PDA

View Full Version : Madoff Pleads Guilty - Investors want Bailout


Wikking
March 12th 09, 02:44 PM
What a cheek! They want the taxpayers to refund them. Many of them
probably gave him money under the counter to dodge taxes OR laundered
money through him OR thought he was going to cheat by insider trading
FOR them.

All those that got money out first need to return it to the pool of
funds for the liquidator to handle, THEN we'll see who gets what if
they are not all under indictment themselves for various crimes.

--

}(:

Eliot Montevideo
March 12th 09, 02:51 PM
Wikking wrote:
>> What a cheek! They want the taxpayers to refund them.

They're right, the fault also lies with the SEC which is incompetent
and probably corrupt, the SEC=the State=taxpayers

Adam Russell[_2_]
March 12th 09, 03:11 PM
"Wikking" > wrote in message
...
> What a cheek! They want the taxpayers to refund them. Many of them
> probably gave him money under the counter to dodge taxes OR laundered
> money through him OR thought he was going to cheat by insider trading
> FOR them.
>
> All those that got money out first need to return it to the pool of
> funds for the liquidator to handle, THEN we'll see who gets what if
> they are not all under indictment themselves for various crimes.

I dont know about that. It seems to me that since he plead guilty he
stopped the public trial which more than likely stopped the possibility of a
public accounting.

Wikking
March 12th 09, 05:47 PM
Eliot Montevideo wrote:
> Wikking wrote:
>>> What a cheek! They want the taxpayers to refund them.
>
> They're right, the fault also lies with the SEC which is incompetent
> and probably corrupt, the SEC=the State=taxpayers
>
>
BULL****!!! If you get mugged by an armed robber you CANNOT get your
neighbours or the police to pay you the money the robber stole.

You are talking total crap.

--

}(:

Wikking
March 12th 09, 05:50 PM
Adam Russell wrote:
>
> "Wikking" > wrote in message
> ...
>> What a cheek! They want the taxpayers to refund them. Many of them
>> probably gave him money under the counter to dodge taxes OR laundered
>> money through him OR thought he was going to cheat by insider trading
>> FOR them.
>>
>> All those that got money out first need to return it to the pool of
>> funds for the liquidator to handle, THEN we'll see who gets what if
>> they are not all under indictment themselves for various crimes.
>
> I dont know about that. It seems to me that since he plead guilty he
> stopped the public trial which more than likely stopped the possibility
> of a public accounting.

He's OBVIOUSLY trying to protect other perps. But the fact is, that
when a thief or a robber steals or robs from you, it is not the job of
the police or your neighbours to refund you the money.

--

}(:

John Galt[_2_]
March 12th 09, 06:18 PM
Wikking wrote:
> Adam Russell wrote:
>> "Wikking" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> What a cheek! They want the taxpayers to refund them. Many of them
>>> probably gave him money under the counter to dodge taxes OR laundered
>>> money through him OR thought he was going to cheat by insider trading
>>> FOR them.
>>>
>>> All those that got money out first need to return it to the pool of
>>> funds for the liquidator to handle, THEN we'll see who gets what if
>>> they are not all under indictment themselves for various crimes.
>> I dont know about that. It seems to me that since he plead guilty he
>> stopped the public trial which more than likely stopped the possibility
>> of a public accounting.
>
> He's OBVIOUSLY trying to protect other perps. But the fact is, that
> when a thief or a robber steals or robs from you, it is not the job of
> the police or your neighbours to refund you the money.

Yea, but what if your police or your neighbors profited from the action
as well? The government's been taxing this Ponzi scheme for years.

JG

Adam Russell[_2_]
March 12th 09, 06:27 PM
"Wikking" > wrote in message
...
> Adam Russell wrote:
>>
>> "Wikking" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> What a cheek! They want the taxpayers to refund them. Many of them
>>> probably gave him money under the counter to dodge taxes OR laundered
>>> money through him OR thought he was going to cheat by insider trading
>>> FOR them.
>>>
>>> All those that got money out first need to return it to the pool of
>>> funds for the liquidator to handle, THEN we'll see who gets what if
>>> they are not all under indictment themselves for various crimes.
>>
>> I dont know about that. It seems to me that since he plead guilty he
>> stopped the public trial which more than likely stopped the possibility
>> of a public accounting.
>
> He's OBVIOUSLY trying to protect other perps. But the fact is, that
> when a thief or a robber steals or robs from you, it is not the job of
> the police or your neighbours to refund you the money.

It is however the job of the police to investigate and recover the property,
if possible.

Beam Me Up Scotty[_2_]
March 12th 09, 06:47 PM
Adam Russell wrote:
>
> "Wikking" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Adam Russell wrote:
>>>
>>> "Wikking" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> What a cheek! They want the taxpayers to refund them. Many of them
>>>> probably gave him money under the counter to dodge taxes OR laundered
>>>> money through him OR thought he was going to cheat by insider trading
>>>> FOR them.
>>>>
>>>> All those that got money out first need to return it to the pool of
>>>> funds for the liquidator to handle, THEN we'll see who gets what if
>>>> they are not all under indictment themselves for various crimes.
>>>
>>> I dont know about that. It seems to me that since he plead guilty he
>>> stopped the public trial which more than likely stopped the possibility
>>> of a public accounting.
>>
>> He's OBVIOUSLY trying to protect other perps. But the fact is, that
>> when a thief or a robber steals or robs from you, it is not the job of
>> the police or your neighbours to refund you the money.
>
> It is however the job of the police to investigate and recover the
> property, if possible.

Actually the police are supposed to catch and jail the criminal. They
only look for your personal items, as evidence.... I've had them say
"it's gone you'll never see it even if we catch the guy" meaning that
they wouldn't look for it after they catch the criminal.


Your property is not their problem. We do have private police that
look for stolen item like paintings and jewelry.

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
March 12th 09, 06:48 PM
Wikking wrote:
> What a cheek! They want the taxpayers to refund them. Many of them
> probably gave him money under the counter to dodge taxes OR laundered
> money through him OR thought he was going to cheat by insider trading
> FOR them.
>
> All those that got money out first need to return it to the pool of
> funds for the liquidator to handle, THEN we'll see who gets what if
> they are not all under indictment themselves for various crimes.
>

Madoff - as in "Madoff with their money".
A bad case of nominative determinism.

--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff

Wikking
March 12th 09, 08:00 PM
John Galt wrote:
> Wikking wrote:
>> Adam Russell wrote:
>>> "Wikking" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> What a cheek! They want the taxpayers to refund them. Many of them
>>>> probably gave him money under the counter to dodge taxes OR laundered
>>>> money through him OR thought he was going to cheat by insider trading
>>>> FOR them.
>>>>
>>>> All those that got money out first need to return it to the pool of
>>>> funds for the liquidator to handle, THEN we'll see who gets what if
>>>> they are not all under indictment themselves for various crimes.
>>> I dont know about that. It seems to me that since he plead guilty he
>>> stopped the public trial which more than likely stopped the possibility
>>> of a public accounting.
>>
>> He's OBVIOUSLY trying to protect other perps. But the fact is, that
>> when a thief or a robber steals or robs from you, it is not the job of
>> the police or your neighbours to refund you the money.
>
> Yea, but what if your police or your neighbors profited from the action
> as well? The government's been taxing this Ponzi scheme for years.

What if?? Prove it first, then make the claim? Not "WHAT IF??"


--

}(:

Wikking
March 12th 09, 08:01 PM
Adam Russell wrote:
>
> "Wikking" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Adam Russell wrote:
>>>
>>> "Wikking" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> What a cheek! They want the taxpayers to refund them. Many of them
>>>> probably gave him money under the counter to dodge taxes OR laundered
>>>> money through him OR thought he was going to cheat by insider trading
>>>> FOR them.
>>>>
>>>> All those that got money out first need to return it to the pool of
>>>> funds for the liquidator to handle, THEN we'll see who gets what if
>>>> they are not all under indictment themselves for various crimes.
>>>
>>> I dont know about that. It seems to me that since he plead guilty he
>>> stopped the public trial which more than likely stopped the possibility
>>> of a public accounting.
>>
>> He's OBVIOUSLY trying to protect other perps. But the fact is, that
>> when a thief or a robber steals or robs from you, it is not the job of
>> the police or your neighbours to refund you the money.
>
> It is however the job of the police to investigate and recover the
> property, if possible.

And if they cannot, they still do NOT owe you the money, nor do your
neighbours!!

--

}(:

Wikking
March 12th 09, 08:02 PM
Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
> Adam Russell wrote:
>>
>> "Wikking" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Adam Russell wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Wikking" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> What a cheek! They want the taxpayers to refund them. Many of them
>>>>> probably gave him money under the counter to dodge taxes OR laundered
>>>>> money through him OR thought he was going to cheat by insider trading
>>>>> FOR them.
>>>>>
>>>>> All those that got money out first need to return it to the pool of
>>>>> funds for the liquidator to handle, THEN we'll see who gets what if
>>>>> they are not all under indictment themselves for various crimes.
>>>>
>>>> I dont know about that. It seems to me that since he plead guilty he
>>>> stopped the public trial which more than likely stopped the possibility
>>>> of a public accounting.
>>>
>>> He's OBVIOUSLY trying to protect other perps. But the fact is, that
>>> when a thief or a robber steals or robs from you, it is not the job of
>>> the police or your neighbours to refund you the money.
>>
>> It is however the job of the police to investigate and recover the
>> property, if possible.
>
> Actually the police are supposed to catch and jail the criminal. They
> only look for your personal items, as evidence.... I've had them say
> "it's gone you'll never see it even if we catch the guy" meaning that
> they wouldn't look for it after they catch the criminal.
>
>
> Your property is not their problem. We do have private police that
> look for stolen item like paintings and jewelry.

Exactly. Nor is it your neighbours responsibility. The only persons
that owe you anything are those that robbed you.

--

}(:

John Galt[_2_]
March 12th 09, 08:42 PM
Wikking wrote:
> John Galt wrote:
>> Wikking wrote:
>>> Adam Russell wrote:
>>>> "Wikking" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> What a cheek! They want the taxpayers to refund them. Many of them
>>>>> probably gave him money under the counter to dodge taxes OR laundered
>>>>> money through him OR thought he was going to cheat by insider trading
>>>>> FOR them.
>>>>>
>>>>> All those that got money out first need to return it to the pool of
>>>>> funds for the liquidator to handle, THEN we'll see who gets what if
>>>>> they are not all under indictment themselves for various crimes.
>>>> I dont know about that. It seems to me that since he plead guilty he
>>>> stopped the public trial which more than likely stopped the possibility
>>>> of a public accounting.
>>> He's OBVIOUSLY trying to protect other perps. But the fact is, that
>>> when a thief or a robber steals or robs from you, it is not the job of
>>> the police or your neighbours to refund you the money.
>> Yea, but what if your police or your neighbors profited from the action
>> as well? The government's been taxing this Ponzi scheme for years.
>
> What if?? Prove it first, then make the claim? Not "WHAT IF??"

