LCOD Go back to your thread and you won't make a fool of yourself. You read on AOL that he was licensed in Federal Court??????? That's your proof???? Want to explain what kind of license that is????? Anyway it doesn't matter, on the ADVR filing he filed as if he was in a New York law firm. ADVR's legal DISCLOSURE is filed by an man who claims to be an attorney, who in fact was disbarred 18 months prior to the filing and you don't see a problem?????????? PLEASE go to the new thread... that kind of reasoning won't fly on here. Good luck.
Barry Allens post.. for those who missed it states:
>>>>>The Rubin issue: I read on AOL that he was licensed in Federal Court. What does disbarrment in the stae of NY have to do with SEC filings. Are they invalid? The only thing that I see here is that Rubin can not practice in NY. ADVR did not violate any laws. Are you pleading guilt by association?
This is from a post on AOL:
Subj: The attorney that wasn't.
Date: 97-01-17 20:19:19 EST
From: CasonWi
FIRST DEPARTMENT Appellate Division New York Law Journal (p. 4, col. 4) March 2, 1995 Matter of
Richard J. Rubin, (admitted as Richard Jeffrey Rubin) a suspended attorney. Before Sullivan, J.P.;
Rosenberger, Ellerin, Kupferman and Asch, JJ. Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Departmental
Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department. Respondent was admitted to the Bar at a Term of
the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the First Judicial Department on May 8, 1968. By order of
this Court entered on March 8, 1994 respondent was suspended from the practice of law in the State of
New York until the further order of this Court. Sherry K. Cohen, of counsel (Hal R. Lieberman, attorney) for
petitioner; no appearance on behalf of respondent. Per Curiam -- Respondent Richard J. Rubin was
admitted to the practice of law in New York by the First Judicial Department on May 8, 1986 under the
name Richard Jeffrey Rubin. By order entered March 8, 1994, this Court suspended respondent from the
practice of law pursuant to 22 NYCRR Sec.603.4(e)(1)(i) based upon his willful failure to cooperate with
the Committee in its investigation of allegations of professional misconduct (Matter of Rubin, 196 AD2d
145). Although a copy of this Court's order with notice of entry was served upon respondent, respondent
has not appeared or applied in writing to the Court or the Committee for a hearing or reinstatement.
Petitioner thereupon brought the within motion seeking an order pursuant to 22 NYCRR Sec.603.4(g)
disbarring respondent and striking his name from the roll of attorneys to which respondent has similarly failed
to respond. 22 NYCRR Sec.603.4(g) of the Rules of this Court provides as follows: (g) An application for
suspension pursuant to Sec.603.4(e)(1) may state that an attorney who is suspended and who has not
appeared or applied in writing to the Committee or the Court for a hearing or reinstatement for six months
from the date of an order of suspension may be disbarred. If an application does state the foregoing, and the
respondent does not appear or apply in writing to the Committee or the Court for a hearing or reinstatement
within six months of the suspension date, the respondent may be disbarred without further notice.
Respondent's failure to respond to the notice of motion to suspend for failure to cooperate which contained
the notice to disbar as provided in Sec.603.4(g), as well as to the order of suspension itself and, now, to the
notice of motion to disbar clearly warrant his disbarment pursuant to this section. Accordingly, petitioner's
motion should be granted, and respondent's name should be stricken from the roll of attorneys pursuant to 22
NYCRR Sec.603.4(g) of the Rules of this Court.
The ADVR attorney who suddenly was not their attorney after it was disclosed he was disbarred.
Dr. H. gave him 1 million shares for services rendered. Perhaps they couldn't afford a real lawyer, but then he seems to be connected to several of maggot miles shell corporations. |
