SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : tmrt/tmrte 2themart.com -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: cuemaster who wrote (170)10/27/1999 1:38:00 AM
From: StockDung  Respond to of 487
 
What is CRIM Rebeil and CRIM Magliarditi?

99-A-399505-C Status ACTIVE
Plaintiff Siefert Development Inc Attorney Gage, Noel A.
Defendant Magliarditi, Dominic Attorney Hunt, John A.
Judge Denton, Mark R. Dept. 13

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filed Date 02/17/1999 Closed Date
Last Hear 10/12/1999 For PLTF'S MOTION FOR FINDING OF CONTEMPT
Outcome UNDER ADVISEMENT
Next Hear 11/02/1999 at 09:00 AM For DEFT'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS ATTORNEY/ NOTICE OF ATTY LIEN/MTN TO ADJUDICATE
Pre-trial Trial
Disposed Disposition
Consolidated




To: cuemaster who wrote (170)10/27/1999 2:10:00 AM
From: StockDung  Respond to of 487
 
January 22, 1997

Reserve developer to have gaming license bid denied
By Gary Thompson
<gary@lasvegassun.com>
LAS VEGAS SUN
State regulators are expected to deny gaming licenses Thursday for Steven Rebeil, the controversial developer of Henderson's Reserve hotel-casino.

Citing "overwhelming" evidence of a credit scam at Rebeil's Gem Homes development company, the State Gaming Control Board has already urged that he be deemed unfit to hold a gaming license.

The Nevada Gaming Commission meets Thursday to consider the Control Board's recommendation.

Rebeil had sought to withdraw his application for licensure as an officer, director and shareholder of Ameristar Casinos Inc., the publicly traded company that merged with Gem Gaming Co., original developer of the Reserve.

The Control Board voted unanimously to deny that request, as well as his bid to proceed with his application to be approved a 40 percent owner of Pacific Gaming Sahara Inc., operator of Charleston Express. The Nellis Boulevard locale includes 15 slot machines.

In the latter case, the Control Board denied Rebeil's bid for a restricted license because he "lacks good character, honesty or integrity and ... adequate business probity."

It also rejected his bid to withdraw the Ameristar application, instead voting to deny his license outright. Rebeil didn't appear at the Control Board hearing, but wrote to board Chairman Bill Bible that he would be out of town and "figured my lawyer, Frank A. Schreck, could represent me on my behalf."

At the hearing, Schreck heatedly denied he was Rebeil's attorney, saying he'd notified the developer several months earlier that he wouldn't represent him.

Rebeil, the subject of more than a score of lawsuits alleging improprieties in various business dealings, didn't respond to a SUN request for comment.

But at the Control Board hearing, Schreck -- one of the state's most respected gaming attorneys -- said he had represented Rebeil in the licensing procedure until it became clear "he was absolutely lying to me and lying to everybody else."

The alleged lies involved a reputed scheme in which Rebeil's Gem Homes purportedly overbilled homebuyers at a 220-residence subdivision for an average of $2,500 per house, according to Dominic Magliarditi.

Magliarditi, a lawyer and senior vice president of Ameristar Casinos who testified at the Control Board hearing, said the allegations were raised by a Rebeil partner who'd uncovered the purported scheme after talking with subcontractors.

Magliarditi testified that he believed Rebeil's denials of any wrongdoing "up until the latter part of 1996 ... and then Frank hit me with the bomb."

Schreck's "bomb" was his discovery that gaming investigators had learned through what he called "some very intelligent investigative work" that the subcontractors were allegedly asked to submit two bills.

Credits from the false, inflated bills were used to build Rebeil's Spanish Trail home, Magliarditi said.

"There were substantial amounts" of such credits uncovered in the Control Board investigation, Bible said.

"(It) looks like at least in one tabulation we have in excess of $800,000 that were accumulated, then applied against his personal residence," the board chairman said.

"I tended to want to believe (Rebeil) with respect to his representations because he adamantly denied having a credit relationship," Schreck said.

"On one project there was $170,000 worth of credits that were given because of the way the books balanced. And all of a sudden Mr. Rebeil came up with two checks from another company ... and these two checks were looked upon with some skepticism by the agents as if they may have been manufactured and applied to this.

