Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend

Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites (# of views)   1 comment
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     Permalink
      (Page 1 of 4 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to None 4/4/11

- Advertisement -

April 4, 2011

Discursive Comments On The Oral Argument In The Court of Appeals

- Advertisement -

  In The Madoff Case On March 3, 2011.

 

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:  

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

-           By protecting small investors, confidence and investment in markets were to be built;

-           That the reasonable expectations of investors are to be satisfied;

- Advertisement -

-           That account statements and confirmations are the measure of reasonable expectations and net equity, especially because the change to holding securities in street name left investors no other way to know their holdings;

-           That investors are to be paid promptly, which is inherently impossible under CICO because of the need to reconstruct complex accounts over many years;

-           That investors are to receive securities where they can be acquired in a fair and orderly market, as can be done here where the securities are S&P 100 stocks that can be acquired in blocs over time.   SIPC ignores this requirement, though it was   a "principal purpose" and "essential feature" of the 1978 amendments;

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3  |  4

 

- Advertisement -

View Ratings | Rate It

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



Go To Commenting
/* The Petition Site */
The views expressed in this article 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
- Advertisement -

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.