Photo: Svea Herbst- Bayliss

Can someone help me understand this? If the reports are accurate, Bernie Madoff’s wife Ruth is having all of her assets seized save $2.5MM. Problem is that she inherited far more assets in her own right. Is the Department of Justice now free to simply take the personal assets of a spouse that were owned free and clear of the proceeds of their spouse’s crime?

Lest you think this is not an important point, remember that several 100,000 pages of legislation is working its way through Congress under which it will be relatively easy to declare us all criminals. Indeed, the government has been known to falsify evidence in an attempt to frame innocent people on criminal charges.

Marriage is a civil contract that involves government in our business. Perhaps the time has come to forge family bonds without the involvement of government.

8 Comments

  1. George:

    The law is not about getting ever or doing what feels good in this case. The law is a rule that applies in ALL cases.

    If the government can just take Ruth Madoff’s personal assets that she inherited fair and square from her parents, then that means when the government falsifies a criminal case against someone, they can proceed to take all or almost all of the assets of that person’s spouse.

    If you apply this rule across the board in all criminal cases in the US, it will be devastating for many families, including innocent families of criminals as well as innocent families of many innocent people who get railroaded into prison.

    Cases like this are sometimes used to win approvals for precedents or new laws that are used in a very different context.

    So when we think of right and wrong, let’s think of all the context in which it can and will be applied.

    Catherine

  2. http://solari.com/blog/?p=1771

    William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

    Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

    William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!

    Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!

    – Sir Thomas Moore from “A Man for All Seasons”

  3. @Catherine: Completely agree with you…I wasn’t aware that some (all) of Mrs. Madoff’s assets were inherited….and yes…IMHO, as such, that should be exempt from the penalty/fine….Yet it is no wonder that the AUSA’s in NY and elsewhere have continuously confiscated real estate and other tangible valuables only to have their staff succeed at auction when these assets go on the block for pennies on the dollar..I personally witnessed this in Beaumont TX as the entire “crack/cocaine based community” (read Black) was one by one arrested and convicted and the various major/select properties seized by the US Marshalls eventually became the property of various AUSA’s…and others of influence. Confiscation of assets is a major incentive for prosecution/conviction in the state and federal courts…I believe you take note of this in your analysis of the HUD mortgage scams during your tenure in office and the drug convictions in the same neighborhoods…Sorry if this offends the faint at heart But yes Mary there is a Santa Claus ( for the well connected)!!

  4. Let’s ask the $0.25 question: was Ruthie complicit in swindle-gate?
    If yes, then she got off lightly.

  5. Catherine, I was wondering if you could elaborate more on that 100,000 pages of legislation you mention. Will that be brought up in later blogs?

    Tom

  6. I would say the question is not whether she was guilty or not. The question is whether there was sufficient evidence for a jury to ascertain guilt. Otherwise, we are simply talking about the governments ability to outspend and terrorize a person — innocent or guilty.

Comments are closed.