What do you mean "prove it?" :-) Are you serious? That's like saying
"prove there's a sun in the sky."

Madoff ran a mutual fund for high net worth investors. They got 1099's
like any other investor in any other fund, and those 1099's were filed
with the government, just like any other fund. Dividends, even reivested
ones, get reported on a 1099-DIV, and cap gains got reported as regular
income, again just like any other fund.

Madoff was returning 1% per month like a clock. That was his appeal to
his investors. If a million dollars was invested with him in 1990 and
allowed to compound through to 2007, the dividends on that single
investment paid 2.5 million in federal taxes over the 17 years, not to
mention state taxes on the income depending on the domicile of the
investor.

And the guy had billions under management, ostensibly. That math has
some eyepopping results.

JG

Wikking
March 12th 09, 08:53 PM
John Galt wrote:
> Wikking wrote:
>> John Galt wrote:
>>> Wikking wrote:
>>>> Adam Russell wrote:
>>>>> "Wikking" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> What a cheek! They want the taxpayers to refund them. Many of them
>>>>>> probably gave him money under the counter to dodge taxes OR laundered
>>>>>> money through him OR thought he was going to cheat by insider trading
>>>>>> FOR them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All those that got money out first need to return it to the pool of
>>>>>> funds for the liquidator to handle, THEN we'll see who gets what if
>>>>>> they are not all under indictment themselves for various crimes.
>>>>> I dont know about that. It seems to me that since he plead guilty he
>>>>> stopped the public trial which more than likely stopped the
>>>>> possibility
>>>>> of a public accounting.
>>>> He's OBVIOUSLY trying to protect other perps. But the fact is, that
>>>> when a thief or a robber steals or robs from you, it is not the job of
>>>> the police or your neighbours to refund you the money.
>>> Yea, but what if your police or your neighbors profited from the action
>>> as well? The government's been taxing this Ponzi scheme for years.
>>
>> What if?? Prove it first, then make the claim? Not "WHAT IF??"
>
> What do you mean "prove it?" :-) Are you serious? That's like saying
> "prove there's a sun in the sky."

You are in "magical thinking" mode. The US is still a country of laws
and does things by the law and based upon an evidentiary trail. You
cannot make some unproven allegation and use that to leapfrog to a
determination that all the taxpayers and regulatory bodies now have to
refund investors who had their money stolen. That line of thinking is
NOT supported by anything in US history or anywhere else. When you get
robbed or have your money stolen, the police and your neighbours owe
you sweet ****ALL except for a "Sorry to hear it mate, We'll buy you a
beer! (if you are lucky)". The ONLY duty the police have is to try and
recover your money and if they cannot, they still owe you ****ALL.


--

}(:

John Galt[_2_]
March 12th 09, 09:03 PM
Wikking wrote:
> John Galt wrote:
>> Wikking wrote:
>>> John Galt wrote:
>>>> Wikking wrote:
>>>>> Adam Russell wrote:
>>>>>> "Wikking" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> What a cheek! They want the taxpayers to refund them. Many of them
>>>>>>> probably gave him money under the counter to dodge taxes OR laundered
>>>>>>> money through him OR thought he was going to cheat by insider trading
>>>>>>> FOR them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All those that got money out first need to return it to the pool of
>>>>>>> funds for the liquidator to handle, THEN we'll see who gets what if
>>>>>>> they are not all under indictment themselves for various crimes.
>>>>>> I dont know about that. It seems to me that since he plead guilty he
>>>>>> stopped the public trial which more than likely stopped the
>>>>>> possibility
>>>>>> of a public accounting.
>>>>> He's OBVIOUSLY trying to protect other perps. But the fact is, that
>>>>> when a thief or a robber steals or robs from you, it is not the job of
>>>>> the police or your neighbours to refund you the money.
>>>> Yea, but what if your police or your neighbors profited from the action
>>>> as well? The government's been taxing this Ponzi scheme for years.
>>> What if?? Prove it first, then make the claim? Not "WHAT IF??"
>> What do you mean "prove it?" :-) Are you serious? That's like saying
>> "prove there's a sun in the sky."
>
> You are in "magical thinking" mode.

It's just common sense.

The US is still a country of laws
> and does things by the law and based upon an evidentiary trail. You
> cannot make some unproven allegation and use that to leapfrog to a
> determination that all the taxpayers and regulatory bodies now have to
> refund investors who had their money stolen.

Hardly. I posted this:

"Yea, but what if your police or your neighbors profited from the action
as well?"

No determination there. I asked you for your opinion, which apparently
upsets you for some reason.

JG



That line of thinking is
> NOT supported by anything in US history or anywhere else. When you get
> robbed or have your money stolen, the police and your neighbours owe
> you sweet ****ALL except for a "Sorry to hear it mate, We'll buy you a
> beer! (if you are lucky)". The ONLY duty the police have is to try and
> recover your money and if they cannot, they still owe you ****ALL.
>
>

Wikking
March 12th 09, 09:26 PM
John Galt wrote:
> Wikking wrote:
>> John Galt wrote:
>>> Wikking wrote:
>>>> John Galt wrote:
>>>>> Wikking wrote:
>>>>>> Adam Russell wrote:
>>>>>>> "Wikking" > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> What a cheek! They want the taxpayers to refund them. Many of them
>>>>>>>> probably gave him money under the counter to dodge taxes OR
>>>>>>>> laundered
>>>>>>>> money through him OR thought he was going to cheat by insider
>>>>>>>> trading
>>>>>>>> FOR them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All those that got money out first need to return it to the pool of
>>>>>>>> funds for the liquidator to handle, THEN we'll see who gets what if
>>>>>>>> they are not all under indictment themselves for various crimes.
>>>>>>> I dont know about that. It seems to me that since he plead
>>>>>>> guilty he
>>>>>>> stopped the public trial which more than likely stopped the
>>>>>>> possibility
>>>>>>> of a public accounting.
>>>>>> He's OBVIOUSLY trying to protect other perps. But the fact is, that
>>>>>> when a thief or a robber steals or robs from you, it is not the
>>>>>> job of
>>>>>> the police or your neighbours to refund you the money.
>>>>> Yea, but what if your police or your neighbors profited from the
>>>>> action
>>>>> as well? The government's been taxing this Ponzi scheme for years.
>>>> What if?? Prove it first, then make the claim? Not "WHAT IF??"
>>> What do you mean "prove it?" :-) Are you serious? That's like saying
>>> "prove there's a sun in the sky."
>>
>> You are in "magical thinking" mode.
>
> It's just common sense.
>
> The US is still a country of laws
>> and does things by the law and based upon an evidentiary trail. You
>> cannot make some unproven allegation and use that to leapfrog to a
>> determination that all the taxpayers and regulatory bodies now have to
>> refund investors who had their money stolen.
>
> Hardly. I posted this:
>
> "Yea, but what if your police or your neighbors profited from the action
> as well?"
>
> No determination there. I asked you for your opinion, which apparently
> upsets you for some reason.

Liar. You made the magical thinking leap to "THEY OWE US" without any
evidence or historical or legal precedent to support your position.

> That line of thinking is
>> NOT supported by anything in US history or anywhere else. When you get
>> robbed or have your money stolen, the police and your neighbours owe
>> you sweet ****ALL except for a "Sorry to hear it mate, We'll buy you a
>> beer! (if you are lucky)". The ONLY duty the police have is to try and
>> recover your money and if they cannot, they still owe you ****ALL.
>>
>>


--

}(:

John Galt[_2_]
March 12th 09, 09:33 PM
Wikking wrote:
> John Galt wrote:
>> Wikking wrote:
>>> John Galt wrote:
>>>> Wikking wrote:
>>>>> John Galt wrote:
>>>>>> Wikking wrote:
>>>>>>> Adam Russell wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Wikking" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> What a cheek! They want the taxpayers to refund them. Many of them
>>>>>>>>> probably gave him money under the counter to dodge taxes OR
>>>>>>>>> laundered
>>>>>>>>> money through him OR thought he was going to cheat by insider
>>>>>>>>> trading
>>>>>>>>> FOR them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> All those that got money out first need to return it to the pool of
>>>>>>>>> funds for the liquidator to handle, THEN we'll see who gets what if
>>>>>>>>> they are not all under indictment themselves for various crimes.
>>>>>>>> I dont know about that. It seems to me that since he plead
>>>>>>>> guilty he
>>>>>>>> stopped the public trial which more than likely stopped the
>>>>>>>> possibility
>>>>>>>> of a public accounting.
>>>>>>> He's OBVIOUSLY trying to protect other perps. But the fact is, that
>>>>>>> when a thief or a robber steals or robs from you, it is not the
>>>>>>> job of
>>>>>>> the police or your neighbours to refund you the money.
>>>>>> Yea, but what if your police or your neighbors profited from the
>>>>>> action
>>>>>> as well? The government's been taxing this Ponzi scheme for years.
>>>>> What if?? Prove it first, then make the claim? Not "WHAT IF??"
>>>> What do you mean "prove it?" :-) Are you serious? That's like saying
>>>> "prove there's a sun in the sky."
>>> You are in "magical thinking" mode.
>> It's just common sense.
>>
>> The US is still a country of laws
>>> and does things by the law and based upon an evidentiary trail. You
>>> cannot make some unproven allegation and use that to leapfrog to a
>>> determination that all the taxpayers and regulatory bodies now have to
>>> refund investors who had their money stolen.
>> Hardly. I posted this:
>>
>> "Yea, but what if your police or your neighbors profited from the action
>> as well?"
>>
>> No determination there. I asked you for your opinion, which apparently
>> upsets you for some reason.
>
> Liar.

Pfft. You jumped to a conclusion on a matter you hadn't thought through
completely and got called on it. Man up and admit you made an incorrect
assumption.

