My mom used to walk around the house yelling "Hell's Bells" or "Joy to the world" when she was really mad. It was always hard not to crack up when she did that. She didn't have any sayings about animals. BT
Well I for one thank Drive for posting this again. As a younger guy just getting into the world of business I like reading about stuff like this because it educates me on what to look our for with the people I deal with. Not that this one was hard to miss though. As Drive already mentioned his returns were way out of wack and thus anyone really connected to him(SS) business wise should be/should have been looked at with an eye of skepticism.....
What exactly was Scottie Saidel's connection to Scott Rothstein business wise? I could not find that in the previous threads. To borrow a phrase from Drive, you must know something that nobody else here does, so spill it! Or are you saying that Drive's friend should be looked at with skepticism for investing with Scott Rothstein since the returns were out of whack? I know he was representing Kim Rothstein in the bankruptcy thing, or that is what I understood. BT
First, I was surprised that this thread didn't start until wed late evening because the DBR sent out an eblast about the sentencing on monday at noon. Although everything has been said at least twice, I will say that I know ss socially and met him early on before the carcierge in the old SSF days and this makes me sad. the whole thing is very sad. having been a lawyer for over 25 years, the two most important rules for lawyers to live by are: rule #1: the problem is the client's problem and not the lawyer's rule #2: never do anything to change rule #1
given what he did, I've have sentenced him to a lot more time. The attorney trust account used to commit fraud? How low can you go? If he did was he was accused of, he was never a "good guy": scumbag who was pleasant maybe. Art
Good point, and I will give this one a try. It also may tie in with Ryan's post about business. I have written of my one-degree-of-separation from Rothstein. Describing that was where Saidel chimed in. In our early exchanges, he e-mailed me on F-Chat's e-mail and on my personal e-mail. He kept telling me that he was "very close" to Rothstein and knew the story. I never asked him if he was in business with him, but I did suggest that, as an outside looking in, it would be highly unusual for Rothstein to escape a bad outcome. He soon turned on me. As for my potential client . . . I guess you have to understand one thing about the way I approach business. Having had very private and wealthy clients, many of whom are European families with history going back 700 years, my approach is a little different than an typical American approach. My approach is to simply show them my track record in business. I give them references and I will provide specific examples. Most of my clients business with me is not a 'net sum gain.' By that I mean, for me to gain a client, that does not necessarily mean that another person has to lose the account. I am not necessarily competing against 'Joe Blow' for client XYZ's. In many cases, both Joe Blow and I can gain the client's business--there is enough to go around. The guy in Florida . . . I was introduced by a mutual friend. The story was that he had X dollars to invest, and was probably going to apportion that to 2 or 3 people. When I got there, he handed me a Rothstein book and asked me to evaluate it. In a nutshell, I told him it sounded too good to be true, and I suggested he have his accountant and lawyer look at it. I also armed him with 4 or 5 questions to ask. When he came back and said he put all the money with Rothstein, I was disappointed, but my partner said, "We may have dodged a bullet with that client. A guy that reckless could be trouble, later." Candidly, I was disappointed that we didn't get the business at the time, and didn't have the level-headedness of my partner. And, in hindsight, my partner was right about it. (And this is where Ryan can learn. See the counsel of wise partners who have a stake in the outcome.) So, the answer is "yes." My potential client should be viewed with an EXTREME amout of skepticism. He decided to go against the advice of his attorney and he abaondoned the discipline that made him rich. (His attorney suggested he put $1 million with Rothstein and wait a year before investing more. But he didn't. He went all in.) I have no problem in admitting that. It is unfortunate that he declared a BK, but those are consequences.
