Haley and Geier excluded as witnesses

1. Probert was EXCLUDED from practicing law in NY ... disbarred and 6
of his disgruntled former clients were paid from the NY Law Fund for
his perfidy.

2. His quackwatch team has been active for years in attempting to
exclude expert witnesses who did not conform to the Pharma Con Med
Model ...

3. One very important case where change has been under way against the
raging quack team led by Barrett was in the Dr. Robert Sinaiko VICTORY
....

www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/Sinaiko.htm

4. In the breast implant legal cases ... excellent scientists who also
went against the Con Med Model have been excluded and the science
turned upside down and backwards ... might does not make right.

http://www.BreastImplantAwareness.or...WatchWatch.htm

However, on November 25, 2003, Special Master French praised Geier’s
credentials and vast experience and said Dr. Geier "ranks high among
those who have studied vaccine issues through the medical literature
on vaccines, databases, studies, articles and information on vaccine
safety and efficacy in vaccine policy. The tenor of his testimony in
this case addressed the importance of statistical databases in
providing statistical reliability and validity in interpreting the
epidemiology and issues relating to autism and various vaccines...Dr.
Geier has recently proposed a data-sharing process that would improve
the reliability of present statistical data that would include the
present VAERS statistical database. It would be helpful in
interpreting the epidemiology and issues relating to the autism
controversy." [8]


Furthermore, Dr. Geier's testimony has been found to be relevant and
credible, and resulted in petitioner's prevailing before the National
Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in decisions reached in each of
the following cases:

Alger v HHS - Special Master Baird

Allen v HHS - Special Master Hauptly

Bailey v HHS - Special Master Gerard

Batdorf v HHS - Special Master Bernstein

Caouette v HHS - Chief Special Master Golkiewicz

Ciotoli v HHS - Special Master Wright

Cline v HHS - Special Master Bernstein

Davis v HHS - Special Master Wright

Dileo v HHS - US Federal Court of Claims Judge Margolis

Essex v HHS - Special Master Wright

Estep v HHS - US Federal Court of Claims Judge Margolis

Estep v HHS - Special Master Baird

Freeman v HHS - Chief Special Master Golkiewicz

Gonzales v HHS - Special Master Abell

Gowan v HHS - Special Master French

Grant v HHS - Chief Special Master Golkiewicz

Grant v HHS - US Federal Court of Claims Judge Tidwell

Hailey v HHS - Special Master French

Ionescu v HHS - Special Master Hastings

Lambert v HHS - Special Master Wright

McClendon v HHS - US Federal Court of Claims, Chief Judge Archer

McClendon v HHS - US Federal Court of Claims Judge Gibson

McDermott v HHS - Special Master Hastings

Misenko v HHS - Special Master Millman

Monteverdi v HHS - Special Master Gerard

Newton v HHS - Special Master Gerard

Oetting v HHS - Special Master French

Overgard v HHS - Special Master French

Pollard v HHS - Special Master Bernstein

Pusateri v HHS - Special Master French

Raines v HHS - Special Master Hauptly

Richardson v HHS - US Federal Court of Claims Judge Andewelt

Richardson v HHS - Special Master French

Riggs v HHS - Special Master French

Sanders v HHS - Special Master Wright

Seman v HHS - Special Master Baird

Siegfried v HHS - Special Master Baird

Sumrall v HHS - US Federal Court of Claims Judge Turner

Sumrall v HHS - Special Master French

Tafoya v HHS - Chief Special Master Golkiewicz

Thomas v HHS - Special Master French

Waugh v HHS - Special Master Wright

Wolf v HHS - Special Master French

"BreastImplantAwareness.org" wrote in message
...
However, on November 25, 2003, Special Master French praised Geier's
credentials

Who the hell is this fellow, and what does he know about anything? No
"argument from authority" means much in this case, anyway. Anyone who
understands the VAERS database, even this simple surgeon, can point out the
glaring defects in the Geier's interpretation.

It is very refresshing to find the law courts using a stricter understanding
of science..

Peter Moran

Peter Moran wrote:
"BreastImplantAwareness.org" wrote in message
...
However, on November 25, 2003, Special Master French praised Geier's
credentials

Who the hell is this fellow, and what does he know about anything?

A special master is similar to a judge where they make findings of fact.
I believe that the Federal law which provides for compensation
authorizes their use in these cases.

Also see:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule53.htm


No
"argument from authority" means much in this case, anyway. Anyone who
understands the VAERS database, even this simple surgeon, can point out the
glaring defects in the Geier's interpretation.

It is very refresshing to find the law courts using a stricter understanding
of science..