JG


You made the magical thinking leap to "THEY OWE US" without any
> evidence or historical or legal precedent to support your position.
>
>> That line of thinking is
>>> NOT supported by anything in US history or anywhere else. When you get
>>> robbed or have your money stolen, the police and your neighbours owe
>>> you sweet ****ALL except for a "Sorry to hear it mate, We'll buy you a
>>> beer! (if you are lucky)". The ONLY duty the police have is to try and
>>> recover your money and if they cannot, they still owe you ****ALL.
>>>
>>>
>
>

Wikking
March 12th 09, 10:03 PM
John Galt wrote:
> Wikking wrote:
>> John Galt wrote:
>>> Wikking wrote:
>>>> John Galt wrote:
>>>>> Wikking wrote:
>>>>>> John Galt wrote:
>>>>>>> Wikking wrote:
>>>>>>>> Adam Russell wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Wikking" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>> What a cheek! They want the taxpayers to refund them. Many of
>>>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>>>> probably gave him money under the counter to dodge taxes OR
>>>>>>>>>> laundered
>>>>>>>>>> money through him OR thought he was going to cheat by insider
>>>>>>>>>> trading
>>>>>>>>>> FOR them.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> All those that got money out first need to return it to the
>>>>>>>>>> pool of
>>>>>>>>>> funds for the liquidator to handle, THEN we'll see who gets
>>>>>>>>>> what if
>>>>>>>>>> they are not all under indictment themselves for various crimes.
>>>>>>>>> I dont know about that. It seems to me that since he plead
>>>>>>>>> guilty he
>>>>>>>>> stopped the public trial which more than likely stopped the
>>>>>>>>> possibility
>>>>>>>>> of a public accounting.
>>>>>>>> He's OBVIOUSLY trying to protect other perps. But the fact is, that
>>>>>>>> when a thief or a robber steals or robs from you, it is not the
>>>>>>>> job of
>>>>>>>> the police or your neighbours to refund you the money.
>>>>>>> Yea, but what if your police or your neighbors profited from the
>>>>>>> action
>>>>>>> as well? The government's been taxing this Ponzi scheme for years.
>>>>>> What if?? Prove it first, then make the claim? Not "WHAT IF??"
>>>>> What do you mean "prove it?" :-) Are you serious? That's like saying
>>>>> "prove there's a sun in the sky."
>>>> You are in "magical thinking" mode.
>>> It's just common sense.
>>>
>>> The US is still a country of laws
>>>> and does things by the law and based upon an evidentiary trail. You
>>>> cannot make some unproven allegation and use that to leapfrog to a
>>>> determination that all the taxpayers and regulatory bodies now have to
>>>> refund investors who had their money stolen.
>>> Hardly. I posted this:
>>>
>>> "Yea, but what if your police or your neighbors profited from the action
>>> as well?"
>>>
>>> No determination there. I asked you for your opinion, which apparently
>>> upsets you for some reason.
>>
>> Liar.
>
> Pfft. You jumped to a conclusion on a matter you hadn't thought through
> completely and got called on it. Man up and admit you made an incorrect
> assumption.

Bull****. You guys want the taxpayer to bail you out of investing in
this crooked ponzi scheme. When a thief steals your money, your
neighbours and the police do not OWE YOU!

>
> JG
>
>
> You made the magical thinking leap to "THEY OWE US" without any
>> evidence or historical or legal precedent to support your position.
>>
>>> That line of thinking is
>>>> NOT supported by anything in US history or anywhere else. When you get
>>>> robbed or have your money stolen, the police and your neighbours owe
>>>> you sweet ****ALL except for a "Sorry to hear it mate, We'll buy you a
>>>> beer! (if you are lucky)". The ONLY duty the police have is to try and
>>>> recover your money and if they cannot, they still owe you ****ALL.
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>


--

}(:

Bash409
March 12th 09, 10:06 PM
John Galt > wrote in
:

> Wikking wrote:
>> John Galt wrote:
>>> Wikking wrote:
>>>> Adam Russell wrote:
>>>>> "Wikking" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> What a cheek! They want the taxpayers to refund them. Many of
>>>>>> them probably gave him money under the counter to dodge taxes OR
>>>>>> laundered money through him OR thought he was going to cheat by
>>>>>> insider trading FOR them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All those that got money out first need to return it to the pool
>>>>>> of funds for the liquidator to handle, THEN we'll see who gets
>>>>>> what if they are not all under indictment themselves for various
>>>>>> crimes.
>>>>> I dont know about that. It seems to me that since he plead guilty
>>>>> he stopped the public trial which more than likely stopped the
>>>>> possibility of a public accounting.
>>>> He's OBVIOUSLY trying to protect other perps. But the fact is, that
>>>> when a thief or a robber steals or robs from you, it is not the job
>>>> of the police or your neighbours to refund you the money.
>>> Yea, but what if your police or your neighbors profited from the
>>> action as well? The government's been taxing this Ponzi scheme for
>>> years.
>>
>> What if?? Prove it first, then make the claim? Not "WHAT IF??"
>
> What do you mean "prove it?" :-) Are you serious? That's like saying
> "prove there's a sun in the sky."
>
> Madoff ran a mutual fund for high net worth investors. They got 1099's
> like any other investor in any other fund, and those 1099's were filed
> with the government, just like any other fund. Dividends, even
> reivested ones, get reported on a 1099-DIV, and cap gains got reported
> as regular income, again just like any other fund.
>
> Madoff was returning 1% per month like a clock. That was his appeal to
> his investors. If a million dollars was invested with him in 1990 and
> allowed to compound through to 2007, the dividends on that single
> investment paid 2.5 million in federal taxes over the 17 years, not to
> mention state taxes on the income depending on the domicile of the
> investor.
>
> And the guy had billions under management, ostensibly. That math has
> some eyepopping results.
>
> JG



isn't it IRS law that one cannot amend tax forms past the last 3 years ?
i bet they'd stand on that even if found they collected too much from you
before then.

John Galt[_2_]
March 12th 09, 10:08 PM
Wikking wrote:
> John Galt wrote:
>> Wikking wrote:
>>> John Galt wrote:
>>>> Wikking wrote:
>>>>> John Galt wrote:
>>>>>> Wikking wrote:
>>>>>>> John Galt wrote:
>>>>>>>> Wikking wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Adam Russell wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Wikking" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>> What a cheek! They want the taxpayers to refund them. Many of
>>>>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>>>>> probably gave him money under the counter to dodge taxes OR
>>>>>>>>>>> laundered
>>>>>>>>>>> money through him OR thought he was going to cheat by insider
>>>>>>>>>>> trading
>>>>>>>>>>> FOR them.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> All those that got money out first need to return it to the
>>>>>>>>>>> pool of
>>>>>>>>>>> funds for the liquidator to handle, THEN we'll see who gets
>>>>>>>>>>> what if
>>>>>>>>>>> they are not all under indictment themselves for various crimes.
>>>>>>>>>> I dont know about that. It seems to me that since he plead
>>>>>>>>>> guilty he
>>>>>>>>>> stopped the public trial which more than likely stopped the
>>>>>>>>>> possibility
>>>>>>>>>> of a public accounting.
>>>>>>>>> He's OBVIOUSLY trying to protect other perps. But the fact is, that
>>>>>>>>> when a thief or a robber steals or robs from you, it is not the
>>>>>>>>> job of
>>>>>>>>> the police or your neighbours to refund you the money.
>>>>>>>> Yea, but what if your police or your neighbors profited from the
>>>>>>>> action
>>>>>>>> as well? The government's been taxing this Ponzi scheme for years.
>>>>>>> What if?? Prove it first, then make the claim? Not "WHAT IF??"
>>>>>> What do you mean "prove it?" :-) Are you serious? That's like saying
>>>>>> "prove there's a sun in the sky."
>>>>> You are in "magical thinking" mode.
>>>> It's just common sense.
>>>>
>>>> The US is still a country of laws
>>>>> and does things by the law and based upon an evidentiary trail. You
>>>>> cannot make some unproven allegation and use that to leapfrog to a
>>>>> determination that all the taxpayers and regulatory bodies now have to
>>>>> refund investors who had their money stolen.
>>>> Hardly. I posted this:
>>>>
>>>> "Yea, but what if your police or your neighbors profited from the action
>>>> as well?"
>>>>
>>>> No determination there. I asked you for your opinion, which apparently
>>>> upsets you for some reason.
>>> Liar.
>> Pfft. You jumped to a conclusion on a matter you hadn't thought through
>> completely and got called on it. Man up and admit you made an incorrect
>> assumption.
>
> Bull****. You guys want the taxpayer to bail you out of investing in
> this crooked ponzi scheme.

OK, don't man up, then.

JG


When a thief steals your money, your
> neighbours and the police do not OWE YOU!
>
>> JG
>>
>>
>> You made the magical thinking leap to "THEY OWE US" without any
>>> evidence or historical or legal precedent to support your position.
>>>
>>>> That line of thinking is
>>>>> NOT supported by anything in US history or anywhere else. When you get
>>>>> robbed or have your money stolen, the police and your neighbours owe
>>>>> you sweet ****ALL except for a "Sorry to hear it mate, We'll buy you a
>>>>> beer! (if you are lucky)". The ONLY duty the police have is to try and
>>>>> recover your money and if they cannot, they still owe you ****ALL.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>
>

shortT
March 12th 09, 10:51 PM
On Mar 12, 2:18*pm, John Galt > wrote:
> Wikking wrote:
> > Adam Russell wrote:
> >> "Wikking" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>> What a cheek! They want the taxpayers to refund them. Many of them
> >>> probably gave him money under the counter to dodge taxes OR laundered
> >>> money through him OR thought he was going to cheat by insider trading
> >>> FOR them.
>
> >>> All those that got money out first need to return it to the pool of
> >>> funds for the liquidator to handle, THEN we'll see who gets what if
> >>> they are not all under indictment themselves for various crimes.
> >> I dont know about that. *It seems to me that since he plead guilty he
> >> stopped the public trial which more than likely stopped the possibility
> >> of a public accounting.
>
> > He's OBVIOUSLY trying to protect other perps. But the fact is, that
> > when a thief or a robber steals or robs from you, it is not the job of
> > the police or your neighbours to refund you the money.
>
> Yea, but what if your police or your neighbors profited from the action
> as well? The government's been taxing this Ponzi scheme for years.
>
> JG

I heard today that someone complained to the SEC about his returns a
few years back.
He had plotted his returns on a graph and the graph was linear.
Thinking that this was quite unlikely he complained.
The SEC apparently did nothing about it.

shortT

Wikking
March 13th 09, 02:17 AM
shortT wrote:
> On Mar 12, 2:18 pm, John Galt > wrote:
>> Wikking wrote:
>>> Adam Russell wrote:
>>>> "Wikking" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> What a cheek! They want the taxpayers to refund them. Many of them
>>>>> probably gave him money under the counter to dodge taxes OR laundered
>>>>> money through him OR thought he was going to cheat by insider trading
>>>>> FOR them.
>>>>> All those that got money out first need to return it to the pool of
>>>>> funds for the liquidator to handle, THEN we'll see who gets what if
>>>>> they are not all under indictment themselves for various crimes.
>>>> I dont know about that. It seems to me that since he plead guilty he
>>>> stopped the public trial which more than likely stopped the possibility
>>>> of a public accounting.
>>> He's OBVIOUSLY trying to protect other perps. But the fact is, that
>>> when a thief or a robber steals or robs from you, it is not the job of
>>> the police or your neighbours to refund you the money.
>> Yea, but what if your police or your neighbors profited from the action
>> as well? The government's been taxing this Ponzi scheme for years.
>>
>> JG
>
> I heard today that someone complained to the SEC about his returns a
> few years back.
> He had plotted his returns on a graph and the graph was linear.
> Thinking that this was quite unlikely he complained.
> The SEC apparently did nothing about it.

And?


