>From Mario Lacy: >> Edmund Storms wrote: >> > Come now, let's be realistic. He did not run because he would not >> > have been safe anywhere in the world. When you damage so many people, >> > many of whom are very powerful and will connected to the Jewish >> > community, you will be killed very soon after leaving the US. >> > Besides, his family was also at risk. He took the only rational >> > path. > > Could be. Although with all those millions probably something > could be done, I think. > Anyways, he nevertheless served the scapegoat role, from the > moment he was exposed to the public view.
I see that Mr. Lawrence has weighed in with his two cents as well. Now, it's my turn to shed a few pennies from my own purse, regardless of how wildly off topic this thread has degenerated to. To speculate that Maddox "...served the scapegoat role" implies that through deliberate forethought and careful planning (a conspiracy, if you wish) he was left out in the open high-and-dry by his "associates" in order that they could save their own skins. But all the evidence that seems to have been revealed so far would indicate that Maddox pretty much masterminded his devastating Ponzi scheme all on his own. Certainly, it is conceivable that Maddox had a few "assistants", possibly playing their roles passively. But their "sins" are likely to be more the "sins of omission", as compared to the "sins of commission." If such guilty parties DO exist, I suspect few will be discovered. They are not likely to be in positions of power where they could have pulled any strings that would have personally lead to Maddox being set up as the "scapegoat." If anything, such "assistants" are probably pulling what few dwindling "strings" they have left at their own disposal to keep themselves carefully concealed from unwanted scrutiny. What I think is far more alarming, perhaps even sinister, is the fact that years ago certain financial analysts had already determined (some, without a shadow of doubt) that what Maddox was doing HAD to be blatantly illegal. What could almost be conceived as criminal negligence at work here is the fact that these whistleblower's attempts to warn the financial community were ignored. Perhaps another example of "the sins of omission" at work here. But, IMO, such "sins of omission" is not necessarily in itself evidence to support conjecture that Maddox was being carefully set up to play the role of a highly publicized "scapegoat." I think it's more a matter that such "sins of omission", (meaning: They did NOT investigate the matter as thoroughly as they should of when they had been given repeated evidence to suggest something was terribly amiss), are now causing such "guilty parties" to distance themselves as far as they possibly can from being personally tainted by the horrible Maddox fallout. But again, such actions to distance themselves from Maddox is not evidence in itself that they are operating covertly within the context of a conspiracy to turn Maddox into their personal "scapegoat" in order to save their own skins. Whom do you speculate these "associates" might be, the "associates" who allegedly masterminded subsequent events that are now being played out in the news, the ones that are responsible for personally turning Maddox into the "scapegoat"? ...Or are you using the term "scapegoat" within a different context? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