Interesting comment, Peter. Kevin Leitch mentioned that the trend in the
proceedings before a Special Master in the vaccine cases has been to
tighten up under the Daubert rule. You can read his analysis of the case
he

http://www.kevinleitch.co.uk/wp/index.php?p=393

and the original decision of the District Court, he

http://www.neurodiversity.com/court/rhogam_decision.pdf

The Omnibus Thimerosal suit has reached the point where the parties have
provided the Special Master with lists of their experts. I suspect that
there will be numerous Daubert hearings in the near future on the
admissibility of these experts. I think that the plaintiffs experts will
wind up, for the most part, being excluded under the Daubert principles,
as describe in the decision I mentioned above. It appears that their
testimony is based on each others opinions, etc. and, constitutes a
house of cards.

This does explain why Geier is churning out "studies" so that he can
support his testimony in some other manner.

"Peter Moran" wrote in message
u...


Who the hell is this fellow, and what does he know about anything?


http://www.whale.to/a/geier1.html

john wrote:
"Peter Moran" wrote in message
u...

Who the hell is this fellow, and what does he know about anything?


http://www.whale.to/a/geier1.html

John, your website would not be complete without including this quote
directly from the decision:

?The Court heard testimony concerning Defendant's motions to exclude
witnesses for three days at the end of May 2006. Based upon the
testimony at that hearing, the Court will grant Defendant's Motion to
Exclude All Testimony that Thimerosal-Containing RhoGAM Causes Autism.
More specifically, the focus of the Court's present Memorandum Opinion
is the testimony of Plaintiffs' expert witness, Dr. Mark Geier. Dr.
Geier was the only expert offered in this case by Plaintiffs who is
designated to testify as to both general and specific causation. For the
reasons given by the Court herein, Dr. Geier's testimony is specifically
being excluded pursuant to Defendant's Motion to Exclude. As such,
without Dr. Geier's testimony, Plaintiffs are unable to meet their
burden to demonstrate that the thimerosal in Defendant's RhoGAM product
caused Plaintiff Minor Child Doe 2's autism, a result that leads
directly to the failure of all of Plaintiffs' claims. Accordingly, for
the reasons detailed below, the Court will also grant Defendant's Motion
for Summary Judgment."

IOW, Geier's testimony was so utterly lacking in quality that the court
excluded it, and, the plaintiff's lost because of it.

Now the defendant's will seek court cost, and, hopefully, this suit will
make attorneys think twice before taking such cases, and/or using Geier.

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...
john wrote:
"Peter Moran" wrote in message
u...

Who the hell is this fellow, and what does he know about anything?


http://www.whale.to/a/geier1.html

John, your website would not be complete without including this quote
directly from the decision:

?The Court heard testimony concerning Defendant's motions to exclude
witnesses for three days at the end of May 2006. Based upon the testimony
at that hearing, the Court will grant Defendant's Motion to Exclude All
Testimony that Thimerosal-Containing RhoGAM Causes Autism. More
specifically, the focus of the Court's present Memorandum Opinion is the
testimony of Plaintiffs' expert witness, Dr. Mark Geier. Dr. Geier was the
only expert offered in this case by Plaintiffs who is designated to
testify as to both general and specific causation. For the reasons given
by the Court herein, Dr. Geier's testimony is specifically being excluded
pursuant to Defendant's Motion to Exclude. As such, without Dr. Geier's
testimony, Plaintiffs are unable to meet their burden to demonstrate that
the thimerosal in Defendant's RhoGAM product caused Plaintiff Minor Child
Doe 2's autism, a result that leads directly to the failure of all of
Plaintiffs' claims. Accordingly, for the reasons detailed below, the Court
will also grant Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment."

IOW, Geier's testimony was so utterly lacking in quality that the court
excluded it, and, the plaintiff's lost because of it.

Now the defendant's will seek court cost, and, hopefully, this suit will
make attorneys think twice before taking such cases, and/or using Geier.

Did you think twice?

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

Source:

NY UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM, ATTORNEY REGIST. UNIT

Currency Status:

ARCHIVE RECORD

NAME & PROFESSIONAL INFORMATION

Name:

MARK PROBERT

Date Of Birth:

11/XX/1946

Gender:

MALE

Address:

1698 WEBSTER AVE

MERRICK, NY 11566

County:

NASSAU

Phone:

516-968-5572

EMPLOYER INFORMATION

Employer:

MARK S PROBERT ESQ

Organization:

PERSON

LICENSING INFORMATION

Licensing Agency:

NY STATE OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION

License/Certification Type:

ATTORNEY

License Number:

1253889

Issue Date:

00/00/1978

License Status:

DISBARRED

License State:

NY

john wrote:
"Peter Moran" wrote in message
u...

Who the hell is this fellow, and what does he know about anything?


http://www.whale.to/a/geier1.html

Oy vey, the kiss of death.

"Mark Probert" wrote:

http://groups.google.com/group/misc....6202cbf?hl=en&

Mon, Jun 5 2006

placing a person's name in a new thread is stalking and harassment.


john wrote:
"Peter Moran" wrote in message
u...

Who the hell is this fellow, and what does he know about anything?


http://www.whale.to/a/geier1.html

Oy vey, the kiss of death.