--

}(:

shortT
March 13th 09, 02:52 AM
On Mar 12, 10:17*pm, Wikking > wrote:
> shortT wrote:
> > On Mar 12, 2:18 pm, John Galt > wrote:
> >> Wikking wrote:
> >>> Adam Russell wrote:
> >>>> "Wikking" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>> What a cheek! They want the taxpayers to refund them. Many of them
> >>>>> probably gave him money under the counter to dodge taxes OR laundered
> >>>>> money through him OR thought he was going to cheat by insider trading
> >>>>> FOR them.
> >>>>> All those that got money out first need to return it to the pool of
> >>>>> funds for the liquidator to handle, THEN we'll see who gets what if
> >>>>> they are not all under indictment themselves for various crimes.
> >>>> I dont know about that. *It seems to me that since he plead guilty he
> >>>> stopped the public trial which more than likely stopped the possibility
> >>>> of a public accounting.
> >>> He's OBVIOUSLY trying to protect other perps. But the fact is, that
> >>> when a thief or a robber steals or robs from you, it is not the job of
> >>> the police or your neighbours to refund you the money.
> >> Yea, but what if your police or your neighbors profited from the action
> >> as well? The government's been taxing this Ponzi scheme for years.
>
> >> JG
>
> > I heard today that someone complained to the SEC about his returns a
> > few years back.
> > He had plotted his returns on a graph and the graph was linear.
> > Thinking that this was quite unlikely he complained.
> > The SEC apparently did nothing about it.
>
> And?
>
> --
>
> }(:

Well the way I see it is if the SEC failed to due their job then the
people
that lost money have a legal claim against them.

shortT

Wikking
March 13th 09, 10:44 AM
shortT wrote:
> On Mar 12, 10:17 pm, Wikking > wrote:
>> shortT wrote:
>>> On Mar 12, 2:18 pm, John Galt > wrote:
>>>> Wikking wrote:
>>>>> Adam Russell wrote:
>>>>>> "Wikking" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> What a cheek! They want the taxpayers to refund them. Many of them
>>>>>>> probably gave him money under the counter to dodge taxes OR laundered
>>>>>>> money through him OR thought he was going to cheat by insider trading
>>>>>>> FOR them.
>>>>>>> All those that got money out first need to return it to the pool of
>>>>>>> funds for the liquidator to handle, THEN we'll see who gets what if
>>>>>>> they are not all under indictment themselves for various crimes.
>>>>>> I dont know about that. It seems to me that since he plead guilty he
>>>>>> stopped the public trial which more than likely stopped the possibility
>>>>>> of a public accounting.
>>>>> He's OBVIOUSLY trying to protect other perps. But the fact is, that
>>>>> when a thief or a robber steals or robs from you, it is not the job of
>>>>> the police or your neighbours to refund you the money.
>>>> Yea, but what if your police or your neighbors profited from the action
>>>> as well? The government's been taxing this Ponzi scheme for years.
>>>> JG
>>> I heard today that someone complained to the SEC about his returns a
>>> few years back.
>>> He had plotted his returns on a graph and the graph was linear.
>>> Thinking that this was quite unlikely he complained.
>>> The SEC apparently did nothing about it.
>> And?
>>
>> --
>>
>> }(:
>
> Well the way I see it is if the SEC failed to due their job then the
> people
> that lost money have a legal claim against them.

So if the police don't stop you from being mugged in an alley you can
claim the money back from them and your neighbours? I suggest that at
the very best you could claim back from someone in the SEC that might
have colluded with Madoff.

--

}(:

Geode
March 13th 09, 01:17 PM
On 12 mar, 14:44, Wikking > wrote:
> What a cheek! They want the taxpayers to refund them. Many of them
> probably gave him money under the counter to dodge taxes OR laundered
> money through him OR thought he was going to cheat by insider trading
> FOR them.
>
> All those that got money out first need to return it to the pool of
> funds for the liquidator to handle, THEN we'll see who gets what if
> they are not all under indictment themselves for various crimes.
>
> --
>
> }(:

if Madoff cheated 6o billion dollars, and did not invest a dollar in
the stock market, where is all the money?
leopoldo

Wikking
March 13th 09, 01:26 PM
Geode wrote:
> On 12 mar, 14:44, Wikking > wrote:
>> What a cheek! They want the taxpayers to refund them. Many of them
>> probably gave him money under the counter to dodge taxes OR laundered
>> money through him OR thought he was going to cheat by insider trading
>> FOR them.
>>
>> All those that got money out first need to return it to the pool of
>> funds for the liquidator to handle, THEN we'll see who gets what if
>> they are not all under indictment themselves for various crimes.
>>
>> --
>>
>> }(:
>
> if Madoff cheated 6o billion dollars, and did not invest a dollar in
> the stock market, where is all the money?

Thats the 60 billion dollar question. He claims to have had only one
account but his guilty pleas were almost certainly an attempt to stop
further investigation and to protect others. We have not heard the end
of this. I fully expect to hear that he will be released on medical
grounds soon.

--

}(:

John Galt[_2_]
March 13th 09, 01:37 PM
Geode wrote:
> On 12 mar, 14:44, Wikking > wrote:
>> What a cheek! They want the taxpayers to refund them. Many of them
>> probably gave him money under the counter to dodge taxes OR laundered
>> money through him OR thought he was going to cheat by insider trading
>> FOR them.
>>
>> All those that got money out first need to return it to the pool of
>> funds for the liquidator to handle, THEN we'll see who gets what if
>> they are not all under indictment themselves for various crimes.
>>
>> --
>>
>> }(:
>
> if Madoff cheated 6o billion dollars, and did not invest a dollar in
> the stock market, where is all the money?

Most of it was paid out to the "investors" as part of the scam.

JG

Wikking
March 13th 09, 01:50 PM
John Galt wrote:
> Geode wrote:
>> On 12 mar, 14:44, Wikking > wrote:
>>> What a cheek! They want the taxpayers to refund them. Many of them
>>> probably gave him money under the counter to dodge taxes OR laundered
>>> money through him OR thought he was going to cheat by insider trading
>>> FOR them.
>>>
>>> All those that got money out first need to return it to the pool of
>>> funds for the liquidator to handle, THEN we'll see who gets what if
>>> they are not all under indictment themselves for various crimes.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> }(:
>>
>> if Madoff cheated 6o billion dollars, and did not invest a dollar in
>> the stock market, where is all the money?
>
> Most of it was paid out to the "investors" as part of the scam.

Allegedly. Do you have any supporting evidence of how much of it was?
Any cites that show numbers?


--

}(:

John Galt[_2_]
March 13th 09, 02:37 PM
Wikking wrote:
> John Galt wrote:
>> Geode wrote:
>>> On 12 mar, 14:44, Wikking > wrote:
>>>> What a cheek! They want the taxpayers to refund them. Many of them
>>>> probably gave him money under the counter to dodge taxes OR laundered
>>>> money through him OR thought he was going to cheat by insider trading
>>>> FOR them.
>>>>
>>>> All those that got money out first need to return it to the pool of
>>>> funds for the liquidator to handle, THEN we'll see who gets what if
>>>> they are not all under indictment themselves for various crimes.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> }(:
>>> if Madoff cheated 6o billion dollars, and did not invest a dollar in
>>> the stock market, where is all the money?
>> Most of it was paid out to the "investors" as part of the scam.
>
> Allegedly.

Allegedly? Are you suggesting that people just gave Madoff money,
neither expecting nor receiving financial gain? :-)

Do you have any supporting evidence of how much of it was?
> Any cites that show numbers?

All news articles I have read on the subject have stated that Madoff was
regularly paying on average 1% per month, and sent out detailed
statements to his investors to that effect.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE50F0BY20090116

"Each month, Madoff sent out elaborate statements of trades conducted by
his broker-dealer. Last November, for example, he issued a statement to
one investor showing he bought shares of Merck & Co Inc, Microsoft Corp,
Exxon Mobil Corp and Amgen Inc among others."

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/another-view-the-government-is-madoffs-biggest-winner/

"Unfortunately, the hearings have failed to address the depth and
gravity of the tax problems created by the Madoff fraud. The single
biggest beneficiary of the Madoff Ponzi scheme was and is the United
States government. There is no simpler way to state it."

"For what possibly could be decades, investors have been paying taxes to
the Internal Revenue Service on the phantom dividends, interest and
appreciation gains which were reported to them by Mr. Madoff. Thus, the
government has probably received billions of dollars in tax revenue from
defrauded investors."

"The government cannot ignore the fact that, but for the failure of the
S.E.C. to detect this fraud, it would have been deprived of this revenue
stream. Federal regulators had the opportunity to stop this scheme and
for whatever the reason, did not or were not able to. Should the
government be the beneficiary of that?"

JG

Wikking
March 13th 09, 02:51 PM
John Galt wrote:
> Wikking wrote:
>> John Galt wrote:
>>> Geode wrote:
>>>> On 12 mar, 14:44, Wikking > wrote:
>>>>> What a cheek! They want the taxpayers to refund them. Many of them
>>>>> probably gave him money under the counter to dodge taxes OR laundered
>>>>> money through him OR thought he was going to cheat by insider trading
>>>>> FOR them.
>>>>>
>>>>> All those that got money out first need to return it to the pool of
>>>>> funds for the liquidator to handle, THEN we'll see who gets what if
>>>>> they are not all under indictment themselves for various crimes.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> }(:
>>>> if Madoff cheated 6o billion dollars, and did not invest a dollar in
>>>> the stock market, where is all the money?
>>> Most of it was paid out to the "investors" as part of the scam.
>>
>> Allegedly.
>
> Allegedly? Are you suggesting that people just gave Madoff money,
> neither expecting nor receiving financial gain? :-)

Are you stupid? Allegedly means it was alleged that "most of it was
paid out to investors". Still not proven as the investigation is
ongoing. Madoff just tried to short-circuit it with a guilt plea.

>
> Do you have any supporting evidence of how much of it was?
>> Any cites that show numbers?
>
> All news articles I have read on the subject have stated that Madoff was
> regularly paying on average 1% per month, and sent out detailed
> statements to his investors to that effect.

This does not constitute evidence.
>



--

}(:

Wikking
March 13th 09, 02:52 PM
Blash wrote:
> Wikking wrote on 3/13/09 8:50 AM:
>
>> John Galt wrote:
>>> Geode wrote:
>>>> On 12 mar, 14:44, Wikking > wrote:
>>>>> What a cheek! They want the taxpayers to refund them. Many of them
>>>>> probably gave him money under the counter to dodge taxes OR laundered
>>>>> money through him OR thought he was going to cheat by insider trading
>>>>> FOR them.
>>>>>
>>>>> All those that got money out first need to return it to the pool of
>>>>> funds for the liquidator to handle, THEN we'll see who gets what if
>>>>> they are not all under indictment themselves for various crimes.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> }(:
>>>> if Madoff cheated 6o billion dollars, and did not invest a dollar in
>>>> the stock market, where is all the money?
>>> Most of it was paid out to the "investors" as part of the scam.
>> Allegedly. Do you have any supporting evidence of how much of it was?
>> Any cites that show numbers?
>>
>
> Nobody has any facts to back up any theory yet........so far, it's just
> all guesswork, paranoia run wild, etc. One genius in this N/G even suggested
> that ONE person who took Accounting 101 could solve everything........
> quickly........
>
Yes, another moron. Its going to take years. I think a LOT of it went
offshore but wait and see.

