I think the issue is (or should be) Ruth's potential future earnings. You just now the bitch is coming out with a tell-all multi-million book deal in a few years after the reality of living like the poors hits home.
@EdricJalookhi: I'm pretty sure that the victims and their lawyers will be shadowing Ruth and her potential earnings (even down to extra fries if she super sizes for a better deal) much like the Goldman family had been all up OJ's ass until a motherfucker thought he could ROB from HIM.
This is absurd. What about the people who made money through Madoff? A lot of 'investors' made money back through the scheme, some no doubt cashed out while the scheme was still functioning and made loads of money through it. A ponzi scheme functions very well up until the point that it doesn't. Shouldn't those people also be sued? They are living off stolen money.
@anxiogenic: Yes, many of the investors lived very large -- see Vanity Fair's Madoff articles, parts 1 & 2. They had lifestyles and wealth unimaginable to most of us. When the party came to an end, they became "victims" even though they benefitted from the ponzi scheme. But since they were merely greedy and weren't the brains of the ill-gotten operation, they can't be sued. Really, they should be chuckling over how long they rode the tide, instead of whining about what they "lost."
@anxiogenic: What's absurd is that Ruth Madoff believes she is somehow entitled to multiple millions of dollars for being married to a criminal while he was actively doing crime.
@Muggs Bigglesworth: That's not really much more absurd than my believing I'm entitled to multiple of millions of dollars just for being fuckin' awesome. Which I do.
How long before Ruth shows up hawking replica jewelry on a home shopping channel. "And THIS lovely piece was inspired by one that Bernie bought me with funds intended for Elie Wiesel's charitable foundation . . ."
07/30/09
07/30/09
07/30/09
07/30/09
07/30/09
07/30/09
Earlier this year, Picard was attempting to "claw back" money from investors who had cashed out. I don't know whether any of those attempts succeeded.
07/30/09
07/30/09
07/30/09
07/30/09
07/30/09
07/30/09
07/30/09
07/30/09
07/30/09
07/30/09
That question sounds like a perfume ad. The answer: "Chanel No. 150".
05/15/09
05/15/09
The rebel consumption thing had a go-round in the 1990s as well, and it was gutted by Thomas Frank in Commodify your Dissent.
05/15/09
05/15/09
05/15/09
05/15/09
05/05/09
05/05/09
05/04/09
05/04/09