Blogs and Stories
The Making of Madoff
Timothy A. Clary, AFP / Getty Images
Jerry Oppenheimer’s new biography of Bernie Madoff traces the roots of his deceit and his odd compulsions back to a Queens childhood steeped in hustles and scams. The Ponzi King moved on to adult obsessions, from not letting family members sit on the furniture to alleged affairs with "baby Ruths" in his office, younger versions of his own wife.
Some highlights of the biography include:
- Madoff's parents weren't thought to be "honest people"—they were running a broker-dealer operation out of their home until it was shut down by the SEC for "failure to file reports."
- A close friend says Madoff was so "compulsive" later in life about having expensive clothes, boats, and cars all because his mother wouldn't buy him Keds.
- Madoff met his wife, Ruth, when he was a junior in high school. According to a source, Bernie later began affairs with "baby Ruths" in his office—pretty blondes who resembled his wife when she was younger.
- Madoff filled his office with dutiful and overpaid people who didn't ask questions and were willing to tolerate his obsessive-compulsive behavior. The offices had to be spotless. An employee said he would put a piece of thread on the floor and wait for Madoff to notice and "freak."
- One of Madoff’s mentors, Lou Lieberbaum, worked closely with Bernie through his brokerage firm. A former employee said some of Lieberbaum's clients were “clearly gangsters,” and that Lieberbaum would "manipulate the stock like crazy."
The two questions most often asked about Bernard Madoff, who pulled off the biggest Ponzi scheme in history, are: How did he do it? And, how could he do it, even defrauding friends and family? The first question is the one that most puzzles the people who knew him back at P.S. 156 and Far Rockaway High School, where he was generally regarded as "dumb." His old buddies have less trouble with the second question, because from an early age Madoff showed a propensity to fake it and game the system.
“I can’t sit on most of the furniture in our place,” Ruth told a friend. “They’re rare antiques, and Bernie doesn’t want me to sit on them.”
When he was assigned an oral book report as a sophomore, classmate Jay Portnoy recalls, Bernie told his friends that he would just wing it. When the time came, he invented a title about hunting and fishing and discussed the book smoothly for 15 minutes in front of the class. When the teacher asked to see the book, Bernie said he’d had to return it to the library. “We all had to stifle a laugh,” Portnoy says.
The somewhat shabby house in Laurelton where Bernie was raised with his younger brother Peter also had an air of deception about it. “It was always a mystery what Ralph and Sylvia did, ” says childhood friend Joe Kavanau of Madoff’s parents. The widow of another friend from that era, Elliott Olin, says, “His mother never wanted Elliott to be friends with Bernie, because she thought his parents weren’t honest people.”
Ralph Madoff, a crude, rough-and-tumble guy in the mold of the Honeymooners' Ralph Kramden, said he was a plumber, but no one ever saw him wield a wrench. Like Kramden, he was always looking for a big score, and another of Bernie’s high-school friends had the impression he was a stockbroker. That may have been because the Madoffs were running a questionable broker-dealer operation, named Gibraltar Securities, out of their home. It was registered in Sylvia’s name, perhaps because Ralph Madoff appeared to have ongoing financial problems and tax troubles, and in 1963 it was shut down by the SEC for “failure to file reports.”
Bernie, friends say, was embarrassed by his home and humiliated by Sylvia’s penny-pinching. The popular shoes for boys back then were black Keds with white soles. Bernie was the only kid in his Laurelton crowd who didn’t have them, because Sylvia bought sneakers from the bargain bins. Through the years, certain friends would tease him about that. “Bernie liked expensive shoes and suits, cars and boats and houses. He liked his home to look just right; he wanted his office to look perfect, ” observes one close friend. “And we used to kid around that he became compulsive about those things because his mother wouldn’t buy him Keds.”
Bernie also seems to have absorbed his parents’ loose business ethics, which became apparent in his first entrepreneurial venture during high school and college: installing lawn-sprinkler systems in the yards of Long Island’s new tract housing. Aware that his potential customers were young couples, including desperate housewives left alone in the suburbs all day, he hired two handsome fellow students to do the installations. According to one of them, Bernie was a good salesman, but he worked fast and he worked dirty. “He never got the required building or work permits,” says Gordon Ondis, and Bernie “was not a whiz when it came to the technical aspects of his business.” Years later, Bernie was still being accosted in public by dissatisfied sprinkler-system customers.