"So at the suggestion, it was a good suggestion, of the investigators, I went to the concrete subcontractor."

At that point, Schreck said, "I went from believing Steve" to "about 80 percent" not believing him.

Schreck said he called Magliarditi, who assembled documents "all of which indicated there were no kickbacks or no inflations."

"I looked at these documents and I said only one of two things can happen: Either the guys I talked with at the concrete (company) are lying, which I believed they were not, or there were earlier proposals," Schreck said.

When the gaming attorney found the earlier proposals, he said, that "moved me from 75 percent to 100 percent disbelieving Mr. Rebeil."

"The earlier proposals were lower by a round number?" Bible said.

"Yes," Schreck said. "The first proposal for one of the projects was clearly a negotiated one to get the right price, which you do normally. Then the next proposal was boosted $500. And then that was in the proposal that was submitted with the package as it was rewritten.

"At that point, obviously I'm not going to represent the individual anymore. But he adamantly denied it."

Magliarditi also testified that he and Rebeil made "modifications" to an income tax form prepared by the accounting firm Arthur Andersen & Co.

"The form that had Arthur Andersen's employee's signature on it?" asked board member Brian Harris.

"That's correct," answered Magliarditi.

"Did you strike through the line and then put in a new number and initial it, or did you 'white out' and recopy it?" asked board member Steve DuCharme.

"I think they were whited out and then the numbers were inserted," Magliarditi said.

"You did that just based on Mr. Rebeil (who) would say, 'I don't like that number, change it,' and you changed it?" asked Harris.

"That's correct."

"And always downward?"

"They were downward, that's correct," Magliarditi said.

DuCharme said with all the mistakes Rebeil and Magliarditi claimed were made in haste, "the odds of probability are that at least one of the mistakes you made is going to be made in favor of the IRS, but that didn't happen here?"

"That's correct," Magliarditi said.

Magliarditi resigned from a local law firm in early 1994 to go to work for Rebeil. The firm had represented Rebeil and had several bills outstanding, which Magliarditi said he "adjusted" for his soon-to-be employer.

"In effect, you're leaving the firm and you're adjusting your billings for your future employer?" Bible asked.

"That's correct," the lawyer said, adding that he had trimmed the bills because of his anger over the firm's alleged failure to pay him a bonus.

"That implies you shaved the fees because you didn't get the bonus," Bible observed.

"I think that could have been an element in some of those adjustments, because they were aggressive adjustments," Magliarditi said. He added, "I didn't receive any benefit from the adjustments."

"Your future employer did," Harris noted.

As with Rebeil, the board voted unanimously to deny Magliarditi's bid to withdraw his application for licensure as an Ameristar officer and to deny the application itself.

Magliarditi also acknowledged a "large volume" of lawsuits against Gem Homes, but said most of it involved nonpayment claims filed by subcontractors. And he agreed that consumer-advocate agencies such as the Better Business Bureau and various trade groups had received scores of complaints.

Meanwhile, Ameristar is working to satisfy its contractual obligations to Rebeil and Magliarditi and still proceed with development of the Reserve, said Brian Katz, Ameristar vice president.

Ameristar acquired Gem Gaming and the Reserve last October and is redesigning the unfinished hotel-casino.

Ameristar operates the Cactus Pete's and Horseshu hotel-casinos in Jackpot, and has opened casinos in Iowa and Mississippi. The Reserve is its first Southern Nevada project.



To: cuemaster who wrote (170)10/27/1999 3:10:00 AM
From: StockDung  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 487
 
Discipline
PUBLIC REPRIMAND
Dominic J. Magliarditi

On October 23, 1998, a Formal Hearing Panel of the Southern Nevada Disciplinary Board convened to review the above-captioned matters. At that proceeding, Respondent, by and through his counsel, tendered a Conditional Guilty Plea in Exchange for a Stated Form of Discipline wherein he accepted, among other conditions, probationary terms for one (1) year, the issuance of a Public Reprimand and assessment of a $4,000.00 fine. See SCR 113.
The Hearing Panel having approved Respondent's Conditional Plea and the terms and conditions set forth therein, the following Public Reprimand is hereby issued and shall be published in accordance with SCR 113(5):

To: DOMINIC J. MAGLIARDITI , ESQ.

