worth 1000 words

meet scott rothstein, soon to be adorning dictionary and thesaurus entries everywhere for the word "sleaze":

or better yet, don't meet him.

that is, if you could, since he seems to have vanished:

in a case already being compared to the bernie madoff affair, a lawsuit filed monday in broward county accuses south florida "super attorney" scott rothstein of bilking investors in a scheme run out of the powerful firm rothstein, rosenfeldt and adler, which now says it can't make payroll. an attorney for one investor told the south florida sun sentinel that the amount of money missing could be over $100 million, though it's not clear where it went. ... he's now out of town and possibly out of the country — no one knows where exactly — and the feds have reportedly shown up at his law firm offices. ... while all of the specifics of the the alleged fraud are not known, CBS 4 reports it may have involved both taking from client trust funds and setting up a side company to sell investments in structured settlements. those are arrangements in which payments are made over time rather than all at once, reaping tax benefits for the payee and allowing the payer to avoid having to come up with the lump sum upfront. ... the problem? some of the settlements rothstein sold didn't actually exist, according to the lawsuit.

ok, wait — sure, the guy's a crook, but c'mon, this is just run-of-the-mill embezzlement. so where's the beef? scottie needs to dig a little deeper if he's gonna be our new poster boy for sleaze, doesn't he?

not to worry, folks. let's just take a look at those "structured settlements" he's been hustling, shall we?

those documents say that rothstein's firm sought out sexual discrimination and whistle-blower cases and used former cops to dig up incriminating evidence. sakowitz, the potential investor, said rothstein boasted of having sophisticated eavesdropping equipment and that former cops would sift through potential defendants' garbage. with compromising evidence in hand, the firm urged the targets of the claims to pay a settlement without a public lawsuit.

and this literal bottomfeeder lied to his "investors" about those, too.

folks, i believe we have a winner!

---

sleaze |slēz|: noun
immoral, sordid, and corrupt behavior or material, esp. in business or politics
• informal: a sordid, corrupt, or immoral person; scott rothstein

bernie's big mistake

... was not in ripping off little old ladies, children, cripples, pensions and charities. the king of the ponzi scheme supreme is not going away for decades past his dying for a white-collar crime so time-honored yet pedestrian.

no, his singular, unforgivable sin was the gravest sin of all: he ripped off his rich friends.

ny times: but in meting out the maximum sentence, judge chin pointed out that no friends, family or other supporters had submitted any letters on mr. madoff’s behalf, attesting to the strength of his character or good deeds he had done. even mr. madoff’s wife, ruth, whose own awareness of his business dealings has been a major unanswered question, issued a statement on monday distancing herself from him. ... she was not in court for the sentencing hearing.

bloomberg: the courtroom erupted in applause and shouts after chin imposed the sentence.

bloomberg: prosecutors said yesterday in their response to madoff's bail appeal that he should remain behind bars while he awaits sentencing. they said that madoff is a flight risk because he is likely to spend the rest of his life in prison, has been "shunned by the community," owns a home abroad, and has spent decades lying to clients.

newser: documents released today showed that ruth agreed to give up boats and vehicles as well as properties in manhattan, montauk,and palm beach, fla. the deal may allow her to move on after months of being shunned at manhattan establishments and crucified in the tabloids.

reuters: ruth madoff has not been charged with any crimes but she has been widely vilified by defrauded investors, shunned by people she once knew and pursued by the new york press. under the agreement she could still be liable to civil claims.