--

}(:

John Galt[_2_]
March 13th 09, 03:06 PM
Wikking wrote:
> John Galt wrote:
>> Wikking wrote:
>>> John Galt wrote:
>>>> Geode wrote:
>>>>> On 12 mar, 14:44, Wikking > wrote:
>>>>>> What a cheek! They want the taxpayers to refund them. Many of them
>>>>>> probably gave him money under the counter to dodge taxes OR laundered
>>>>>> money through him OR thought he was going to cheat by insider trading
>>>>>> FOR them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All those that got money out first need to return it to the pool of
>>>>>> funds for the liquidator to handle, THEN we'll see who gets what if
>>>>>> they are not all under indictment themselves for various crimes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> }(:
>>>>> if Madoff cheated 6o billion dollars, and did not invest a dollar in
>>>>> the stock market, where is all the money?
>>>> Most of it was paid out to the "investors" as part of the scam.
>>> Allegedly.
>> Allegedly? Are you suggesting that people just gave Madoff money,
>> neither expecting nor receiving financial gain? :-)
>
> Are you stupid?

No. Are you?

> Allegedly means it was alleged that "most of it was
> paid out to investors". Still not proven as the investigation is
> ongoing. Madoff just tried to short-circuit it with a guilt plea.
>
>> Do you have any supporting evidence of how much of it was?
>>> Any cites that show numbers?
>> All news articles I have read on the subject have stated that Madoff was
>> regularly paying on average 1% per month, and sent out detailed
>> statements to his investors to that effect.
>
> This does not constitute evidence.

It is indeed "evidence." If you choose not to accept it, that is
entirely your affair.

JG

Blash
March 13th 09, 03:18 PM
Wikking wrote on 3/13/09 8:50 AM:

> John Galt wrote:
>> Geode wrote:
>>> On 12 mar, 14:44, Wikking > wrote:
>>>> What a cheek! They want the taxpayers to refund them. Many of them
>>>> probably gave him money under the counter to dodge taxes OR laundered
>>>> money through him OR thought he was going to cheat by insider trading
>>>> FOR them.
>>>>
>>>> All those that got money out first need to return it to the pool of
>>>> funds for the liquidator to handle, THEN we'll see who gets what if
>>>> they are not all under indictment themselves for various crimes.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> }(:
>>>
>>> if Madoff cheated 6o billion dollars, and did not invest a dollar in
>>> the stock market, where is all the money?
>>
>> Most of it was paid out to the "investors" as part of the scam.
>
> Allegedly. Do you have any supporting evidence of how much of it was?
> Any cites that show numbers?
>

Nobody has any facts to back up any theory yet........so far, it's just
all guesswork, paranoia run wild, etc. One genius in this N/G even suggested
that ONE person who took Accounting 101 could solve everything........
quickly........

shortT
March 13th 09, 10:52 PM
On Mar 13, 6:44*am, Wikking > wrote:
> shortT wrote:
> > On Mar 12, 10:17 pm, Wikking > wrote:
> >> shortT wrote:
> >>> On Mar 12, 2:18 pm, John Galt > wrote:
> >>>> Wikking wrote:
> >>>>> Adam Russell wrote:
> >>>>>> "Wikking" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>>>> What a cheek! They want the taxpayers to refund them. Many of them
> >>>>>>> probably gave him money under the counter to dodge taxes OR laundered
> >>>>>>> money through him OR thought he was going to cheat by insider trading
> >>>>>>> FOR them.
> >>>>>>> All those that got money out first need to return it to the pool of
> >>>>>>> funds for the liquidator to handle, THEN we'll see who gets what if
> >>>>>>> they are not all under indictment themselves for various crimes.
> >>>>>> I dont know about that. *It seems to me that since he plead guilty he
> >>>>>> stopped the public trial which more than likely stopped the possibility
> >>>>>> of a public accounting.
> >>>>> He's OBVIOUSLY trying to protect other perps. But the fact is, that
> >>>>> when a thief or a robber steals or robs from you, it is not the job of
> >>>>> the police or your neighbours to refund you the money.
> >>>> Yea, but what if your police or your neighbors profited from the action
> >>>> as well? The government's been taxing this Ponzi scheme for years.
> >>>> JG
> >>> I heard today that someone complained to the SEC about his returns a
> >>> few years back.
> >>> He had plotted his returns on a graph and the graph was linear.
> >>> Thinking that this was quite unlikely he complained.
> >>> The SEC apparently did nothing about it.
> >> And?
>
> >> --
>
> >> }(:
>
> > Well the way I see it is if the SEC failed to due their job then the
> > people
> > that lost money have a legal claim against them.
>
> So if the police don't stop you from being mugged in an alley you can
> claim the money back from them and your neighbours? I suggest that at
> the very best you could claim back from someone in the SEC that might
> have colluded with Madoff.
>

If the police take absolutely no measures to prevent you from being
mugged after people complain of a mugger
in your neighborhood and as result you get mugged, I would say you
have a good case.
In Toronto a few years ago a woman was rapped in her apartment. The
police knew about the rapist in the
area but decided not to notify the residents. She was raped... she
sued... she won.

shortT

Wikking
March 14th 09, 01:25 AM
John Galt wrote:
> Wikking wrote:
>> John Galt wrote:
>>> Wikking wrote:
>>>> John Galt wrote:
>>>>> Geode wrote:
>>>>>> On 12 mar, 14:44, Wikking > wrote:
>>>>>>> What a cheek! They want the taxpayers to refund them. Many of them
>>>>>>> probably gave him money under the counter to dodge taxes OR
>>>>>>> laundered
>>>>>>> money through him OR thought he was going to cheat by insider
>>>>>>> trading
>>>>>>> FOR them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All those that got money out first need to return it to the pool of
>>>>>>> funds for the liquidator to handle, THEN we'll see who gets what if
>>>>>>> they are not all under indictment themselves for various crimes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> }(:
>>>>>> if Madoff cheated 6o billion dollars, and did not invest a dollar in
>>>>>> the stock market, where is all the money?
>>>>> Most of it was paid out to the "investors" as part of the scam.
>>>> Allegedly.
>>> Allegedly? Are you suggesting that people just gave Madoff money,
>>> neither expecting nor receiving financial gain? :-)
>>
>> Are you stupid?
>
> No. Are you?
>
>> Allegedly means it was alleged that "most of it was
>> paid out to investors". Still not proven as the investigation is
>> ongoing. Madoff just tried to short-circuit it with a guilt plea.
>>
>>> Do you have any supporting evidence of how much of it was?
>>>> Any cites that show numbers?
>>> All news articles I have read on the subject have stated that Madoff was
>>> regularly paying on average 1% per month, and sent out detailed
>>> statements to his investors to that effect.
>>
>> This does not constitute evidence.
>
> It is indeed "evidence." If you choose not to accept it, that is
> entirely your affair.

Well, yes, I am sure plenty of people can hold up old clothing in
mental institutions and claim they are evidence that they really are
Napoleon and that those items are their uniforms. I choose not to
accept garbage.

--

}(:

Wikking
March 14th 09, 01:27 AM
shortT wrote:
> On Mar 13, 6:44 am, Wikking > wrote:
>> shortT wrote:
>>> On Mar 12, 10:17 pm, Wikking > wrote:
>>>> shortT wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 12, 2:18 pm, John Galt > wrote:
>>>>>> Wikking wrote:
>>>>>>> Adam Russell wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Wikking" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> What a cheek! They want the taxpayers to refund them. Many of them
>>>>>>>>> probably gave him money under the counter to dodge taxes OR laundered
>>>>>>>>> money through him OR thought he was going to cheat by insider trading
>>>>>>>>> FOR them.
>>>>>>>>> All those that got money out first need to return it to the pool of
>>>>>>>>> funds for the liquidator to handle, THEN we'll see who gets what if
>>>>>>>>> they are not all under indictment themselves for various crimes.
>>>>>>>> I dont know about that. It seems to me that since he plead guilty he
>>>>>>>> stopped the public trial which more than likely stopped the possibility
>>>>>>>> of a public accounting.
>>>>>>> He's OBVIOUSLY trying to protect other perps. But the fact is, that
>>>>>>> when a thief or a robber steals or robs from you, it is not the job of
>>>>>>> the police or your neighbours to refund you the money.
>>>>>> Yea, but what if your police or your neighbors profited from the action
>>>>>> as well? The government's been taxing this Ponzi scheme for years.
>>>>>> JG
>>>>> I heard today that someone complained to the SEC about his returns a
>>>>> few years back.
>>>>> He had plotted his returns on a graph and the graph was linear.
>>>>> Thinking that this was quite unlikely he complained.
>>>>> The SEC apparently did nothing about it.
>>>> And?
>>>> --
>>>> }(:
>>> Well the way I see it is if the SEC failed to due their job then the
>>> people
>>> that lost money have a legal claim against them.
>> So if the police don't stop you from being mugged in an alley you can
>> claim the money back from them and your neighbours? I suggest that at
>> the very best you could claim back from someone in the SEC that might
>> have colluded with Madoff.
>>
>
> If the police take absolutely no measures to prevent you from being
> mugged after people complain of a mugger
> in your neighborhood and as result you get mugged, I would say you
> have a good case.

Really? Where has this worked? Cite precedent.

> In Toronto a few years ago a woman was rapped in her apartment. The
> police knew about the rapist in the
> area but decided not to notify the residents. She was raped... she
> sued... she won.

hmm. cite.

Madoff was not a known criminal. Suspicion does not constitute
evidence of guilt. You need to have a trial and conviction for that.


--

}(:

Blash
March 14th 09, 01:41 AM
Wikking wrote on 3/13/09 9:27 PM:

> shortT wrote:
>> On Mar 13, 6:44 am, Wikking > wrote:
>>> shortT wrote:
>>>> On Mar 12, 10:17 pm, Wikking > wrote:
>>>>> shortT wrote:
>>>>>> On Mar 12, 2:18 pm, John Galt > wrote:
>>>>>>> Wikking wrote:
>>>>>>>> Adam Russell wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Wikking" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>> What a cheek! They want the taxpayers to refund them. Many of them
>>>>>>>>>> probably gave him money under the counter to dodge taxes OR laundered
>>>>>>>>>> money through him OR thought he was going to cheat by insider trading
>>>>>>>>>> FOR them.
>>>>>>>>>> All those that got money out first need to return it to the pool of
>>>>>>>>>> funds for the liquidator to handle, THEN we'll see who gets what if
>>>>>>>>>> they are not all under indictment themselves for various crimes.
>>>>>>>>> I dont know about that. It seems to me that since he plead guilty he
>>>>>>>>> stopped the public trial which more than likely stopped the
>>>>>>>>> possibility
>>>>>>>>> of a public accounting.
>>>>>>>> He's OBVIOUSLY trying to protect other perps. But the fact is, that
>>>>>>>> when a thief or a robber steals or robs from you, it is not the job of
>>>>>>>> the police or your neighbours to refund you the money.
>>>>>>> Yea, but what if your police or your neighbors profited from the action
>>>>>>> as well? The government's been taxing this Ponzi scheme for years.
>>>>>>> JG
>>>>>> I heard today that someone complained to the SEC about his returns a
>>>>>> few years back.
>>>>>> He had plotted his returns on a graph and the graph was linear.
>>>>>> Thinking that this was quite unlikely he complained.
>>>>>> The SEC apparently did nothing about it.
>>>>> And?
>>>>> --
>>>>> }(:
>>>> Well the way I see it is if the SEC failed to due their job then the
>>>> people
>>>> that lost money have a legal claim against them.
>>> So if the police don't stop you from being mugged in an alley you can
>>> claim the money back from them and your neighbours? I suggest that at
>>> the very best you could claim back from someone in the SEC that might
>>> have colluded with Madoff.
>>>
>>
>> If the police take absolutely no measures to prevent you from being
>> mugged after people complain of a mugger
>> in your neighborhood and as result you get mugged, I would say you
>> have a good case.
>
> Really? Where has this worked? Cite precedent.
>
>> In Toronto a few years ago a woman was rapped in her apartment. The
>> police knew about the rapist in the
>> area but decided not to notify the residents. She was raped... she
>> sued... she won.
>
> hmm. cite.
>
> Madoff was not a known criminal. Suspicion does not constitute
> evidence of guilt. You need to have a trial and conviction for that.
>

'The trouble with many people is not that they're ignorant; it's just that
they know so much that isn't so.'............Ronald Reagan

shortT
March 14th 09, 01:55 AM
On Mar 13, 9:27*pm, Wikking > wrote:
> shortT wrote:
> > On Mar 13, 6:44 am, Wikking > wrote:
> >> shortT wrote:
> >>> On Mar 12, 10:17 pm, Wikking > wrote:
> >>>> shortT wrote:
> >>>>> On Mar 12, 2:18 pm, John Galt > wrote:
> >>>>>> Wikking wrote:
> >>>>>>> Adam Russell wrote:
> >>>>>>>> "Wikking" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>>>>>>> What a cheek! They want the taxpayers to refund them. Many of them
> >>>>>>>>> probably gave him money under the counter to dodge taxes OR laundered
> >>>>>>>>> money through him OR thought he was going to cheat by insider trading
> >>>>>>>>> FOR them.
> >>>>>>>>> All those that got money out first need to return it to the pool of
> >>>>>>>>> funds for the liquidator to handle, THEN we'll see who gets what if
> >>>>>>>>> they are not all under indictment themselves for various crimes..
> >>>>>>>> I dont know about that. *It seems to me that since he plead guilty he
> >>>>>>>> stopped the public trial which more than likely stopped the possibility
> >>>>>>>> of a public accounting.
> >>>>>>> He's OBVIOUSLY trying to protect other perps. But the fact is, that
> >>>>>>> when a thief or a robber steals or robs from you, it is not the job of
> >>>>>>> the police or your neighbours to refund you the money.
> >>>>>> Yea, but what if your police or your neighbors profited from the action
> >>>>>> as well? The government's been taxing this Ponzi scheme for years.
> >>>>>> JG
> >>>>> I heard today that someone complained to the SEC about his returns a
> >>>>> few years back.
> >>>>> He had plotted his returns on a graph and the graph was linear.
> >>>>> Thinking that this was quite unlikely he complained.
> >>>>> The SEC apparently did nothing about it.
> >>>> And?
> >>>> --
> >>>> }(:
> >>> Well the way I see it is if the SEC failed to due their job then the
> >>> people
> >>> that lost money have a legal claim against them.
> >> So if the police don't stop you from being mugged in an alley you can
> >> claim the money back from them and your neighbours? I suggest that at
> >> the very best you could claim back from someone in the SEC that might
> >> have colluded with Madoff.
>
> > If the police take absolutely no measures to prevent you from being
> > mugged after people complain of a mugger
> > in your neighborhood and as result you get mugged, I would say you
> > have a good case.
>
> Really? Where has this worked? Cite precedent.
>
> > In Toronto a few years ago a woman was rapped in her apartment. The
> > police knew about the rapist in the
> > area but decided not to notify the residents. She was raped... she
> > sued... she won.
>


http://www.owjn.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=191&Itemid=107

shortT

Wikking
March 15th 09, 12:58 AM
shortT wrote:
> On Mar 13, 9:27 pm, Wikking > wrote:
>> shortT wrote:
>>> On Mar 13, 6:44 am, Wikking > wrote:
>>>> shortT wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 12, 10:17 pm, Wikking > wrote:
>>>>>> shortT wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mar 12, 2:18 pm, John Galt > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Wikking wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Adam Russell wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Wikking" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>> What a cheek! They want the taxpayers to refund them. Many of them
>>>>>>>>>>> probably gave him money under the counter to dodge taxes OR laundered
>>>>>>>>>>> money through him OR thought he was going to cheat by insider trading
>>>>>>>>>>> FOR them.
>>>>>>>>>>> All those that got money out first need to return it to the pool of
>>>>>>>>>>> funds for the liquidator to handle, THEN we'll see who gets what if
>>>>>>>>>>> they are not all under indictment themselves for various crimes.
>>>>>>>>>> I dont know about that. It seems to me that since he plead guilty he
>>>>>>>>>> stopped the public trial which more than likely stopped the possibility
>>>>>>>>>> of a public accounting.
>>>>>>>>> He's OBVIOUSLY trying to protect other perps. But the fact is, that
>>>>>>>>> when a thief or a robber steals or robs from you, it is not the job of
>>>>>>>>> the police or your neighbours to refund you the money.
>>>>>>>> Yea, but what if your police or your neighbors profited from the action
>>>>>>>> as well? The government's been taxing this Ponzi scheme for years.
>>>>>>>> JG
>>>>>>> I heard today that someone complained to the SEC about his returns a
>>>>>>> few years back.
>>>>>>> He had plotted his returns on a graph and the graph was linear.
>>>>>>> Thinking that this was quite unlikely he complained.
>>>>>>> The SEC apparently did nothing about it.
>>>>>> And?
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> }(:
>>>>> Well the way I see it is if the SEC failed to due their job then the
>>>>> people
>>>>> that lost money have a legal claim against them.
>>>> So if the police don't stop you from being mugged in an alley you can
>>>> claim the money back from them and your neighbours? I suggest that at
>>>> the very best you could claim back from someone in the SEC that might
>>>> have colluded with Madoff.
>>> If the police take absolutely no measures to prevent you from being
>>> mugged after people complain of a mugger
>>> in your neighborhood and as result you get mugged, I would say you
>>> have a good case.
>> Really? Where has this worked? Cite precedent.
>>
>>> In Toronto a few years ago a woman was rapped in her apartment. The
>>> police knew about the rapist in the
>>> area but decided not to notify the residents. She was raped... she
>>> sued... she won.
>
>
> http://www.owjn.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=191&Itemid=107

Again, this is about a known criminal. Madoff was NOT a known criminal
despite complaints against him, he still had too many rich and
powerful people using his services and NOT complaining. You know very
well that you get all kinds of whiners complaining about all sorts of
unfounded **** in the stock trading game. Many are simply out to game
the system to get cash back when they have gambled their money poorly.

--

}(:

Geode
March 16th 09, 12:23 PM
On 13 mar, 14:37, John Galt > wrote:
> Wikking wrote:
> > John Galt wrote:
> >> Geode wrote:
> >>> On 12 mar, 14:44, Wikking > wrote:
> >>>> What a cheek! They want the taxpayers to refund them. Many of them
> >>>> probably gave him money under the counter to dodge taxes OR laundered
> >>>> money through him OR thought he was going to cheat by insider trading
> >>>> FOR them.
>
> >>>> All those that got money out first need to return it to the pool of
> >>>> funds for the liquidator to handle, THEN we'll see who gets what if
> >>>> they are not all under indictment themselves for various crimes.
>
> >>>> --
>
> >>>> }(:
> >>> if Madoff cheated 6o billion dollars, and did not invest a dollar in
> >>> the stock market, where is all the money?
> >> Most of it was paid out to the "investors" as part of the scam.
>
> > Allegedly.
>
> Allegedly? Are you suggesting that people just gave Madoff money,
> neither expecting nor receiving financial gain? :-)
>
> Do you have any supporting evidence of how much of it was?
>
> > Any cites that show numbers?
>
> All news articles I have read on the subject have stated that Madoff was
> regularly paying on average 1% per month, and sent out detailed
> statements to his investors to that effect.
>
> http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE50F0BY20090116
>
> "Each month, Madoff sent out elaborate statements of trades conducted by
> his broker-dealer. Last November, for example, he issued a statement to
> one investor showing he bought shares of Merck & Co Inc, Microsoft Corp,
> Exxon Mobil Corp and Amgen Inc among others."
>
> http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/another-view-the-governm...
>
> "Unfortunately, the hearings have failed to address the depth and
> gravity of the tax problems created by the Madoff fraud. The single
> biggest beneficiary of the Madoff Ponzi scheme was and is the United
> States government. There is no simpler way to state it."

In which way the US Government benefited?
Leopoldo
>
> "For what possibly could be decades, investors have been paying taxes to
> the Internal Revenue Service on the phantom dividends, interest and
> appreciation gains which were reported to them by Mr. Madoff. Thus, the
> government has probably received billions of dollars in tax revenue from
> defrauded investors."
>
> "The government cannot ignore the fact that, but for the failure of the
> S.E.C. to detect this fraud, it would have been deprived of this revenue
> stream. Federal regulators had the opportunity to stop this scheme and
> for whatever the reason, did not or were not able to. Should the
> government be the beneficiary of that?"
>
> JG

John Galt[_2_]
March 16th 09, 12:34 PM
Geode wrote:
> On 13 mar, 14:37, John Galt > wrote:
>> Wikking wrote:
>>> John Galt wrote:
>>>> Geode wrote:
>>>>> On 12 mar, 14:44, Wikking > wrote:
>>>>>> What a cheek! They want the taxpayers to refund them. Many of them
>>>>>> probably gave him money under the counter to dodge taxes OR laundered
>>>>>> money through him OR thought he was going to cheat by insider trading
>>>>>> FOR them.
>>>>>> All those that got money out first need to return it to the pool of
>>>>>> funds for the liquidator to handle, THEN we'll see who gets what if
>>>>>> they are not all under indictment themselves for various crimes.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> }(:
>>>>> if Madoff cheated 6o billion dollars, and did not invest a dollar in
>>>>> the stock market, where is all the money?
>>>> Most of it was paid out to the "investors" as part of the scam.
>>> Allegedly.
>> Allegedly? Are you suggesting that people just gave Madoff money,
>> neither expecting nor receiving financial gain? :-)
>>
>> Do you have any supporting evidence of how much of it was?
>>
>>> Any cites that show numbers?
>> All news articles I have read on the subject have stated that Madoff was
>> regularly paying on average 1% per month, and sent out detailed
>> statements to his investors to that effect.
>>
>> http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE50F0BY20090116
>>
>> "Each month, Madoff sent out elaborate statements of trades conducted by
>> his broker-dealer. Last November, for example, he issued a statement to
>> one investor showing he bought shares of Merck & Co Inc, Microsoft Corp,
>> Exxon Mobil Corp and Amgen Inc among others."
>>
>> http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/another-view-the-governm...
>>
>> "Unfortunately, the hearings have failed to address the depth and
>> gravity of the tax problems created by the Madoff fraud. The single
>> biggest beneficiary of the Madoff Ponzi scheme was and is the United
>> States government. There is no simpler way to state it."
>
> In which way the US Government benefited?

