35

continuing from post 34

I could have filed a hundred cases and in all of them the courts act like they did with my cases here and it still may not come anywhere close to make me mistake what could be the correct stand for me to take if I were someone who was thinking about investing with Madoff and knew that he had passed SEC investigation ounce or twice. That is because refusing to believe the results of what depends on checking such direct and basic stock trading things is probably as close as it could gets to refusing a direct witness.  

As you can see the thing seems to be extremely far from just not performing a good job and the SEC intentionally acting passively or actively in support of Madoff is very hard to avoid. However, it seems it was agreed that if he get caught then he is on his own and he had kept his word.

Although I read before that the courts dismisses cases suing the SEC on the Madoff's fraud, I haven't not yet found that any one of those cases was taken to the final point on that path and was denied.

Showing the SEC's failed investigation excuse because of alleged Madoff's manipulating behaviour was not the first time I see desperate attempts to find excuses for that agency even in movies. In the Wolf of Wall Street the fraud guy supposedly made SEC investigation on him fail because he turned the cooling in the room too high. Also as much as these defending claims for the SEC came from the scamming guys themselves as much as it adds support to having the SEC as a partner.