By the time he was a high-school junior, Bernie had also found his lifelong helpmeet, Ruth Alpern, two years his junior. With her flaxen hair, fair skin, and green eyes, she was a nice Jewish girl who looked so much like a Shiksa that a storekeeper once asked her why she was wearing a Star of David. Ruthie was pretty, preppy, and outgoing. Her father, Saul, was an accountant who, when Bernie began working as an investment adviser, steered many acquaintances to his son-in-law’s business. Significantly, Ruthie was also a whiz at math—a subject in which Bernie was notably deficient.
Fast-forward to the summer of 2008, when Bernie ran into his old friend Peter Zaphiris in Central Park. “He’s got two gold Rolexes on the same wrist, and I said, ‘Bernie, how come you ’re wearing two watches?’” Zaphiris recalls. “He says, ‘I gotta know what time it is in my London office.’ Think about that. He couldn’t do the addition and the subtraction to determine the time difference.”
Bernie cultivated the richer kids at Far Rockaway High School, which is how he met the man who would later mentor him in the investment business and some of its seemingly questionable variations. Lou Lieberbaum, the father of a Far Rockaway classmate, delivered milk and baked bagels after moving his family to Long Island. Then in the mid-'50s he began hawking mutual funds. He struck it rich on Polaroid stock and opened his own brokerage. Around 1962, Bernie, who’d been trading stocks since college, took a small suite of offices at 39 Broadway in Manhattan, directly across the street from Lieberbaum & Co., which was registered on the New York Stock Exchange. Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities was not.
According to Zaphiris, who worked at Lieberbaum at the time, all orders given to Lieberbaum for over-the-counter stocks were “walked across the street” for Bernie to handle. Lieberbaum marked up the trade “an eighth or a sixteenth ” above his usual commission to compensate Madoff, and the customer was never the wiser. Looking back, Zaphiris says he “thought” the arrangement was “unethical. I don’t know if it was illegal.”
During his time at Lieberbaum & Co., Zaphiris also observed some clients who were “clearly gangsters,” and were believed to be from the Rockford, Illinois, family of La Cosa Nostra, which was a faction of the Chicago mob. “The boys from Rockford were calling all the time, and I suspected that there was some sort of money laundering going on,” he says. “There was a broker who was trading a company for these guys. He’d get a phone call before the close and they would tell him what to close it at and he would buy 30,000 shares and sell 30,000 shares. They would manipulate the stock like crazy.” This was the heyday of penny-stock bucket shops and “pump and dump” tactics.
One day, word spread that the Rockford boys were coming to town. “Three guys came into the office and they were like 5' by 5',” Zaphiris recalls. The brokers who did business with them were “literally shaking. “ But a closed-door meeting ended without any violence.
It was at 39 Broadway that Bernie began assembling a staff of loyal employees, such as Bill Nasi, who began working with Madoff in the early '60s. Unlike Nasi, who later went to college, most staff were barely educated bridge-and-tunnel types. “There was a lot of nepotism. It was almost like tribes working there,” Nasi said. “Bernie made it a point to hire people who weren’t that smart,” asserts another Madoff insider. “You could have a great job at Madoff even if you were a semi-moron, because you were well-trained on the job and paid far better than anyone on Wall Street and didn’t ask too many questions. ”
Madoff also employed his own family, while never letting them forget who was boss. Brother Peter was the main operations guy, and the technical guru who devised some of the electronic trading innovations that Bernie often took credit for, but he was hardly an equal partner. Nasi recalls once arriving early at the office to hear Bernie, who must have assumed they were alone, screaming at his brother. “ I want you to go outside and look to see whose name is on the door! You own 1 percent of the business, so until your name is on the door, you keep your fucking mouth shut! I run things here!”
Because Madoff paid well and generally treated people well, the staff was willing to tolerate his obsessive-compulsive behavior, which grew along with the means to indulge it. Madoff offices had strict color schemes and draconian rules about paper on the desk and pictures on the wall. Madoff was sometimes spotted polishing a glass door, and "if a window blind was not at a 90-degree angle, the man would go off the wall," says an employee, who began working for Madoff in 1989. "He hired three people to clean the office during the day even though the building had a cleaning service at night." But a colleague, who went back a long way with Bernie, made sport of Madoff's OCD: "It was like a running joke," says the insider. "He'd take a piece of thread and throw it on the floor, and Bernie would freak when he spotted it."
