Green Card Lottery - Last Call - <AD>

268 views
Skip to first unread message

Ben Delisle

unread,
Jun 12, 1994, 9:42:59 PM6/12/94
to
Ref: cs...@pericles.com

I found an interesting article about the CSLAW
group and their green card lottery business. I geuss that
it may be interesting to forward this since they are advertising
in many newsgroups again.

Begin: bio cslaw

From: DRHi...@kaiwan.com (Dennis R. Hilton)
Subject: Re: Green Card Lottery - Last Call - <AD>
References: <1994Jun12.0...@nntpxfer.psi.com>

Attorney negligence?? Did they file their taxes??
Nevada Secretary of State, Corporate Record
Name: Sheridan Worldwide, Incorporated
Type: Regular (Domestic Profit)
Corporate Status: REVOKED 11/01/93
Duration: Perpetual
Date of Incorporation: 02/18/92
State: Nevada
Registered Agent: Corporation Service Company
Registered Office: 530 South Fourth Street
Las Vegas NV 89101
Purpose: All legal activities
Capital/Stock:
Capital: $5,000
Par Shares: 5,000
Par Value: 1,000

Annual-Report:
Last: 60 Day List of Officers
Last filed: 04/14/92
Ending Year: 1993

President: Laurence A. Canter
7739 E. Broadway Suite 410
Tuscon, AZ 85710

Status: Added 04/14/92

Secretary: Martha S. Siegel
7739 E. Broadway Suite 410
Tuscon AZ 85710

Treasurer: Laurence A. Canter
7739 E. Broadway Suite 410
Tuscon AZ 85710

Directors: Corporation Information Service
1201 Hays Street
Tallahassee, FL 32301

Corporation Number: 1440-92

Laurence A. Canter
PO Box 13510
Scottsdale, Arizona

Concentration: Immigration & Nationality Law (100%)

Admitted: 1978 admitted TN; Not admitted Arizona

Law-School: St. Mary's University of San Antonio (J.D.)

College: University of Arizona (B.A.)

Born: 1953

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


Martha S. Siegel
30 Brookfield Dr.
Iowa City, Iowa

Admitted: 1980 admitted TN; Not admitted Iowa

Law-School: St. Mary's University of San Antonio (J.D.)

College: Carnegie Mellon University (B.A.)

Born: 1948

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

TRW REDI Property Data, Copyright (c) 1993

PROPERTY RECORDS FOR MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ

ESTIMATED TAX ROLL CERTIFICATION DATE NOVEMBER 15, 1992

Owner: CAVOLO ANTHONY M

Mailing Address: 11480 N 103RD PL SCOTTSDALE AZ 85260

***************************** LOCATION ***********************************

Property Address: 11480 00103RD PL N 85260

Municipality: SCOTTSDALE AZ

Property Use (REDI): Single Family Residence

Assessor's Parcel Number: 217-26-186

***************************** ASSESSMENT VALUES **************************

Land Value: $ 60,000

Improvements: 208,671

Total Value: $ 268,671

Property Tax: $ 2,433.48

Use Code: RESID SGL FAMILY

***************************** SALE INFORMATION ***************************

Buyer: CANTER LAURENCE A & MARTHA S

Sale Price: $ 298,000

Transfer Date: 01/93

Document Number: 930038000

Improved Square Feet: 3,383 (building)

Year Constructed: 1981

************************* PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS ***********************
Units: Stories: 1.0
Rooms: 8 Heating: FORCED AIR
Bedrooms: Cooling: REFRIGERATION
Bathrooms: Floor:
Fireplaces: Walls: STUCCO BLOCK
Pool: YES Const:

MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ 11480 00103RD PL N
85260

**************************************************************************
# # #

For Immediate Release
October 13,1988
Contact: Bonnie L Mahon
The Florida Bar
Tampa Office
Telephone: 813/875-9821

SUPREME COURT GRANTS ATTORNEY'S PETITION TO RESIGN PERMANENTLY

TALLAHASSEE, Oct.13-- The Florida Supreme Court has granted attorney
Laurence A. Canter's petition to resign permanently, effective November 7,
1988.

Canter, of 240 North Washington Boulevard, Sarasota, was charged
with numerous violations of the attorney disciplinary rules including
neglect, misrepresentation, misappropriation of client funds and perjury.

Several of the complaints against Canter involved his failure to
file the necessary or appropriate documents with the United Stated
Immigration and Naturalization Services in matters of permanent residency
and work visas. In addition, Canter refused to refund clients' funds and
neglected to notify his clients that he has been suspended from the practice
of law as a result of a previous discipline.

