If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Jeff" wrote in message ... "Mark Probert" Mark wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.com... http://www.nativeremedies.com/bright...rder&ovtac=PPC Natural ADHD Remedy As usual, Jan is relying on sales-hype for her "proof". Using my favorite standard, i.e., reading to the first line of utter bull****, one comes to this: "There are many different causes and explanations for the symptoms of ADD including diet, allergies, food intolerances, anxiety, low muscle tone, anxiety, depression, family problems, poor discipline and even some forms of illness." A proper diagnostic work-up, as advocated by the American Academy of Pediatrics, and which is featured on their website, will rule out most of these so-called causes. But these are not causes of ADHD. They are causes of problems with attention. But, problems with attention is a symptom and not a disease. Different mental conditions can cause problems with attention. ADHD is just one. As you point out, if these causes of attention problems are found, a good physician will work to help with the causes. As for the others, some are so nebulous as to make an intelligent person wonder if this company thinks that their customers are utter morons. I don't think they care if their costumers are morons. They care that they have a credit card with available credit. They will throw out whatever crap their costumers will buy. Years ago I got a free can of one of these concoctions from our pediatrician. You mix it with juice, and the kid drinks it. The problem was that it did not dissolve, so it felt like liquid sand. AD/HD kids are often sensitive to such sensations and my son would not drink it. Not being one to waste anything, I used it as fertilized in my garden. The plants died. Our pediatrician gave me a basket of his home grown tomatoes for an apology. No, I did not sue him. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 09:37:37 -0500, "Mark Probert" Mark
wrote: No, I did not sue him. LOL Although he makes himself look even more ridiculous by claiming that the ONLY Mark Probert ... yet alone Mark S Probert in the State of NY is NOT he ... And further claims that there is not a "scintilla" of evidence that this is referring to this same Mark S Probert ... he only augments his lies. He appears to have changed not one scintilla ... just joined with others of his ilk ... since losing his NY Law License: http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/Q...na.htm#Probert http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/P...stProbert.html In the Matter of Mark Probert (Admitted as Mark S. Probert), a Suspended Attorney, Respondent. Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, Petitioner. 92-02731 SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT 183 A.D.2d 282; 590 N.Y.S.2d 747 November 9, 1992, Decided PRIOR HISTORY: [***1] Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District. Respondent was admitted to the Bar on February 15, 1978, at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, under the name Mark S. Probert. DISPOSITION: Ordered that the petitioner's motion to impose discipline upon the respondent based upon his failure to appear or answer is granted; and it is further, HEADNOTES: Attorney and Client - Disciplinary Proceedings Respondent attorney, who is charged with 22 counts of failing to cooperate with investigations of alleged misconduct by the Grievance Committee, and who has failed to answer or appear, is disbarred. COUNSEL: Frank A. Finnerty, Jr., Westbury (Muriel L. Gennosa of counsel), for petitioner. JUDGES: Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Bracken, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur. Ordered that the petitioner's motion to impose discipline upon the respondent based upon his failure to appear or answer is granted; and it is further, Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, effective immediately, the respondent, Mark Probert, is disbarred and his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law; and it is further, Ordered that the respondent shall continue to comply with this Court's rules governing the conduct of disbarred, suspended and resigned attorneys (22 NYCRR 691.10); and it is further, Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary [***2] Law § 90, the respondent, Mark Probert, is commanded to continue to desist and refrain (1) from practicing law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk or employee of another, (2) from appearing as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, Judge, Justice, board, commission or other public authority, (3) from giving to another an opinion as to the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto, and (4) from holding himself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law. OPINIONBY: Per Curiam. OPINION: [*282] [**747] By decision and order of this Court dated September 29, 1989, the respondent was suspended from the practice of law until the further order of this Court based upon his failure to cooperate with the Grievance Committee. By further order of this Court dated June 4, 1992, the Grievance Committee was authorized to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding [*283] against the respondent and the Honorable Moses M. Weinstein was appointed as Special Referee. [**748] A notice of petition and petition was personally served upon the respondent on July 2, 1992. No answer was forthcoming. The petitioner now moves to hold the [***3] respondent in default. The motion was personally served upon the respondent on August 14, 1992. The respondent has failed to submit any papers in response to the default motion. The charges involve 22 counts of the respondent's failure to cooperate with the Grievance Committee in its investigations into complaints of professional misconduct. The charges, if established, would require the imposition of a disciplinary sanction against the respondent. Since the respondent has chosen not to appear or answer in these proceedings, the charges must be deemed established. The petitioner's motion to hold the respondent in default and impose discipline is, therefore, granted. Accordingly, the respondent is disbarred and his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law, effective immediately. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
So what if there is a lawyer with the same name as Mark?