It is odd how some people look at investments. I have only put together a few investment deals in my lifetime. The first one I was looking for a total of around $500k. I tried to package the offering where each investor would put up $125k (including myself for one share at $125k). The deal that I offered was that at the payout the first money back was everyone's initial $125k. Second payout would be other investors up to 100% profit, so the next $375 went to other investors. Last payout was for me, and it would be whatever was left over. I could get back my money and nothing else, or I could make a bunch of money. Nobody would take the deal on the idea that they would be limited to 100% profit and I could make more. In the end I made a different offering that each investor simply got 8% of the profit for a $50k investment, and the investors got a touch over 100% return after 18 months. It was a much easier sell, but I made a much higher return on the second approach because I didn't end up selling all the shares. The second deal I did a similar arrangement, but I gave up my share of profit to make sure the investors made a decent return, and I ended up with $0. I am probably not a good model for investment strategies, I tend to let my feelings override the written deal if it favors others. I must want to be a Rastafarian... Thanks for the insight, I guess I should be happy that my initial round of trying to get investors did not go well. The potential clients would have likely been trouble. BT
So, lay 'em on us. We're nothing if not good listeners. IF you have some mitigating information that's FACT not conjecture, post away. In the mean time, in case you've forgotten, because I haven't, I still have not knowingly committed any felonies, nor will I, now or in the future. Scottie can't make that claim. He was an attorney, he understood what he did was illegal, and he got caught. His family has left him, and he's going to prison. That, no matter how you slice it, makes him something less than a good guy, not someone who was just misunderstood. And to all who claimed they would support him, good for you, I hope you continue to give him support, because now is when he's REALLY going to need it. Those who most ardently supported him, and claim he's a good guy, tell the truth, are you going to stay in contact with him? Visit him, even write him while he's in prison? How about when he gets out. you going to vouch for him when he looks for a job? Let him sleep at your place while he gets his **** together? No? didn't think so. I hope you all prove me wrong. Because if you really are that loyal a friend, he needs you now.
So at the end what was in it for SS? I am losing this. All people involved were getting something, which is big money. Did SS do it for 60K??!! that sound lame. (There are only 3 solutions well 4 if the guy is stupid as a stone which i dont buy) option 1: he was to get some serious cash return from this option 2: he was banging the chick hard. to risk jail, I'll think you must be getting something quite special! option 3: he had a ego way too big and to satify it, he would have sent all friends and his family to the goulag just to prove he is smarter than the system
Or 4, Other. She was a friend who needed his help. He blindly went along with her nefarious plan because, after all, you need to stick by your friends through thick and thin, even if you have to commit just a few teensy weensy felonies. Or, maybe he WANTED to bang the snot out of her and figured this was the best way to loosen her zippers. D
I agree. He got off light. An attorney who abets his client in a criminal conspiracy should get the maximum. Do any of you south Florida guys remember Christopher Wilder? I do. I had dinner with him a few times and we did some track events together. Although I didn't consider him a friend, he seemed like "a really nice guy" too. I'm not comparing Wilder's crimes with Saidel's, just illustrating that people frequently are not what they seem and that they will take advantage of their "friends."
Not sure, but I think the rules of FChat are not being followed, and that is not the responsibility of the "SS Fan Club". Rob, please show me how the rules are being followed. Point by point. And I ask this sincerely. 1.2 No "Trolling": Please do not post any topic that disrupts the peace and harmony of this community. Don't create meaningless threads with the sole purpose of starting a dispute. This includes messages in profiles and signatures. Not one negative comment in this thread comes from anyone that knows all of the facts, including you Rob. Meaningless thread at its best. Not to mention this should be in the P&R section.
After all the personal attacks against anyone who dared give pause to the almighty SS you are now crying foul because the courts didn't go your way? I haven't received a single post report and there are two mods involved with this that were friends of SS that haven't brought any issues up. I still find it funny you are not believing a federal court and Scott's own admissions, I would say that's the perfect definition of trolling trying to stir trouble with bastardizations of fact just for the sake of arguing.
Seems like Drive is upset because he lost out on a deal because the person went with Rothstein instead of with him. I have warned people about scams and most people take my advice, but there are a few you dont and lose all of their money. I too get mad at the people that rip them off, but am also mad at the people who are dont realize that if something is too good to be true, then it is usually a scam, and because of their greed, fall prey to those who are scamming them. We all agree that Scott R was scum. I get upset when I hear that people say Scottie stole money from widows and orphans like he is some type of heartless bastard. He told me that the money Rothstein stole was mainly from one client who was rich. This doesnt make it any better since a crime is still a crime regardless if you steal from a homeless bum or a billionaire, but maybe it may explain why Rothstein may not have cared. What Scottie did was bad, and laundering money thru an Trust account or taking funds from it is illegal, but it is a little harder to trace than depositing half a million into your own personal account so he knew he was doing something wrong. He also felt sorry for Kim may have thought that she deserved money that was legitimatly earned. But if you steal and take other peoples money and are in the hole, then they have every right to take away what you may have legitimatly earned in the past. Sad thing is that Rothstein was wealthly than most people and could have had nice life without resorting to this, same with Madoff. Most people would be happy to have a million dollars, but to some money is like a drug. You can have more than you will ever need, but still want to have more. Kimmie and her friend are being sentenced in a few weeks. I am willing to bet that they will be give more time, since they were the ones that dragged Scottie into this mess. And yes, I will visit Scottie in jail if it is nearby and even let him stay at my house if he needs a place in the future. What he did is wrong, but he is remorseful and wants to live a normal life once this is all over. I have more faith in him than other people that I know that arent in jail.
Wow Rob, " almighty SS"? You did not answer my questions. Why? As moderator, you should not even post an opinion, especially such comments. Neutrality should be your mantra, but......we all know. You conclude an opinion and you do not know the facts? Have you personally spoken to SS to understand all of the facts? Do you understand why he is going to a minimum security location that even first time traffic manslaughter convictions do not have that luxury? Never have cried foul Rob, results are better than expected. What is funny, it is obvious, you do not follow your own rules. And, you do not know anything about this situation. Prove me wrong. And do it like a man, without banning me for being honest. N rhetoric, just answer my questions. Thank you.
so Scott was making excuses for Rothstein stealing all that money, now that is rich! if he was such a good guy you don't think there would be any excuses... he was a bad guy, I made mistakes, he deserved everything he got... instead of saying the thefts weren't as bad because one rich guy.
Rob: Please do not put words in my mouth. Scottie did not use that as an excuse for defending what Rothstein did, but it may appear that may have been why Rothstein may not have thought it was such a big deal. I never met Rothstein, so I am speculating on what his mindset was based upon what I was told and why he may have acted like he did. Dont know if this was told directly to Scottie by Rothstein, Kimmie or maybe even the prosecutors or when it was said. Probably after everything went down, since I dont think Scottie would have defended Rothstein in his earlier posts if he knew he was guilty.
As an administrator, you should not be making any comments except to uphold the rules of the site. And you are not. Your site or not, credibility is always most important. You know I am correct. Secondly, how can you call out anyone if you do no know all of the facts? Especially if you do not know or have spoken to Saidel personally?
there is a bunch of talk and extra chatter for something we can state simply about this thread. felons and felonies OK vs. not. I dont have to agree with your opinion on the previous and I have stated that with passion, but we can agree to disagree. Thats what makes the world beautiful, we have such diversity in opinions and views, like breaking the law.
This boils down to people that know Scottie personally vs perhaps those that only know him by some FChat posts and misdeeds..... Not defending Scottie's crimes, nor saying that those with opinions of how bad he is are wrong.....the fact is he did do something wrong. However, I think the difference is that those who know him, see him as the friend who would support a friend even to the detriment of himself. He is the guy who would run into a burning building to help others while the masses run out. His motives, were to help Kim, who was a friend of his, who was clearly desperate for help. Those that suggest sexual rational, greed, or just simply that he's a scumbag criminal lawyer, are only privy to the medicinal facts, conjecture, and sensational drama..... not the other 'facts' of the people who know him as someone that fked up bigtime trying to help someone. Not saying that makes it justified, or right..... Just expressing that there is a significant difference of how people view him. We are not going to agree...... So, lets just agree to disagree and move on......
I get that. I don't get RP attacking me personally for saying I have a problem with felons, felonies, and attacking people who turned out to be pretty right. I'm not a friend of SS, I respect everyone is standing by their friend, but understand the rest of us have an unemotional view supported by facts of the case, conviction, and sentence. I will respect those that stick by their friends, but not those like RP who are attacking me for not supporting a felon I have never met. I will be hands off moderation wise, I'm not banning anyone etc, this is up to the Florida and Global mods. As an admin though I want to ensure that we allow equal freedom of speech both sides of an issue. Certainly SS and friends received their fair share of freedoms and mods even banned some people with contrary views. I find it suspect that now even with federal sentence that same friends and mods want to shut the topic down and censor anything negative against SS. sorry if you disagree, PM me if you want, I'm civil, but seems very one-sided here. that's my concern as admin.
