Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on LinkedIn Share on Reddit Tell A Friend Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites
OpEdNews Op Eds

Discursive Comments On The Oral Argument In The Court of Appeals In The Madoff Case On March 3, 2011. Part 5

By       Message Lawrence Velvel       (Page 1 of 6 pages)     Permalink    (# of views)   1 comment

Related Topic(s): ; , Add Tags
Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

Author 2556
- Advertisement -

April 4, 2011

 

Discursive Comments On The Oral Argument In The Court of Appeals

  In The Madoff Case On March 3, 2011.

- Advertisement -

 

PART 5

 

- Advertisement -

 

            Next up was Helen Chaitman for rebuttal.   Before detailing her argument, let me describe some events that preceded the oral argument.

 

            As said at the beginning of this essay, the question of who would argue for us was very contentious.   Roughly two or two and one-half weeks before the oral argument, Helen asked me whether I would give up to her any claim I possessed to time to argue.   I said I would be happy to do so if, as part of her presentation, she would agree to give a short oral argument on legislative intent that I had drafted and, on February 4th, had sent to the controlling group of NYC lawyers who were running the show.   Helen agreed to this, and I notified the NYC group of our agreement.   And, since legislative intent has been spoken of so much here, let me now set forth the draft argument that I wrote on this subject.   Barring interruptions, the argument takes between three and four minutes to deliver orally.   (Our side had a total of 20 minutes.)  

 

The legislative history is dispositive in favor of the appellants.   For the hearings, the reports and, very importantly, the scores of floor statements on the 1970 Act and the 1978 Amendments reveal Congressional intent completely at odds with the use of CICO.   These Congressional statements, particularly the scores of statements on the floor which the Trustee, SIPC and the Court below do not mention, repeatedly make clear:  

- Advertisement -

 

-           That the purpose of SIPC is to protect small investors -- who are here being devastated even when innocent;

 

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6

 

- Advertisement -

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

Lawrence R. Velvel is a cofounder and the Dean of the Massachusetts School of Law, and is the founder of the American College of History and Legal Studies.

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon Share Author on Social Media   Go To Commenting

The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Related Topic(s): ; , Add Tags

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Preliminary Memorandum of the Justice Robert H. Jackson Conference on Federal Prosecutions of War Criminals

Investing With Bernie Madoff: How It Happened, What Happened, What Might Be Done (Part I)

Irving Picard's Three Percent Commission In The Madoff Case.

Alan Dershowitz on Whether to Prosecute Executive Branch Criminals

Madoff And The Mafia: A Mere Speculation Or Almost A Sure Thing?

It Appears That The Madoff Scam Was Not, Repeat Not, A Ponzi Scheme.