he has nothing to do with this Mark. Please stop your stupid personal attacks. They add nothing to the conversation. Have a great day. Jeff |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 11:03:22 -0500, "Jeff"
wrote: So what if there is a lawyer with the same name as Mark? he has nothing to do with this Mark. LOL ... of course you would believe his lies ... There is ONE Mark Probert in NY ... and ONE Mark S Probert ... you team member ... Good that you never got an unrestricted license to practice medicine .... too bad his poor clients were not protected from his lies. You are an idiot J P Utz ... to believe Probert's lies. This is your good buddy ... Marla Maples Mark S Probert ... and you are as stupid as a rock to believe him. Quackers both of you. Although he makes himself look even more ridiculous by claiming that the ONLY Mark Probert ... yet alone Mark S Probert in the State of NY is NOT he ... And further claims that there is not a "scintilla" of evidence that this is referring to this same Mark S Probert ... he only augments his lies. He appears to have changed not one scintilla ... just joined with others of his ilk ... since losing his NY Law License: http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/Q...na.htm#Probert http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/P...stProbert.html In the Matter of Mark Probert (Admitted as Mark S. Probert), a Suspended Attorney, Respondent. Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, Petitioner. 92-02731 SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT 183 A.D.2d 282; 590 N.Y.S.2d 747 November 9, 1992, Decided PRIOR HISTORY: [***1] Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District. Respondent was admitted to the Bar on February 15, 1978, at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, under the name Mark S. Probert. DISPOSITION: Ordered that the petitioner's motion to impose discipline upon the respondent based upon his failure to appear or answer is granted; and it is further, HEADNOTES: Attorney and Client - Disciplinary Proceedings Respondent attorney, who is charged with 22 counts of failing to cooperate with investigations of alleged misconduct by the Grievance Committee, and who has failed to answer or appear, is disbarred. COUNSEL: Frank A. Finnerty, Jr., Westbury (Muriel L. Gennosa of counsel), for petitioner. JUDGES: Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Bracken, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur. Ordered that the petitioner's motion to impose discipline upon the respondent based upon his failure to appear or answer is granted; and it is further, Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, effective immediately, the respondent, Mark Probert, is disbarred and his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law; and it is further, Ordered that the respondent shall continue to comply with this Court's rules governing the conduct of disbarred, suspended and resigned attorneys (22 NYCRR 691.10); and it is further, Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary [***2] Law § 90, the respondent, Mark Probert, is commanded to continue to desist and refrain (1) from practicing law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk or employee of another, (2) from appearing as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, Judge, Justice, board, commission or other public authority, (3) from giving to another an opinion as to the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto, and (4) from holding himself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law. OPINIONBY: Per Curiam. OPINION: [*282] [**747] By decision and order of this Court dated September 29, 1989, the respondent was suspended from the practice of law until the further order of this Court based upon his failure to cooperate with the Grievance Committee. By further order of this Court dated June 4, 1992, the Grievance Committee was authorized to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding [*283] against the respondent and the Honorable Moses M. Weinstein was appointed as Special Referee. [**748] A notice of petition and petition was personally served upon the respondent on July 2, 1992. No answer was forthcoming. The petitioner now moves to hold the [***3] respondent in default. The motion was personally served upon the respondent on August 14, 1992. The respondent has failed to submit any papers in response to the default motion. The charges involve 22 counts of the respondent's failure to cooperate with the Grievance Committee in its investigations into complaints of professional misconduct. The charges, if established, would require the imposition of a disciplinary sanction against the respondent. Since the respondent has chosen not to appear or answer in these proceedings, the charges must be deemed established. The petitioner's motion to hold the respondent in default and impose discipline is, therefore, granted. Accordingly, the respondent is disbarred and his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law, effective immediately. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"Ilena Rose" wrote in message ... On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 11:03:22 -0500, "Jeff" wrote: So what if there is a lawyer with the same name as Mark? he has nothing to do with this Mark. LOL ... of course you would believe his lies ... http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...senthalFanClub |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 11:03:22 -0500, "Jeff"