The same exacting standards applied on board Madoff’s beloved yachts—he had three—and in his homes, where Ruth bore the brunt of them. One family intimate consulted Ruth when she set out to redo an apartment. Make sure it’s livable, Ruth advised her. “Because I can’t sit on most of the furniture in our place,” she explained. “They’re rare antiques, and Bernie doesn’t want me to sit on them.” Madoff’s walk-in closet on Park Ave. was meticulously organized, and he even instructed his London tailor to custom-design his suits so they wouldn’t show the bulge of his Razr phone.
Early in his association with the Madoffs, Bill Nasi witnessed a curious moment between Bernie and Ruth. Bernie was sitting with a glass in each hand. Ruth poured a shot of Chivas Regal into the one with ice, Bernie took a sip and put it down, then Ruth added another shot. Then she poured Milk of Magnesia into the other glass as a chaser. “I said to Bernie, ‘What’s going on?—and all he says is, ‘I’m getting ready to do battle. I’m getting ready to make a decision.’” Clearly, she was devoted to him, but he was not always faithful to her.
Starting in his 50s, Bernie “had affairs in the office. There were two women I know of,” said one longtime female employee. “They were gorgeous. They were blonde. They were young. They were like baby Ruths.” When Ruth found out and ordered Bernie to stop, some of the young women “left with big hush-money checks in their purses,” confirms another former staffer. “The guy who signed the checks told me one of them left with $250,000. ”
Nasi had another bizarre encounter with Ralph Madoff, who had added a fake middle initial—Z—to his name by the time he began working in Bernie’s shop in the ‘60s. Once, when they were riding the subway together in those early days, the Madoff patriarch advised Nasi: “Whatever you do, kid, never invest a penny in the stock market, because it’s run by crooks and sons of bitches.”
Nasi was dumbfounded. Here was Ralph warning him to stay away from the world where his son was building a business. Years later, not long before Bernie’s fraud was exposed, Nasi mentioned the conversation to his boss. “Bernie starts laughing and says, ‘My, God, if everyone thought like my father, where would I be today?’ ”
This is the 10th book for investigative reporter Jerry Oppenheimer, who has written about such American icons as Martha Stewart (Just Desserts); Bill and Hillary Clinton (State of a Union), and Vogue editor Anna Wintour (Front Row). Most recently, he published a corporate expose’ entitled Toy Monster: The Big, Bad World of Mattel. He's also been a producer of TV news and documentaries.
Excerpted with permission of the publisher John Wiley & Sons, Inc. from Madoff with the Money, by Jerry Oppenheimer. Copyright © 2009 by Jerry Oppenheimer.









What a douchebag. He needs to rot in a clean cell.
Here is Obama's Kenyan birth certificate. read it & weep.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105764
So why does that WingNutDaily birth certificate say Republic of Kenya when Kenya was the Dominion of Kenya on the date that certificate was supposedly issued. Face it you birthers are morons.
Nothing much revealed.
A control freak with no sense of honor at all.
A boring, greedy, bodily function.
"Whatever you do, kid, never invest a penny in the stock market, because it's run by crooks and sons of bitches."
Past year has certainly proven that.
i couldn't finish reading the entry
it's a quick bite, easy digest, this side of yellow journalism
take-advantage-of-a-situation-to-make-a-quick-buck
read to me...
The whole thing's yet another object lesson in the value of judicious regulation--certainly in matters of commerce, that is.
Well-designed regulation sould take the all the "mystery" out of the ethical vs. legal quandary that some of these creeps allege to have "struggled" with as they proceeded to rob us blind.
With soooo many lawyers in the House and Senate, it ought to be a "no-brainer" to construct statutory language that anticipates and punishes human greed. C'mon lads!--most of the rest of your constituency could probably do this (even without the benefit of a J.D.).
It is also about the audit!!!!! who is doing, what proof is used, when vouching, tracing reconciling, in this case, there was no real audit, or if there had been the fraud would have become obvious for the assets did not exist. And that should have been able to be traced in hours. I would think.
"With soooo many lawyers in the House and Senate, it ought to be a "no-brainer" to construct statutory language that anticipates and punishes human greed. C'mon lads!--most of the rest of your constituency could probably do this (even without the benefit of a J.D.)."
