Mini Madoff Scandal Scales New Linguistic Heights

R. Allen Stanford, head of Stanford International Bank, has been charged with fraud by the SEC.

Another day, another Ponzi scheme. Stanford's take: $8 Billion. Not chump change, of course, but neither does it put him in Madoff's league (up to $40 billion).

I think I shall call him mini-Madoff.

But the Stanford scandal has set a linguistic record -- a record for creative disingenuousness. According to Securities Docket:

...one of Stanford's own lawyers has emerged as a key figure in the matter. Bloomberg reports that last week, Thomas Sjoblom, a partner at law firm Proskauer Rose doing work for Stanford's company's Antigua affiliate, told authorities that he "disaffirmed" everything he had told them to date. According to his bio on his law firm's website, Sjoblom spent nearly 20 years at the SEC, and served as an Assistant Chief Litigation Counsel in the SEC's Division of Enforcement from 1987 to 1999.

"Disaffirmed" (italics mine). Doncha love it?

I hereby nominate "disaffirmed" as the new leader in the "Mistakes Were Made" category at the forthcoming Creative Language awards ceremony.

This is no trivial honor. It outpaces such classics as "the dog ate my homework," "I have no recollection," and "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

In my humble opinion, the only one that comes close was "modified, limited hangout" from the Watergate days.

It is a distant descendant of the old IBM (or was it GE?) culture that used "concur" and "dis-concur" as part of its decision-making process. But that was for standard business processes; this is for excusing $8 billion of malfeasance -- clearly vaulting the term into another category altogether.

Sjoblom, a 20-year SEC employee, originally affirmed certain facts to his old employer. Enquiring minds want to know--where did he learn "disaffirm?" Was it at the feet of Stanford? Did he bring it with him from the SEC? Was he -- oh, this is juicy -- speaking Ponzi-talk? Or was he talking bureaucrat-speak?

And what's to make of the syntax? Does it truly confound logic, as in "have you stopped beating your wife?" Or is it just a fancy "I lied?"

Never mind -- let's be practical. Where else can we put this word to use? After all, if you can undo a legal affirmation by using it -- why, the sky's the limit!

* That affair I had back when I was married? I'd like to disaffair it, please.
* Remember when I said I'd pick up the tab? Distab that, if you don't mind.
* The vows we made at our marriage? Disavow them, please (oops, that one's a real word).

Yes, I know I said "I do," I'm just saying "I dis-do."

You get the idea.

Language evolves marvelously to fit the circumstances requiring description. So it is here. Double-talk is as double-talk does.

Mini-Madoff financially, perhaps. But in a league of its own in AOL--Abuse Of Language.

Comments

[iviewit]

MADOFF + STANFORD + DREIER + SATYAM + ALBERT HU = PROSKAUER Investors burned in these scams should start to seek redress from the lawyers who were involved with these scams. I have been trying to notify regulators and authorities of a TRILLION DOLLAR scam that is putting states like New York and Florida at huge risk, as well as, companies like Intel, Lockheed, SGI and IBM. The states and companies involved in the fraud fail to acknowledge the risk exposing shareholders and citizens to impending liabilities. Investigators, courts and federal agents ignoring the crimes, including a car bombing attempt on my life. I know how Harry Markopolos felt.
Did I hear Proskauer Rose is involved in Madoff (involved many clients too) and acted as Allen Stanford's attorney. First, Proskauer partner Gregg Mashberg claims Madoff is a financial 9/11 for their clients, if they directed you to Madoff sue them. Then, Proskauer partner Thomas Sjoblom former enforcement dude for SEC and Allen Stanford attorney, declares PARTY IS OVER and advises them to PRAY, two days before SEC hearings. At hearings, he lies with Holt to SEC saying she only prepared with him but fails to mention Miami meeting at airport hanger. If you were burned in Stanford sue Proskauer.

Proskauer Rose and Foley & Lardner are also in a TRILLION dollar FEDERAL LAWSUIT legally related to a WHISTLEBLOWER CASE. Marc S. Dreier also defendant.
The Trillion Dollar suit according to Judge Shira Scheindlin is one of PATENT THEFT, MURDER AND

[Michael Vogel]

Mr. Green,

Your article demonstrates a lack of understanding of the position the attorney appears to have been in. Though I am no expert in legal ethics (I am simply enrolled in a legal ethics course right now), my understanding is that after Sarbanes-Oxley and subsequent SEC rule making, "disaffirm" began to carry a specific legal meaning.

For example, if you look at this SEC release, http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2002-158.htm, you will notice the release discusses disaffirming in several places. Similar language may be found elsewhere in the commentary.

You wrote:

"Enquiring minds want to know--where did he learn 'disaffirm?' Was it at the feet of Stanford? Did he bring it with him from the SEC? Was he -- oh, this is juicy -- speaking Ponzi-talk? Or was he talking bureaucrat-speak?"

I suggest the answer to your question is that he learned it from the legal and regulatory language imposed after Enron. "Enquiring minds" should do a bit more homework before posting an article like this. Had your article been written as a criticism of the law, it would be more on point. But to criticize the attorney for using language that mimics the law governing him seems to place the blame in the wrong place.

[Bruce Carton]

Here's the actual quote, per the WSJ:

On Feb. 14, three days before the charges were filed, the lawyer for Mr. Stanford, Thomas Sjoblom of Proskauer Rose LLP, resigned from representing him and his companies. He sent a note to the SEC in which he said, "I disaffirm all prior oral and written representations made by me and my associates to the SEC staff regarding Stanford Financial Group and its affiliates."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123500982598918793.html?mg=com-wsj