“You were retained as counsel for the partnership known as Wildrose Limited Partnership (“Wildrose”), which was comprised of Gem Development Company, general partner (“General Partner”), and Henry Bushkin, limited partner (“Limited Partner”). Wildrose was formed to acquire and develop real property. In summary, the General and Limited Partners had a written agreement whereby the Limited Partner, for a sum of $1,825,000.00, purchased land Parcel I. In anticipation of profits from Parcel I, the Limited Partner also obtained a buy out option on Parcel II.
“Legal title to Parcel I was retained by the Limited Partner, who would convey title back to Wildrose as each single family home located on the Parcel closed. The Limited Partner in turn was to receive a stipend on each home sale as well as a portion of the profits.
“The execution of the terms of the contract became problematic between the General and Limited Partners when the buy out option came into play. Additionally, ownership as to the proceeds from certain home sales were disputed between the Partners. You, as counsel for Wildrose and with no notice to the Limited Partner, subsequently unilaterally attempted to negotiate escrow instructions preferential to the General Partner. Later, you provided legal counsel to both the General Partner and Wildrose Partnership relative to a Settlement Agreement and made certain representations to the Limited Partner whose reliance on which ultimately resulted in the Limited Partner being excluded from the profits of one of the land parcels.
“While you allege that the agreement between the Partners as to your representation of Wildrose gave you the authority to act for both the individual partners, a reasonable person would find the contract language open to interpretation in this regard. Moreover, you should have withdrawn from your representation of Wildrose when the obvious conflicts of interest arose between the partners involved. Your conduct in this case is in violation of SCR 157(Conflict of Interest).
“Based upon the foregoing, you are hereby fined $4,000.00 and publicly reprimanded for your actions.”

PRIVATE REPRIMANDS

SOUTHERN
97-176-0204
The Panel which heard this matter considered several comments by Attorney A directed toward Plaintiff B and her representatives during certain civil proceedings which the Panel deemed to be inappropriate and unprofessional. Specifically, Attorney A made remarks during an October 1996 hearing which impugned the trustworthiness of Plaintiff's counsel and which insinuated that said counsel had committed perjury. Moreover, Attorney A condescendingly questioned opposing counsel's legal scholarship and intellectual abilities. Attorney A's conduct in this respect was violative of SCRs 184 (Respect for rights of third person) and 203(4) (Misconduct).
It was noted that while Attorney A's comments played no role in the expedition of judicial proceedings, the better practice would be to present statements which attack a person's position rather than his or her person.
Finally, Attorney A was found in contempt of the disciplinary hearing panel which heard this matter pursuant to SCR 101 (Grounds for discipline) based upon unprofessional comments directed at Assistant Bar Counsel during the proceeding. As such, Attorney A was also assessed a $500 fine pursuant to SCR 102(6).

98-113-0956
Attorney C was retained by Client D for $2,000 to appeal an administrative decision rendered by two sports organizations suspending Client D's membership in those organizations. Attorney C subsequently filed suit in State court seeking relief under various theories. However, the defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment was granted and $5,000 in costs were awarded.
Client D had accrued attorney fees in excess of $18,000 for this action. To secure payment of $10,000 toward those fees, Attorney C had taken title to the client's boat. A resulting written fee agreement provided that there was a minimum $10,000 non-refundable fee which would be credited upon receipt of the boat. Thereafter, dependant upon the assessed value of the boat, the client would either receive a credit or be responsible for the difference, whichever applied.
Client D subsequently expressed remorse to Attorney C regarding the boat arrangement and requested a modification to the agreement that would allow a buy-back within one year of the closure of the legal action. Attorney C reluctantly agreed and executed a Note with Option to Repurchase on March 23, 1996. Ultimately Attorney C sold the boat for $5,500 and did not seek to recover the difference from the client.
Attorney C failed to fully comply with SCR 158(1) (Conflict of interest: prohibited transactions). A presumption of impropriety attaches to this type of transaction that can only be overcome by “clear and satisfactory evidence that the transaction was fundamentally fair, free of professional overreaching, and fully disclosed.” In re Singer, 109 Nev. 1117, 865 P.2d 315 (1993). The panel also assessed a $500 fine pursuant to SCR 102(6).