The Florida Bar further alleges that Canter committed perjury by
filing a false affidavit with the Bar and while testifying under oath in a
deposition. These charges resulted after an audit of Canter's trust account
by the Bar showed that trust funds were held in Canter's account during the
time period when he denied any funds were present.

Canter was born in 1953 and admitted to The Florida Bar in 1980.

The resignation without leave to apply is not final until time
expires to file motion for rehearing and if filed, determined. The filling
of a motion for rehearing shall not alter the effective date of this
resignation.

As an official agency of the Supreme Court of Florida, The Florida
Bar and its Department of Lawyer Regulation are charged with the
administration of a statewide disciplinary system to enforce Supreme Court
rules of professional conduct for all lawyers.

# # #

=============

In article <2qorl8$q...@panix.com>, e...@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:

Most of you have probably seen the 1988 report documenting Canter's
(and Siegel's) resignation from the Florida Bar. However, that report
mentions their prior suspension "as a result of a previous discipline,"
which has not (to my knowledge) been publicized.

Below is the text of the 1987 Florida Supreme Court decision suspending
our two friends for 90 days. Best line: "The respondents are guilty of
a deliberate scheme to misrepresent facts in order to secure full
financing of their purchase [of the real estate in question]."

(Although I've crossposted this article to all the groups where C&S
discussion seems to be happening, I've also limited followups in the
spirit of good net.citizenship.

THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant,
v
Martha SIEGEL, Respondent.
THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant,
v
LAURENCE CANTER, Respondent
Nos. 68956, 68957.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Sept. 10, 1987.
511 So.2d 995

In an attorney disciplinary proceeding, the Supreme Court held that engaging
in deliberate scheme to misrepresent facts to senior mortgagee in order to
secure full financing of purchase for law office warrants 90-day suspension
from practice of law.
Suspension ordered.

John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director and John T. Berry, Staff
Counsel, Tallahassee, and Thomas E. DeBerg, Asst. Staff Counsel, Tampa, for
complainant.
John E. Lund, Tampa, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.


These disciplinary proceedings are before us on complaint of the Florida Bar
and the reports of the referee, which are contested by the Bar and by both
respondents. We have jurisdiction, article V, section 15, Florida
Constitution.
These complaints involve alleged misrepresentations made by the respondents,
as law partners, in connection with the purchase of the building used primarily
as their law offices. While the facts are not in dispute, the interpretation
of those facts is heavily disputed: Because the referee's findings of fact are
supported by competent and substantial evidence, we accept them as stated in
the reports. Those reports are set out as follows (because they are identical,
they have been consolidated into one document):

I. Findings of Fact as to Each Item of Misconduct With Which the Respondents
are Charged: After a hearing on the matter before me I find the following:
On October 7, 1983, respondents executed a mortgage and security agreement on
property they were purchasing for use as their law office. The agreement
required that no secondary financing on that real estate would be obtained
without the express consent of the lender, Southeast Bank, N.A., and F.D.I.C.
bank.
On or before October 7, 1983, respondents had agreed with Robert F. Bluck,
the seller, to secondary financing in lieu of a cash downpayment. On October
7, they signed a mortgage agreement with Mr. Bluck for $50,000.00 on the
subject real estate, and as consideration for the mortgage, executed a
promissory note for $50,000.00. Southeast Bank, N.A., was not informed of the
mortgage agreement between the respondents and Bluck, nor was the
mortgage ever recorded.
The contract to purchase from Robert F. Bluck specified a deposit of
$20,000.00, new mortgage of $150,000.00, and a balance of $30,000.00 to close.
On a personal financial statement, dated August 4, 1983 and submitted in
support of the application for The $150,000.00 loan, respondents
misrepresented that they had made a $20,000.00 downpayment on the
subject property. Based on representations made by respondents to
Southeast Bank, N.A., the bank's mortgage loan report listed the
equity of Siegel and Canter in the real estate as $50,000.00 and the
source of equity as cash.
On June 30, 1984, respondents submitted additional documents to Southeast
Bank in support of an application for a $45,000.00 loan to be secured by a
second mortgage on the subject real estate. On a balance sheet dated June 30,
1984, respondents listed the mortgage to Southeast Bank, N.A. as a liability,
but did not disclose the mortgage to Bluck.
On a personal financial statement dated July 1, 1984, respondents listed the
mortgage balance on the first mortgage with the bank, but did not disclose the
unrecorded mortgage with Bluck. Loan officers at the bank again believed
respondents to have $50,000.00 cash equity in the property, and were
unaware of the debt to Robert F. Bluck.
On August 10, 1984, respondents submitted to the bank a sworn affidavit
representing that they were aware of no facts by reason of which the title to,
or possession of, the subject property or any part of it or any personal
property on it might be disputed or questioned.
At the time of both loans in question, Southeast Bank, N.A. was
insured under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.