Yes, there are many lawyers in the house and senate...but investment banks and other big financial firms and their employees are among the largest contributors to those lawyers' campaigns. The big Wall Street donors make it clear that they don't want a high level of regulation, since it would cut their profits sharply. If Madoff's funds had to disclose what they were invested in, it would have been obvious right from the beginning that it was a total fraud.
ShinjukuAce
I agree. And if it were my decision to make, I'd bar any and all PACs/special interest groups from having monetary (at least) access to politicians in this country. (Call me mean.)
For instance, in France a big pharmaceutical company cannot legally approach or attempt to influence a representative of the people.
The travesty here, in my opinion, is that--while it is absolutely possible to construct legislation that anticipates and thwarts human greed--we're all still awaiting this legislation.And our system of government currently supports and endorses this waiting.
The fact that we're all still waiting for this legislation speaks volumes about the likelihood of such a thing happening.
Sadly, it suggests that more selfish, voracious, and lucrative appetites are winning the legislative game here.
Greed, not ethics or decency, is the apparent motivating force behind the actions of most of our legislators.
Caveat Emptor - Fear should be the regulator, not Congress!
Fear is irrational, often. Reason actual does regulate.
artois
"Fear should be the regulator..."
Well, few things put fear in a man like the threat of some serious, ugly and lengthy jail time. And there's where our beloved Congress, with it's ability to draft legislation, is made to order. Not all regulation is bad. Most is necessary.
And well-constructed regulation is a lovely thing when it properly anticipates human greed and then designs fair punishment for that greed.
If there are weak/few/no regulations (rules) and ,by extension--weak punishment for breaking the rules, then what's to deter anyone from "feeding at the trough" and becoming the biggest, fattest, most evil pig he wants to be? What would inspire "fear" in the Madoffs, the Kenneth Lays, and the endless procession of repugnant "capitalists" who've succeeded in ruining peoples lives by looting their retirement funds or fashioning crippling mortgage arrangements? What do you suggest we "scare" these bastards with--our anger and indignation? Guess what...they don't give a flying trapeze about such things. Our collective disappointment in can't compete with the oh-so-delicious monetary pay-offs built into unchecked Capitalism. Even IT has a dark side; so don't worship it blindly. Cause it'll eat you up if it's given free reign.
I notice one thing in these frauds, the accountant certifying the document, don't seem to have to show that the assets physical exist and/or owned. Isn't that the point of disclosure right there? Isn't that why in the end, fraud is really about people, not numbers?
I must be sick. I read every single word of this article with lust.
I read every line with my eyes closed. The SEC big boys/girls appeared to 2.
Actually, here's why Madoff only now got caught: The large Wall Street and other power players were aware of his scheme, and they realized that if they went down that Madoff would go down. They kept him around as a scapegoat, a diversion so that the world wouldn't solely blame Wall Street for the more general economic meltdown that we're now enjoying on their behalf. Madoff had a function for the economic power players. And just when things began to really look bad for them, they let the SEC, FBI have their way with Madoff. He became as large (if not larger) story and certainly a symbol of all that has gone wrong in the world of finance. And Wall Street comes away relatively unchanged and unscathed (compared to what would have happened if Madoff hadn't happened).
Now if they could just get Phil and Wendy Gramm in there too. This is another sleaze couple.
I agree BIG TIME! Those are two crooks who slinked away unharmed and they are responsible for a huge part of our economic problems today. I would love to see the Gramms in cells next to Bernie.
I'm not the least bit surprised or am I in awe of this low-life con man. Hundreds of people lost their life savings and retirement nest-eggs. Some committed suicide, others will never regain normal sanity. There is something that is a mystery to me and probably several others, and that is; How did the SEC not detect a humongus ponzi scheme? This is a fundamental objective of their jobs. Did Bernie pay off corrupt SEC employees? My guess is yes.
From what I read, his SEC compliance officer was a relative, so I'm sure it helped.
Amen.
The problem with our set up is things like what you say - seems like they are all friends, relatives or linked from school or work and: "There was a broker who was trading a company for these guys. He'd get a phone call before the close and they would tell him what to close it at and he would buy 30,000 shares and sell 30,000 shares. They would manipulate the stock like crazy."
What a cosy, in-bred set up we have here for evil and crooked people to manipulate!
I'm a lawyer and I've dealt with the SEC many times. They are well-known in the legal profession for being intellectual and legal lightweights. They rarely catch any fraud unless it is completely obvious or it blows up on its own. They had no idea anything was wrong with Enron either.
No different from the AUSAttorneys!
or judges
I wonder if they are all cute and tall.
Perhaps, but conducting due diligence is not a "fundamental objective of [the SEC's] jobs"
that is not true Artois.
[How the SEC Protects Investors, Maintains Market Integrity, and ...
To achieve this, the SEC requires public companies to disclose meaningful ... information in violation of a duty to withhold the information or refrain from trading. ...]
www.sec.gov/about/whatwedo.shtml -
[Public Company Accounting Oversight Board - Wikipedia, the free ...
... a 2002 United States federal law, to oversee the auditors of public companies. ... such other duties or functions as the Board (or the SEC) determines are ...] excerpted from
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Company_Accounting_Oversight_Board
This is where Madoff's accountant should have been investigated years ago. As Bernie said, if you can believe him, in 2005, if he had been discovered, or his accountant had been discovered, possibly 20 billion dollars could have been saved.
[US CODE: Title 18,201. Bribery of public officials and witnesses
(2) the term "person who has been selected to be a public official" means any ... to do or omit to do any act in violation of the lawful duty of such official or ...] excerpted
law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000201----000-.html
This is what should be investigated. Not whether Madoff's mother was to be blamed. The system which allowed this scam/process to continue for so long , possibly is to blame.
People probably believed these sections were really protecting them. But the issue is not due diligence it is trust, cause this is a fraud, a ponzi scheme, not just a bad investment. This artois has not given one citation to support view.
The father sounds like he taught Bernie everything he knew.
Well, old Bernies a punk now.
Jerry Oppenheimer: an unreliable, irresponsible and mendabious tabloid reporter -- and National Enquirer alumnus -- whose oeuvre should NOT be included on this page.
Just what is your problem with this article?
And what does the word "mendabious" mean?
"Just what is your problem with this article?"
This writer -- Jerry Oppenheimer -- has a reputation for playing fast and loose with information. Writers like Oppenheimer are not fastidious about sourcing; if the gossip is juicy enough, it gets slapped onto the page without checking. So there's a credibility problem. Does TDB have fact checkers? Magazines do, but most book publishers do not.
The fact that an Oppenheimer piece is included in The Daily Beast degrades the rest of the page.
"And what does the word "mendabious" mean?"
It's a typo. Sorry. Should read "mendacious". You DO know what that means, right?
bobbiewick
Vilify Oppenheimer to your heart's desire. That's your right (notwithstanding possible charges of libel). But if you're going to publicly accuse him of "playing fast and loose with information," or assert that he's "an unreliable, irresponsible and mendabious [sic] tabloid reporter" then it seems to me that the onus of proving such accusations rests squarely upon you. Because if you don't, your opinion's based on little more more than a "he said/he said" situation--the very thing with which you're taking issue.
Most of us are quite willing to review and consider evidence of such perfidy. So submit it already.
That's not a belligerent challenge; it's a polite request.
Submit the facts and allow the rest of us to conclude what we will.
I'm not defending Oppenheimer here; rather, I'm defending the tactics of proffering a valid argument.
Thanks, I was just thinking to myself, Madoff is an interesting topic that people are bound to read. But I would like to get the real story not a lot of gossip. I will look up Oppenheimer's rep on the web and if what you say is true, I agree, he shoudl not be posted here. However, the Beast has been posting some low life bloggers, so perhaps it is par for the course.
You just gotta hope beyond all belief that Bernie's two-man-cell bunk mate is a total slob. A pig of mammoth proportion. Dirty underwear, socks, all of it, strewn across the cell all day every day. And his prison job for the next 150 years: Cleaning everyone else's dirty laundry!
Convicts are not allowed to let their prison cells get messy. You'll have to come up with a better sadistic fantasy than that.
And you know what? As we speak there is probably another Madoff crooking his way around because we, greedy people, will never learn from history, whatsoever. "There is a sucker born every minute", will allways be a fact of life.
Many of his investors even suspected that he was crooked, but thought that his very high, constant returns resulted from something like insider trading, and that by investing with him they could get in on the scheme and profit from it.
yeah, his name is Geithner...
SEC had a fiduciary duty to the public, or something like that I thought. And so did Burnie's accountant.
I mean how can someone get away with allegedly not auditing that huge fund, without anyone knowing?
That is the real story I think.
Kedd shoes are stupid anway. I don't blame Bernie's mother, or Ruth, I blame SEC and Bernie's accountant who was allegedly certifying unaudited financial documents.
Obviously Bernie knew what he was doing was wrong, or says he does. So that is the only reason I can think of which would clear him of criminal insanity. But what about SEC and Bernie's accountant they had a fiduciary duty to the public, didn't they? Doesn't that mean a thing?
Your comments are nonsense...
There is no such thing as a "fiduciary duty to the public"...And the SEC has no fiduciary duty at all. There is no story because there is no requirement that "funds" no matter how "huge" be audited.
[Defining Fiduciary
... Act of 1940 imposes a fiduciary duty on investment advisors by operation of law. ... The SEC has continuously confirmed an advisor's fiduciary duty subsequent to ...]
investmentadvisor.com/Issues/2006/.../Pages/Defining-Fiduciary.aspx - ]
[BCSC: For Companies: Your Guide to Going Public
Accountants provide audit reports, which a company attaches to its financial statements. ... Material required to be filed by the Securities Act includes: ...] excerpted from
www.bcsc.bc.ca/publicofferings.asp?id=2003
[Center for Public Company Audit Firms Peer Review Program or AICPA Peer ... (PDF)
... by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB) is required to be ... the Center for Public Company Audit Firms that are not required to be registered ...]
ftp.aicpa.org/public/download/members/div/practmon/enroll900.pdf
This is the big one, Madoff's accountant ellegedly said he wasn't auditing and was able to avoid peer review, which I believe was required for his state, and if true was a huge red flag.
[Corporate Governance: An Overview of Public Company Requirements (PDF)
governance requirements on public companies and to address ... Each AmexÂlisted company will be required to certify that it has adopted a formal written audit ... ]exerpted from
www.morganlewis.com/pubs/CorporateGovernanceWhitePaper-Sept2008.pdf - 986
artois, you have no citations, morons usually don't. Apparently Madoff hired people who didn't understand fiduciary duty either, and neither do you.
A duty of disclosure is everything. Investors expect it, cause it is the law. And expecting this disclosure, probably made them more vulnerable, than if they hadn't expected it. Without that expectation, investors will not feel confident in investing in the stock market.
All these acts, etc, is what a person has to know in accounting theory, so they are able to protect the rights of the investors, otherwise, what you don't know is what you don't know. Maybe in this case investors may have been better off assuming that SEC was not required to protect their rights as investors, by requiring properly audited financial states, and disclosing real risks, in this case the risk was, it was a ponzi scheme.
[SEC Update - August 2 (PDF)
requirements to disclose risk factors and unresolved SEC staff ... to investors, the public remarks of the SEC's ... A disclosure duty is created by new ...] excerpted from
www.sidley.com/db30/cgi-bin/pubs/SECUpdateAug0205.pdf
[US CODE: Title 18,201. Bribery of public officials and witnesses
(2) the term "person who has been selected to be a public official" means any ... to do or omit to do any act in violation of the lawful duty of such official or ...] excerpted from
law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000201----000-.html -
It may surprise many that Madoff and his ilk are admired by many, many people for his success prior to being exposed and jailed. What I find most astounding is the number of those in the Rich and Famous category who were lured into his scams by the false statistics of his scams. Did they not hear of "Diversification" or simply "Do not put all your eggs in one basket?"
I wanted to imagine that Madoff started out reasonably honest. The biographical portrait above seems a little too much. How could all of those people who bought into his securities operation have been so taken?
Madoff is enigmatic. Every day is a new day, so what did he get for all his corruption? Can he dig down so in his imagination he is wheeling one of his spotless yachts out of the harbor. And what good is that? He made off with every thing and he has nothing.
He also turned himself in before anyone even thought to charge him. Did he run to a safe haven like Robert Vesco? He did not. I'm not defending him, merely taking note.
His estate was seized. I did not get a spoon.
I've been compiling a list of public people you would hate to kiss. Bernard Madoff has made the list. I wouldn't kiss him for a million dollars of his blood money! Well maybe. Let me think about it. I'll take the money.