NORTHERN
N98-29-166

Attorney A was sanctioned by the Supreme Court of Nevada for submitting an answering brief of extraordinarily poor quality, for impugning the character of the opposing party, and for recommending the court take action specifically for the purpose of embarrassing the opposing party. The Court stated Attorney A's brief included language that demonstrated a lack of professionalism. In its Order, the Court referred this matter to the State Bar for review.
The screening panel determined Attorney A had violated SCR 184 (Respect for rights of third persons) in that he filed a brief with the Nevada Supreme Court which was insulting and inappropriate in tone, and he recommended the Court publish an opinion for the sole purpose of embarrassing his client's former spouse.



To: cuemaster who wrote (170)10/27/1999 9:47:00 PM
From: Smartypts  Respond to of 487
 
AuctionRover.com Takes the Guesswork Out of Auction Item Prices
Announces free Price Trending Services for Registered Users
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, N.C.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 27, 1999-- Online auction sellers hoping to fetch the best price and online auction bidders trying to retrieve the best deal now have a much-needed tool at their fingertips.

Free Price Trending Services are now available through AuctionRover.com - the one-stop, feature-rich resource for online auctions. These services - not available on any other auction resource site - allow bidders and sellers to view the bid volume and price histories of more than 350 popular auction items by easy-to-read charts.

"Bidding and selling today via online auctions is like trading stock without historical data," said Scot Wingo, AuctionRover.com CEO and co-founder. "AuctionRover.com's revolutionary new price trending feature answers important questions such as: What is the average price for an item I am buying or selling? What are the hottest items? What are the supply and demand dynamics for various items."

AuctionRover.com trends information from all auction sites it searches - eBay (NASDAQ: EBAY), Yahoo! (NASDAQ: YHOO), Amazon.com (NASDAQ: AMZN), MSN (NASDAQ: MSFT) and Auction Universe. Bidders and sellers can view daily and weekly charts showing the prices and volumes of items sold at individual auction sites, or across all auction sites AuctionRover.com searches.

To view this information, users simply click the "Trend Watch" tab on the AuctionRover.com home page. There, along with the listing of items currently being studied, are informative and entertaining articles discussing some of the hot trends in online auctioning.

"We expect heavy usage from our free price trending service, especially since no other auction resource site has the technology to provide anything like it," said Michael Jones, AuctionRover.com Director of Marketing. "But this is only one new feature in an array of new capabilities that AuctionRover.com will provide over the coming weeks."

"Our goal is to maintain our position as the most comprehensive, one-stop auction resource on the Internet," Jones said. "To do this, we will constantly add and enhance features and services that are needed to more easily, enjoyably and efficiently compete in the online auction arena."

Currently for online auction bidders, AuctionRover.com features RocketRover(TM) - an advanced, proprietary cross-auction search engine. This technology provides a comprehensive, categorized and searchable index of the top online auction sites, including eBay, Yahoo!, Amazon.com, MSN and Auction Universe. Auction enthusiasts search more than 800 online auction sites and find anything from antiques to xylophones in record time. Additionally, they can be notified about new items, monitor items of interest, and participate on several different auction sites simultaneously.

AuctionRover.com gives sellers the power to post items across several auction sites - including larger players like those mentioned above - in addition to hosting images and hit counters. These unique advantages ultimately enhance visibility and manageability.

About AuctionRover.com

Founded in July 1999, AuctionRover.com is the one-stop resource for all online auctioning needs. This powerful new site allows buyers to search for items across auction sites, sellers to host images and counters, and provides innovative, relevant content that will keep bidders and sellers informed and entertained. AuctionRover.com recently closed on a round of funding from Draper Atlantic, the East Coast affiliate of Silicon Valley's Draper Fisher Jurvetson. For more information, visit AuctionRover.com at auctionrover.com .

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact