Natural ADHD Remedy

"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.

Jeff

"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.

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.

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

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.

"Ilena Rose" wrote in message
...



http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...senthalFanClub

"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

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.

"Ilena Rose" wrote in message
...


http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...senthalFanClub

"Ilena Rose" wrote in message
...



http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...senthalFanClub