They've been taxing the Madoff investors for nearly 20 years.

JG


> Leopoldo
>> "For what possibly could be decades, investors have been paying taxes to
>> the Internal Revenue Service on the phantom dividends, interest and
>> appreciation gains which were reported to them by Mr. Madoff. Thus, the
>> government has probably received billions of dollars in tax revenue from
>> defrauded investors."
>>
>> "The government cannot ignore the fact that, but for the failure of the
>> S.E.C. to detect this fraud, it would have been deprived of this revenue
>> stream. Federal regulators had the opportunity to stop this scheme and
>> for whatever the reason, did not or were not able to. Should the
>> government be the beneficiary of that?"
>>
>> JG
>

-=DirtBagŠ[_3_]
March 16th 09, 01:18 PM
John Galt wrote:
> Geode wrote:
>> On 13 mar, 14:37, John Galt > wrote:
>>> Wikking wrote:
>>>> John Galt wrote:
>>>>> Geode wrote:
>>>>>> On 12 mar, 14:44, Wikking > wrote:
>>>>>>> What a cheek! They want the taxpayers to refund them. Many of them
>>>>>>> probably gave him money under the counter to dodge taxes OR
>>>>>>> laundered
>>>>>>> money through him OR thought he was going to cheat by insider
>>>>>>> trading
>>>>>>> FOR them.
>>>>>>> All those that got money out first need to return it to the pool of
>>>>>>> funds for the liquidator to handle, THEN we'll see who gets what if
>>>>>>> they are not all under indictment themselves for various crimes.
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> }(:
>>>>>> if Madoff cheated 6o billion dollars, and did not invest a dollar in
>>>>>> the stock market, where is all the money?
>>>>> Most of it was paid out to the "investors" as part of the scam.
>>>> Allegedly.
>>> Allegedly? Are you suggesting that people just gave Madoff money,
>>> neither expecting nor receiving financial gain? :-)
>>>
>>> Do you have any supporting evidence of how much of it was?
>>>
>>>> Any cites that show numbers?
>>> All news articles I have read on the subject have stated that Madoff was
>>> regularly paying on average 1% per month, and sent out detailed
>>> statements to his investors to that effect.
>>>
>>> http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE50F0BY20090116
>>>
>>> "Each month, Madoff sent out elaborate statements of trades conducted by
>>> his broker-dealer. Last November, for example, he issued a statement to
>>> one investor showing he bought shares of Merck & Co Inc, Microsoft Corp,
>>> Exxon Mobil Corp and Amgen Inc among others."
>>>
>>> http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/another-view-the-governm...
>>>
>>> "Unfortunately, the hearings have failed to address the depth and
>>> gravity of the tax problems created by the Madoff fraud. The single
>>> biggest beneficiary of the Madoff Ponzi scheme was and is the United
>>> States government. There is no simpler way to state it."
>>
>> In which way the US Government benefited?
>
> They've been taxing the Madoff investors for nearly 20 years.
>
> JG
>
>
>> Leopoldo
>>> "For what possibly could be decades, investors have been paying taxes to
>>> the Internal Revenue Service on the phantom dividends, interest and
>>> appreciation gains which were reported to them by Mr. Madoff. Thus, the
>>> government has probably received billions of dollars in tax revenue from
>>> defrauded investors."
>>>
>>> "The government cannot ignore the fact that, but for the failure of the
>>> S.E.C. to detect this fraud, it would have been deprived of this revenue
>>> stream. Federal regulators had the opportunity to stop this scheme and
>>> for whatever the reason, did not or were not able to. Should the
>>> government be the beneficiary of that?"
>>>
>>> JG
>>

Yes this is all true. Taxpayers/ Madoff investors were getting 1099's
from Madoff that obviously they filed. I dont suspect Madoff filed
these with the IRS did he? Whey didnt some tax guy figure this out? If
Madoff was not notifying the IRS of the income.. or was he actually
filing the income reporting to the IRS? Complex and hard to understand
how it went on so long... Amazing

Wikking
March 16th 09, 01:56 PM
-=DirtBagŠ wrote:
> John Galt wrote:
>> Geode wrote:
>>> On 13 mar, 14:37, John Galt > wrote:
>>>> Wikking wrote:
>>>>> John Galt wrote:
>>>>>> Geode wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12 mar, 14:44, Wikking > wrote:
>>>>>>>> What a cheek! They want the taxpayers to refund them. Many of them
>>>>>>>> probably gave him money under the counter to dodge taxes OR
>>>>>>>> laundered
>>>>>>>> money through him OR thought he was going to cheat by insider
>>>>>>>> trading
>>>>>>>> FOR them.
>>>>>>>> All those that got money out first need to return it to the pool of
>>>>>>>> funds for the liquidator to handle, THEN we'll see who gets what if
>>>>>>>> they are not all under indictment themselves for various crimes.
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> }(:
>>>>>>> if Madoff cheated 6o billion dollars, and did not invest a dollar in
>>>>>>> the stock market, where is all the money?
>>>>>> Most of it was paid out to the "investors" as part of the scam.
>>>>> Allegedly.
>>>> Allegedly? Are you suggesting that people just gave Madoff money,
>>>> neither expecting nor receiving financial gain? :-)
>>>>
>>>> Do you have any supporting evidence of how much of it was?
>>>>
>>>>> Any cites that show numbers?
>>>> All news articles I have read on the subject have stated that Madoff
>>>> was
>>>> regularly paying on average 1% per month, and sent out detailed
>>>> statements to his investors to that effect.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE50F0BY20090116
>>>>
>>>> "Each month, Madoff sent out elaborate statements of trades
>>>> conducted by
>>>> his broker-dealer. Last November, for example, he issued a statement to
>>>> one investor showing he bought shares of Merck & Co Inc, Microsoft
>>>> Corp,
>>>> Exxon Mobil Corp and Amgen Inc among others."
>>>>
>>>> http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/another-view-the-governm...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Unfortunately, the hearings have failed to address the depth and
>>>> gravity of the tax problems created by the Madoff fraud. The single
>>>> biggest beneficiary of the Madoff Ponzi scheme was and is the United
>>>> States government. There is no simpler way to state it."
>>>
>>> In which way the US Government benefited?
>>
>> They've been taxing the Madoff investors for nearly 20 years.
>>
>> JG
>>
>>
>>> Leopoldo
>>>> "For what possibly could be decades, investors have been paying
>>>> taxes to
>>>> the Internal Revenue Service on the phantom dividends, interest and
>>>> appreciation gains which were reported to them by Mr. Madoff. Thus, the
>>>> government has probably received billions of dollars in tax revenue
>>>> from
>>>> defrauded investors."
>>>>
>>>> "The government cannot ignore the fact that, but for the failure of the
>>>> S.E.C. to detect this fraud, it would have been deprived of this
>>>> revenue
>>>> stream. Federal regulators had the opportunity to stop this scheme and
>>>> for whatever the reason, did not or were not able to. Should the
>>>> government be the beneficiary of that?"
>>>>
>>>> JG
>>>
>
> Yes this is all true. Taxpayers/ Madoff investors were getting 1099's
> from Madoff that obviously they filed. I dont suspect Madoff filed
> these with the IRS did he? Whey didnt some tax guy figure this out? If
> Madoff was not notifying the IRS of the income.. or was he actually
> filing the income reporting to the IRS? Complex and hard to understand
> how it went on so long... Amazing

I think there is probably a HUGE money laundering and tax evasion
story here.

--

}(:

-=DirtBagŠ[_3_]
March 16th 09, 02:05 PM
Wikking wrote:
> -=DirtBagŠ wrote:
>> John Galt wrote:
>>> Geode wrote:
>>>> On 13 mar, 14:37, John Galt > wrote:
>>>>> Wikking wrote:
>>>>>> John Galt wrote:
>>>>>>> Geode wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12 mar, 14:44, Wikking > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> What a cheek! They want the taxpayers to refund them. Many of them
>>>>>>>>> probably gave him money under the counter to dodge taxes OR
>>>>>>>>> laundered
>>>>>>>>> money through him OR thought he was going to cheat by insider
>>>>>>>>> trading
>>>>>>>>> FOR them.
>>>>>>>>> All those that got money out first need to return it to the pool of
>>>>>>>>> funds for the liquidator to handle, THEN we'll see who gets what if
>>>>>>>>> they are not all under indictment themselves for various crimes.
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> }(:
>>>>>>>> if Madoff cheated 6o billion dollars, and did not invest a dollar in
>>>>>>>> the stock market, where is all the money?
>>>>>>> Most of it was paid out to the "investors" as part of the scam.
>>>>>> Allegedly.
>>>>> Allegedly? Are you suggesting that people just gave Madoff money,
>>>>> neither expecting nor receiving financial gain? :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you have any supporting evidence of how much of it was?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Any cites that show numbers?
>>>>> All news articles I have read on the subject have stated that Madoff
>>>>> was
>>>>> regularly paying on average 1% per month, and sent out detailed
>>>>> statements to his investors to that effect.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE50F0BY20090116
>>>>>
>>>>> "Each month, Madoff sent out elaborate statements of trades
>>>>> conducted by
>>>>> his broker-dealer. Last November, for example, he issued a statement to
>>>>> one investor showing he bought shares of Merck & Co Inc, Microsoft
>>>>> Corp,
>>>>> Exxon Mobil Corp and Amgen Inc among others."
>>>>>
>>>>> http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/another-view-the-governm...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Unfortunately, the hearings have failed to address the depth and
>>>>> gravity of the tax problems created by the Madoff fraud. The single
>>>>> biggest beneficiary of the Madoff Ponzi scheme was and is the United
>>>>> States government. There is no simpler way to state it."
>>>> In which way the US Government benefited?
>>> They've been taxing the Madoff investors for nearly 20 years.
>>>
>>> JG
>>>
>>>
>>>> Leopoldo
>>>>> "For what possibly could be decades, investors have been paying
>>>>> taxes to
>>>>> the Internal Revenue Service on the phantom dividends, interest and
>>>>> appreciation gains which were reported to them by Mr. Madoff. Thus, the
>>>>> government has probably received billions of dollars in tax revenue
>>>>> from
>>>>> defrauded investors."
>>>>>
>>>>> "The government cannot ignore the fact that, but for the failure of the
>>>>> S.E.C. to detect this fraud, it would have been deprived of this
>>>>> revenue
>>>>> stream. Federal regulators had the opportunity to stop this scheme and
>>>>> for whatever the reason, did not or were not able to. Should the
>>>>> government be the beneficiary of that?"
>>>>>
>>>>> JG
>> Yes this is all true. Taxpayers/ Madoff investors were getting 1099's
>> from Madoff that obviously they filed. I dont suspect Madoff filed
>> these with the IRS did he? Whey didnt some tax guy figure this out? If
>> Madoff was not notifying the IRS of the income.. or was he actually
>> filing the income reporting to the IRS? Complex and hard to understand
>> how it went on so long... Amazing
>
> I think there is probably a HUGE money laundering and tax evasion
> story here.
>

I imagine that if dirty money was able to get into Madoff's fund THEY
would have been an easy target for him since they mainly just want to
get the legal returns from it and thus legitimizing it over years. It
is high end smurfing.. But then loosing it (the smurfed money) to
Madoff and knowing it was a scam.. Oh boy will they be ****ed.. Most
would kill him without as much as a second thought..