II. Recommendation as to Whether or Not the Respondent Should Be Found
Guilty: I recommend that the respondents be found guilty of violating the
following sections of the Code of Professional Responsibility: Florida Bar
Integration Rule, article XI, Rule 11-02(3)(a) (Conduct contrary to honesty);
DR 1-102(A)(4) (Conduct involving dishonesty or misrepresentation); DR 1-
102(A)(3) (Illegal conduct).

III. Recommendation as to Disciplinary Measures to be Applied: I
recommend that the respondents receive a public reprimand, and be
suspended from the practice of law for two weeks. The suspensions of
respondents, based on the same conduct, need not run concurrently. I further
order that respondents be assessed their share of the costs of these
proceedings.


We accept in their entirety the referee's findings of fact and recommendations
as to guilt. However, we must reject the referee's recommendations as to
discipline. The respondents are guilty of a deliberate scheme to misrepresent
facts in order to secure full financing of their purchase. We believe that
this sort of fraudulent activity cannot be sufficiently disciplined by a two
week suspension and public reprimand. We do believe, however, that the Bar's
request for a ninety-one day suspension, thus requiring proof of
rehabilitation, is not warranted.
Accordingly, we accept the referees findings of fact and recommendations of
guilt. It is the judgment of this Court that the respondents, Martha Siegel
and Laurence Canter, be suspended from the practice of law for a period of
ninety days, commencing 30 days after the date of this opinion so that the
respondents may close out their business, protect the interests of their
clients, but accept no new business. These suspensions are to be served
concurrently. Judgment for costs in the amount of $1,630.01 is hereby entered
against respondent Seigel, and judgment for costs in the amount of $1,679.51 is
hereby entered against respondent Canter, for which sums let execution issue.
It is so ordered.

McDONALD, C.J., and OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ.,
concur.

==========================


From a leading database of corporation info:

PROFIT
Name: RICCI ENTERPRISES, INC.
Number: 07015550
Incorporation Date: 09/03/1993
Originated: ARIZONA
Duration: PERPETUAL
Status: ACTIVE

CORPORATE ADDRESS
In Care of: LAURENCE A CANTER
Address: 7150 E CAMELBACK RD
City/State: SCOTTSDALE AZ 85251

REGISTERED AGENT INFORMATION
Name: LAURENCE A CANTER
Address: 7150 E CAMELBACK RD SCOTTSDALE AZ 85251
Effective Date: 09/03/1993

CORPORATE TAX INFORMATION
Close Month: DECEMBER

OTHER INFORMATION
Articles Approved: 10/23/1993

HISTORY INFORMATION
Date: 09/03/1993
Number: 17970110005
Description: ARTICLES
Date: 01/07/1994
Number: 21520820028
Description: 93 ANNUAL REPORT/MAIL RETURNED

--
-- Often in error; Never in Doubt! el...@media.mit.edu 617-253-0381
Lee Campbell MIT Media Lab

For Immediate Release
October 13,1988
Contact: Bonnie L Mahon
The Florida Bar
Tampa Office
Telephone: 813/875-9821

SUPREME COURT GRANTS ATTORNEY'S PETITION TO RESIGN PERMANENTLY

TALLAHASSEE, Oct.13-- The Florida Supreme Court has granted
attorney Laurence A. Canter's petition to resign permanently,
effective November 7, 1988.

Canter, of 240 North Washington Boulevard, Sarasota, was
charged with numerous violations of the attorney disciplinary rules
including neglect, misrepresentation, misappropriation of client funds
and perjury.

Several of the complaints against Canter involved his failure
to file the necessary or appropriate documents with the United Stated
Immigration and Naturalization Services in matters of permanent
residency and work visas. In addition, Canter refused to refund
clients' funds and neglected to notify his clients that he has been
suspended from the practice of law as a result of a previous
discipline.

The Florida Bar further alleges that Canter committed perjury
by filing a false affidavit with the Bar and while testifying under
oath in a deposition. These charges resulted after an audit of Canter's
trust account by the Bar showed that trust funds were held in Canter's
account during the time period when he denied any funds were present.

Canter was born in 1953 and admitted to The Florida Bar in 1980.

The resignation without leave to apply is not final until time
expires to file motion for rehearing and if filed, determined. The
filling of a motion for rehearing shall not alter the effective date
of this resignation.

As an official agency of the Supreme Court of Florida, The
Florida Bar and its Department of Lawyer Regulation are charged with
the administration of a statewide disciplinary system to enforce
Supreme Court rules of professional conduct for all lawyers.


Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages