Power of Story Send a Tweet        
OpEdNews Op Eds

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

By       Message Lawrence Velvel       (Page 1 of 3 pages)     Permalink

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

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

Author 2556
- Advertisement -

March 31, 2011

 

Discursive Comments On The Oral Argument In The Court of Appeals

  In The Madoff Case On March 3, 2011.

- Advertisement -

 

PART 3

 

- Advertisement -

 

            The next to argue for our opponents was the Trustee's Counsel, David Sheehan, who has made himself the bĂȘte noire of many victims by what they consider his pit bull attitudes, insults, and sometimes outlandish comments (such as that no legislator would think the FSM should be used).

 

            Sheehan began by saying that by using CICO the Trustee had reasonably followed the statute in a reasonable exercise of discretion, since this was a Ponzi scheme with no profits.   (Tr. 51.)   The customer fund, he said, is "the money that went in," i.e., the cash in.   To which Judge Jacobs said, "The SIPC fund is not the customer fund," and then said, perhaps very importantly, "the SIPC fund is what we're talking about here today."   (Tr. 51.)   At that point Sheehan, as best I can tell, began trying to say -- I think -- that the SIPC fund and the customer fund are at least intimately related because the payment from SIPC is "an advance.   It's an advance against the money owed to you by the broker."   (Tr. 52.)   If the broker owes you nothing, said Sheehan, there is no advance.   (Tr. 52.)

 

            At that point Judge Raggi interjected the following incredulous comment.   "Well, you don't think the broker who told people over the course of 30 years that they had a statement that increased at the rate of 15 percent a year or whatever owes them only what they put in at the start of the 30-year investment?   You think that's all the broker owes these people?"   (Tr. 52.)   Sheehan's answer to this question was, I believe, outlandish.   "In a Ponzi scheme, yes.   Absolutely.   Why would he owe them anything more."   In short, Sheehan was saying that even Madoff himself, had he been sued by an investor at some point for the amounts shown on the investor's statement, would have owed the investor only what the investor had put in, not what the statement showed.

- Advertisement -

 

            Raggi then interjected.   "But fraud."   (Tr. 52.)   Sheehan replied that "Fraud is a general creditor claim."   (Tr. 52.)   There are two funds, Sheehan said, one being the customer fund of property [which] is the cash and securities deposited with the broker.   The broker has an obligation to pay that."   (Tr. 52-53.)   The implication here was that the broker would not have the legal obligation to pay an investor the false profits shown on the statements the investor received.   If this were the only argument the other side had, I would have to think they would be sure losers.

 

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3

 

- 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
- 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.