wrote: So what if there is a lawyer with the same name as Mark? he has nothing to do with this Mark. LOL ... of course you would believe his lies ... There is ONE Mark Probert in NY ... and ONE Mark S Probert ... you team member ... Good that you never got an unrestricted license to practice medicine .... too bad his poor clients were not protected from his lies. You are an idiot J P Utz ... to believe Probert's lies. This is your good buddy ... Marla Maples Mark S Probert ... and you are as stupid as a rock to believe him. Quackers both of you. Although he makes himself look even more ridiculous by claiming that the ONLY Mark Probert ... yet alone Mark S Probert in the State of NY is NOT he ... And further claims that there is not a "scintilla" of evidence that this is referring to this same Mark S Probert ... he only augments his lies. He appears to have changed not one scintilla ... just joined with others of his ilk ... since losing his NY Law License: http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/Q...na.htm#Probert http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/P...stProbert.html In the Matter of Mark Probert (Admitted as Mark S. Probert), a Suspended Attorney, Respondent. Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, Petitioner. 92-02731 SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT 183 A.D.2d 282; 590 N.Y.S.2d 747 November 9, 1992, Decided PRIOR HISTORY: [***1] Disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District. Respondent was admitted to the Bar on February 15, 1978, at a term of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, under the name Mark S. Probert. DISPOSITION: Ordered that the petitioner's motion to impose discipline upon the respondent based upon his failure to appear or answer is granted; and it is further, HEADNOTES: Attorney and Client - Disciplinary Proceedings Respondent attorney, who is charged with 22 counts of failing to cooperate with investigations of alleged misconduct by the Grievance Committee, and who has failed to answer or appear, is disbarred. COUNSEL: Frank A. Finnerty, Jr., Westbury (Muriel L. Gennosa of counsel), for petitioner. JUDGES: Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Bracken, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur. Ordered that the petitioner's motion to impose discipline upon the respondent based upon his failure to appear or answer is granted; and it is further, Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary Law § 90, effective immediately, the respondent, Mark Probert, is disbarred and his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law; and it is further, Ordered that the respondent shall continue to comply with this Court's rules governing the conduct of disbarred, suspended and resigned attorneys (22 NYCRR 691.10); and it is further, Ordered that pursuant to Judiciary [***2] Law § 90, the respondent, Mark Probert, is commanded to continue to desist and refrain (1) from practicing law in any form, either as principal or as agent, clerk or employee of another, (2) from appearing as an attorney or counselor-at-law before any court, Judge, Justice, board, commission or other public authority, (3) from giving to another an opinion as to the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto, and (4) from holding himself out in any way as an attorney and counselor-at-law. OPINIONBY: Per Curiam. OPINION: [*282] [**747] By decision and order of this Court dated September 29, 1989, the respondent was suspended from the practice of law until the further order of this Court based upon his failure to cooperate with the Grievance Committee. By further order of this Court dated June 4, 1992, the Grievance Committee was authorized to institute and prosecute a disciplinary proceeding [*283] against the respondent and the Honorable Moses M. Weinstein was appointed as Special Referee. [**748] A notice of petition and petition was personally served upon the respondent on July 2, 1992. No answer was forthcoming. The petitioner now moves to hold the [***3] respondent in default. The motion was personally served upon the respondent on August 14, 1992. The respondent has failed to submit any papers in response to the default motion. The charges involve 22 counts of the respondent's failure to cooperate with the Grievance Committee in its investigations into complaints of professional misconduct. The charges, if established, would require the imposition of a disciplinary sanction against the respondent. Since the respondent has chosen not to appear or answer in these proceedings, the charges must be deemed established. The petitioner's motion to hold the respondent in default and impose discipline is, therefore, granted. Accordingly, the respondent is disbarred and his name is stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law, effective immediately. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Adult ADHD is serious problem | M,a,r,k P,r,o,b,e,r,t-September 10, 2004 | Kids Health | 0 | September 10th 04 02:57 PM |
ADHD Meds lead to ????????????? | M,a,r,k P,r,o,b,e,r,t-August 29, 2004 | Kids Health | 0 | August 29th 04 02:54 PM |
A Few Simple Truths About ADHD and Stimulant Drugs | Psi | Kids Health | 28 | April 23rd 04 02:40 PM |
All Natural Products? Fact or Fiction. | Mark Probert-March 20, 2004 | Kids Health | 1 | March 23rd 04 02:16 PM |
Letter to APA 5/03 dubunking BS ADHD | SickofCrazyBS | Kids Health | 0 | November 25th 03 05:48 AM |