wanted to take some of their funds out.

The reason the whole system collapsed on him was a result of his taking in fund of fund investments. These fund of funds operate in a manner that dictates they can never have too much invested in any one fund. so, they put 25% in Bernie's fund, and they spread the other 75% among three other funds. If a fund goes down, the other fund investments are reduced and the money taken out goes to the fund(s) that is(are) down to even out the investment.

The fund collapsed when these fund of funds took beatings in their investments and went to Bernie, who was still claiming to be up for the year. They drained his cash reserves rapidly and he couldn't find new investors to pick up the slack because the markets had tanked and new investors were scarce.

It should also be noted that your one source is a joke and lastly, Rupert Murdoch being a zionist must be something you read on some white supremacist site because that is about as silly as the rest of your claims.

reply to post by mnemeth1


As near as I can tell it was Barney Franks or others on his committee that made Madoff possible. I don't see Barney being pursued. He even denied his own votes that are on record he is such a sleaze. Did it on camera too.

Madoff is where he should be, its just that others should be there too.

The laws are not as lax as you imply in your OP. The laws to prosecute are there, just not enforced. If they were enforced half the products on health food store shelves would be gone overnight to mention just one industry. Your Snake Oil reference brought that to mind because that is exactly what they sell in many cases.

I think Madoff victims would disagree with this nonsense. Of course Bill Clinton would have pardoned him but he is not President any more.

Odd how they always blame the right for this stuff when in fact its people from the left like Madoff, Franks and Clinton at the heart. The right prefers to delve into arms sales, oil and such. The left prefers to pretend to be anti-capitalists while the engage heavily in capitalism themselves. They are now wealthier per capita than the right even though they are pushing an agenda contrary to how they live. What they really mean is riches and capitalism for us and handouts for anyone who dares not agree with us. How do these Harvard Professors get so filthy rich on their salaries do you suppose? Not by working or any honest enterprise.

Sorry for drifting but the hippocracy is suffocating these days.

reply to post by Crakeur


Classic Ponzi Scheme + Sophisticated Investors blinded by their own image of themselves = Easy Target for Madoff. Seems that way, anyway.

reply to post by mnemeth1


I would love, for one day, to be able to see the world through the eyes of someone like this.


If you go to walmart and buy a box of Corn Pops, but get home and find out that it's actually full of dead cock roaches instead of sweet delicious cereal...is it still buyer beware?

I mean, you willfully bought the cereal. Did you ever ask the manager of wal-mart, or the CEO of Kellogs "hey, are there cock roaches in this box of cereal"? You shouldn't have believed what was on the package, or what the history of cereal boxes at grocery stores was...you should have investigated it anyways. Same with that box of animal crackers. What if there were real animal gizzards inside?

If you didn't, then its your fault for buying it, right?

I'll be sure to send you a link if i ever decide to post a bogus auction on ebay. Buyer beware. Better not try to dispute it.

Those investors could easily have been wiped out in a non-fraudulent transaction, just as they were through Madoff's fraud.

If you play basketball, you run the risk of losing the game by the other team beating you fair and square.

If you lose because a referee throws the game...is it still fair & square?


A ponzi scheme goes against the rules. Breaking the rules is breaking the law.

I firmly believe that no matter what the law said, you would be there standing firmly in opposition of it.

What's next? Cold Blooded Murder? FREE K.S.M.!!!

[edit on 24-2-2010 by Snarf]

reply to post by Snarf


Do you have an actual point to make, or are you just going to ramble insults at me all day??

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Snarf

 

Do you have an actual point to make, or are you just going to ramble insults at me all day??

THe points i wish to make are there in my post, spelled out clear as day. If you refuse to read my post, well, i can't make you.

But if my proving you dead-wrong is insulting, then perhaps you should do a little soul searching before you post more silly arguments like "free bernie madoff"

All i intend to do is take the rules you set forth from your own 'argument' and apply them to a less complex situation to show you how flawed your 'argument' is based on the rules you've made up for it.

Buyer beware when investing?

Yes.

As long as the rules remain the same. If someone illegally changes the rules without anyone knowing about it - guess what?



[edit on 24-2-2010 by Snarf]

Originally posted by Snarf

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Snarf

 

Do you have an actual point to make, or are you just going to ramble insults at me all day??

THe points i wish to make are there in my post, spelled out clear as day. If you refuse to read my post, well, i can't make you.

But if my proving you dead-wrong is insulting, then perhaps you should do a little soul searching before you post more silly arguments like "free bernie madoff"

I don't think its a silly argument to be upset about having a gun put to my head to pay for Madoff's trial and incarceration when the people he duped had it coming.

I also think he was punished enough by the market without the need for further punishment by the criminal system.

Obviously, you enjoy the gun to your head and Madoff's incarceration more than keeping your own money.

I don't.

reply to post by mnemeth1

I don't think its a silly argument to be upset about having a gun put to my head to pay for Madoff's trial and incarceration when the people he duped had it coming.

You sure do love that phrase. Maybe you should be asking to get rid of the 2nd amendment instead?

I don't mind my tax dollars putting real crooks behinds bars. I believe in the American ideal of "innocent until proven guilty" and if it takes a few extra dollars to get there, well, then, so be it.

Those people had it coming just as much as a woman who forgot to lock her window before bed and ended up getting raped, robed, and murdered.

You just refuse to admit that you see it the same way.

The world does make sense, when one allows themself to realize that it's them who does not.

[edit on 24-2-2010 by Snarf]

Originally posted by Snarf
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

I don't think its a silly argument to be upset about having a gun put to my head to pay for Madoff's trial and incarceration when the people he duped had it coming.

You sure do love that phrase. Maybe you should be asking to get rid of the 2nd amendment instead?

I don't mind my tax dollars putting real crooks behinds bars. I believe in the American ideal of "innocent until proven guilty" and if it takes a few extra dollars to get there, well, then, so be it.

Those people had it coming just as much as a woman who forgot to lock her window before bed and ended up getting raped, robed, and murdered.

You just refuse to admit that you see it the same way.

The world does make sense, when one allows themself to realize that it's them who does not.

[edit on 24-2-2010 by Snarf]

How about we keep the second amendment and disarm the police instead.

I trust my neighbor to be more responsible with his weapons.




[edit on 24-2-2010 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

I disagree.

False advertising is a ridiculous and unnecessary law.

If I package up a box of dog shat and sell it for 100.00 a pop claiming it can cure diabetes, should I be sent to jail for this?

The people consuming the product should be wholly responsible for investigating the claims.

In fact, criminal false advertising laws violate free speech rights. People have a right to lie about anything they want.

How about some cyanide in your aspirin?

Lead forks coated in a thin shell of silver?

Like I said man, you are way too far from the center IMO

Somalia, try it, love it, your brand of freedom!