In the Second Gilded Age, the Republicans have sold the little guy on sinking his life savings in the stock market, just like many people were doing in the 1920s. It ended in the same way.
In both erea, no one was even enforcing the law on Wall Street, and the sharks were running wild. It was a huge mistake, and we should have learned the lesson from history that the stock market is no place for the little fish.
I suppose there isn't going to be much he's going to control from his prison cell.
Remember when GWBush was trying to talk us into putting our social security accounts into the stock market a few years ago? Wouldn't that have gone really well? Another example of them wanting to feed the little people to the machine; to chew up and spit out when they were done with ya.
spinozareader:
"...(notwithstanding possible charges of libel). .."
Oppenheimer's sourcing has been questioned in the past. For one example see: http://www.nytimes.com/2000/07/20/books/making-books-does-nonfiction-mean-f actual.html
Oppenheimer has also been sued for libel -- more than once.
"But if you're going to publicly accuse him of "playing fast and loose with information," or assert that he's "an unreliable, irresponsible and mendabious [sic] tabloid reporter""
You should perhaps take time out from your self-adoration to note that "Mendacious" was a typo that I corrected in the very post you are responding to.
"... then it seems to me that the onus of proving such accusations rests squarely upon you."
See the link to the Times article on Oppenheimer's book about Hillary Clinton.
Oppenheimer is best known as a former National Enquirer staffer. His pieces rarely appear in reputable media.
(snip)
"That's not a belligerent challenge; it's a polite request."
No, it's not a polite request. A response disguised as a "request" which jeers at my typo is essentially malicious.
"Self-adoration"...because I took you to task for not backing up your accusations with evidence? Or because, in quoting you, grammatical rules dictate that I'm obliged to use "sic" when a grammatical mistake is cited? Your typo was incidental and has no place in the argument.
All I was asking for was something of substance to back up your allegations--which you finally got around to in your sneering response to me.
When all's said and done here, you still haven't made your case.
The fact that he may have been sued for libel, or have worked for the National Enquirer aren't irrefutable grounds for dismissing Oppenheimer's observations outright.
It's apparent this bobbiewick has a personal vendetta of some sort against the author of the Madoff book that's been excerpted here. Rather than comment on the biggest crook in the world, Madoff, this stalker is attacking and libeling the messenger, a well known and respected journalist and author for some bizarre reason, and libeling him with scurrilous and false accusations. From reading the excerpt one gets a better understanding of where Madoff got his unethical and criminal mentality. This stalker must be one of the author's envious competitors, .
Perhaps you need to look up the word "stalker." It doesn't mean anybody who disagrees with you, FYI.
My accusations against Oppenheimer are hardly false, but if you choose to get your information from National Enquirer and its journalistic ilk, that's your choice.
For the likes of Oppenheimer, whose books are nothing more than an accretion of unproved gossip from the grievance collectors who surround every famous person, somebody like Madoff is an easy target, since he is unlikely to sue even over the most obvious libel. You seem to actually prefer "scurrilous and false" "news." "One" gets no understanding of Madoff's mental underpinnings by reading the graffiti of fake biographers like Oppenheimer.
Ruth
We get it.
You love him.
And he didn't do anything wrong.
HA HA HA
[How the SEC Protects Investors, Maintains Market Integrity, and ...
To achieve this, the SEC requires public companies to disclose meaningful ... information in violation of a duty to withhold the information or refrain from trading. ...] excerpted from
www.sec.gov/about/whatwedo.shtml -
Exploora - Your comments are all nonsense and you're an imbecile! Your cut and paste from the SEC's website have nothing to do with Madoff's Ponzi scheme - You miss the key elements of what you've posted. Perhaps you should learn to read! - The SEC has no "fiduciary duty" to the public: Using your own definition - They are not an "investment advisor:" of any kind. As for the SEC's role - the disclosure it requires is from PUBLIC companies - Which Madoff was NOT !- Moreover, a risk disclosure requirement hardly protects an investor from FRAUD. Madoff's fraud does not stem from concealment of RISK, it stems from the fact that he simply stole the money!
It is a wonder that he got religion at all and decided to confess? What a douche bag (no offense to douche bags). Ugh, appears to be that there are probably more creeps like this one in our out of control financial sector 'earning' a small country's GDP on Wall St.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.