Wikking
March 17th 09, 07:50 PM
-=DirtBagŠ wrote:
> Wikking wrote:
>> -=DirtBagŠ wrote:
>>> John Galt wrote:
>>>> Geode wrote:
>>>>> On 13 mar, 14:37, John Galt > wrote:
>>>>>> Wikking wrote:
>>>>>>> John Galt wrote:
>>>>>>>> Geode wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12 mar, 14:44, Wikking > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> What a cheek! They want the taxpayers to refund them. Many of
>>>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>>>> probably gave him money under the counter to dodge taxes OR
>>>>>>>>>> laundered
>>>>>>>>>> money through him OR thought he was going to cheat by insider
>>>>>>>>>> trading
>>>>>>>>>> FOR them.
>>>>>>>>>> All those that got money out first need to return it to the
>>>>>>>>>> pool of
>>>>>>>>>> funds for the liquidator to handle, THEN we'll see who gets
>>>>>>>>>> what if
>>>>>>>>>> they are not all under indictment themselves for various crimes.
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> }(:
>>>>>>>>> if Madoff cheated 6o billion dollars, and did not invest a
>>>>>>>>> dollar in
>>>>>>>>> the stock market, where is all the money?
>>>>>>>> Most of it was paid out to the "investors" as part of the scam.
>>>>>>> Allegedly.
>>>>>> Allegedly? Are you suggesting that people just gave Madoff money,
>>>>>> neither expecting nor receiving financial gain? :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you have any supporting evidence of how much of it was?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any cites that show numbers?
>>>>>> All news articles I have read on the subject have stated that Madoff
>>>>>> was
>>>>>> regularly paying on average 1% per month, and sent out detailed
>>>>>> statements to his investors to that effect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE50F0BY20090116
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Each month, Madoff sent out elaborate statements of trades
>>>>>> conducted by
>>>>>> his broker-dealer. Last November, for example, he issued a
>>>>>> statement to
>>>>>> one investor showing he bought shares of Merck & Co Inc, Microsoft
>>>>>> Corp,
>>>>>> Exxon Mobil Corp and Amgen Inc among others."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/another-view-the-governm...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Unfortunately, the hearings have failed to address the depth and
>>>>>> gravity of the tax problems created by the Madoff fraud. The single
>>>>>> biggest beneficiary of the Madoff Ponzi scheme was and is the United
>>>>>> States government. There is no simpler way to state it."
>>>>> In which way the US Government benefited?
>>>> They've been taxing the Madoff investors for nearly 20 years.
>>>>
>>>> JG
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Leopoldo
>>>>>> "For what possibly could be decades, investors have been paying
>>>>>> taxes to
>>>>>> the Internal Revenue Service on the phantom dividends, interest and
>>>>>> appreciation gains which were reported to them by Mr. Madoff.
>>>>>> Thus, the
>>>>>> government has probably received billions of dollars in tax revenue
>>>>>> from
>>>>>> defrauded investors."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The government cannot ignore the fact that, but for the failure
>>>>>> of the
>>>>>> S.E.C. to detect this fraud, it would have been deprived of this
>>>>>> revenue
>>>>>> stream. Federal regulators had the opportunity to stop this scheme
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> for whatever the reason, did not or were not able to. Should the
>>>>>> government be the beneficiary of that?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> JG
>>> Yes this is all true. Taxpayers/ Madoff investors were getting 1099's
>>> from Madoff that obviously they filed. I dont suspect Madoff filed
>>> these with the IRS did he? Whey didnt some tax guy figure this out? If
>>> Madoff was not notifying the IRS of the income.. or was he actually
>>> filing the income reporting to the IRS? Complex and hard to understand
>>> how it went on so long... Amazing
>>
>> I think there is probably a HUGE money laundering and tax evasion
>> story here.
>>
>
> I imagine that if dirty money was able to get into Madoff's fund THEY
> would have been an easy target for him since they mainly just want to
> get the legal returns from it and thus legitimizing it over years. It
> is high end smurfing.. But then loosing it (the smurfed money) to
> Madoff and knowing it was a scam.. Oh boy will they be ****ed.. Most
> would kill him without as much as a second thought..

The story is not over yet, but its too much in the public eye for
anyone to do much. I want to see where the cash was sent overseas.

--

}(:

Wikking
March 18th 09, 10:08 AM
Wikking wrote:
> -=DirtBagŠ wrote:
>> Wikking wrote:
>>> -=DirtBagŠ wrote:
>>>> John Galt wrote:
>>>>> Geode wrote:
>>>>>> On 13 mar, 14:37, John Galt > wrote:
>>>>>>> Wikking wrote:
>>>>>>>> John Galt wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Geode wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 12 mar, 14:44, Wikking > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> What a cheek! They want the taxpayers to refund them. Many of
>>>>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>>>>> probably gave him money under the counter to dodge taxes OR
>>>>>>>>>>> laundered
>>>>>>>>>>> money through him OR thought he was going to cheat by insider
>>>>>>>>>>> trading
>>>>>>>>>>> FOR them.
>>>>>>>>>>> All those that got money out first need to return it to the
>>>>>>>>>>> pool of
>>>>>>>>>>> funds for the liquidator to handle, THEN we'll see who gets
>>>>>>>>>>> what if
>>>>>>>>>>> they are not all under indictment themselves for various crimes.
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> }(:
>>>>>>>>>> if Madoff cheated 6o billion dollars, and did not invest a
>>>>>>>>>> dollar in
>>>>>>>>>> the stock market, where is all the money?
>>>>>>>>> Most of it was paid out to the "investors" as part of the scam.
>>>>>>>> Allegedly.
>>>>>>> Allegedly? Are you suggesting that people just gave Madoff money,
>>>>>>> neither expecting nor receiving financial gain? :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you have any supporting evidence of how much of it was?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Any cites that show numbers?
>>>>>>> All news articles I have read on the subject have stated that Madoff
>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>> regularly paying on average 1% per month, and sent out detailed
>>>>>>> statements to his investors to that effect.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE50F0BY20090116
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Each month, Madoff sent out elaborate statements of trades
>>>>>>> conducted by
>>>>>>> his broker-dealer. Last November, for example, he issued a
>>>>>>> statement to
>>>>>>> one investor showing he bought shares of Merck & Co Inc, Microsoft
>>>>>>> Corp,
>>>>>>> Exxon Mobil Corp and Amgen Inc among others."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/another-view-the-governm...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Unfortunately, the hearings have failed to address the depth and
>>>>>>> gravity of the tax problems created by the Madoff fraud. The single
>>>>>>> biggest beneficiary of the Madoff Ponzi scheme was and is the United
>>>>>>> States government. There is no simpler way to state it."
>>>>>> In which way the US Government benefited?
>>>>> They've been taxing the Madoff investors for nearly 20 years.
>>>>>
>>>>> JG
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Leopoldo
>>>>>>> "For what possibly could be decades, investors have been paying
>>>>>>> taxes to
>>>>>>> the Internal Revenue Service on the phantom dividends, interest and
>>>>>>> appreciation gains which were reported to them by Mr. Madoff.
>>>>>>> Thus, the
>>>>>>> government has probably received billions of dollars in tax revenue
>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>> defrauded investors."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The government cannot ignore the fact that, but for the failure
>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>> S.E.C. to detect this fraud, it would have been deprived of this
>>>>>>> revenue
>>>>>>> stream. Federal regulators had the opportunity to stop this scheme
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> for whatever the reason, did not or were not able to. Should the
>>>>>>> government be the beneficiary of that?"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> JG
>>>> Yes this is all true. Taxpayers/ Madoff investors were getting 1099's
>>>> from Madoff that obviously they filed. I dont suspect Madoff filed
>>>> these with the IRS did he? Whey didnt some tax guy figure this out? If
>>>> Madoff was not notifying the IRS of the income.. or was he actually
>>>> filing the income reporting to the IRS? Complex and hard to understand
>>>> how it went on so long... Amazing
>>> I think there is probably a HUGE money laundering and tax evasion
>>> story here.
>>>
>> I imagine that if dirty money was able to get into Madoff's fund THEY
>> would have been an easy target for him since they mainly just want to
>> get the legal returns from it and thus legitimizing it over years. It
>> is high end smurfing.. But then loosing it (the smurfed money) to
>> Madoff and knowing it was a scam.. Oh boy will they be ****ed.. Most
>> would kill him without as much as a second thought..
>
> The story is not over yet, but its too much in the public eye for
> anyone to do much. I want to see where the cash was sent overseas.
>

...and here we go.
http://www.newsday.com/services/newspaper/printedition/wednesday/business/ny-bzmado1812556935mar18,0,4094950.story

Snippets:
American investigators believe there is more evidence that
mega-scammer Bernard Madoff's London operation, where his family
members were key shareholders, was used in his estimated $65-billion
Ponzi scheme, court papers revealed.

Picard told the British High Court, which handles insolvencies, that
investigators in the London liquidation of Madoff Securities
International Ltd., determined that Madoff family members "all
benefited financially from (MSIL) in excess of any real contribution
they appear to have made to the conduct of the business." He did not
identify the family members.

He also told the British court that certain unidentified third parties
received payments from Madoff's businesses.

"It may in due course transpire that some or all of the transactions
between the two companies were part of Mr. Madoff's fraudulent
scheme," Picard said in his court papers.

Also. they are now looking into businesses in which he owned a share.
Restaurants and all sorts of stuff.



--

}(: