From: Jan Drew on
On May 24, 5:59�pm, Bob Officer <boboffic...(a)127.0.0.7> wrote:
> On Mon, 24 May 2010 08:12:55 -0500, in misc.health.alternative, David
>
> <m...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >Peter Parry wrote:
> >> Andrew Wakefield has today been struck off the medical register for
> >> serious professional misconduct . �The GMC said he acted in a way that
> >> was dishonest, misleading and irresponsible and that there were
> >> "multiple separate instances of serious professional misconduct".
>
> > �Since the profit takers have struck him, You think that it means that
> >he was wrong. You missed the part where they say it was not for the
> >science behind his work. But you and those like you do not care for real
> >science do you? Why do you hate everyone?
>
> David it was for the Procures and ethics.
>
> The other parties involved with his research have admitted there was
> no science behind his work. When a person fakes or creates the data
> from Whole Cloth, there is no science behind his work.
>
> Really, David, You need to learn to read.

Read this.

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




http://www.nylawfund.org/pubs/97AnRep.pdf


>
> --
> Bob Officer

Posing lies and spam.

From: Jan Drew on
On May 24, 6:00�pm, Mark Probert-Drew <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 24, 1:08�pm, Peter Parry <pe...(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 24 May 2010 06:51:07 -0700 (PDT), Mark Probert-Drew
>
> > <mark.prob...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > >He can act as a consultant, but will be nuked on cross examination.
>
> > In the UK at least he would not be able to act as an expert witness in
> > a court.
>
> he would be subject to voir dire, and the Frye and Daubert cases would
> get him tossed. However, no attorney in their right midn would use
> him. The atttorney would be opening themselves up for malpractice.

lol. The disbarred lawyer is not in his right mind. Not midn.

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




http://www.nylawfund.org/pubs/97AnRep.pdf
From: Mike on
Peter Parry wrote:
> Andrew Wakefield has today been struck off the medical register for
> serious professional misconduct . The GMC said he acted in a way that
> was dishonest, misleading and irresponsible and that there were
> "multiple separate instances of serious professional misconduct".
>

In somewhat related news, Dr. Mary Jean Brown has NOT been struck off
the medical register and was NOT removed from her position despite
egregious scientific fraud harming thousands of children and adults in
Washington, DC. Specifically, this Chief of the Lead Poisoning
Prevention at CDC intentionally lied about - what else? - lead
contamination of tap water.

"the CDC paper analyzed the blood of children and adults living with
lead levels in their tap water 20 times the amount raising concern --
and said not one was suffering from elevated lead. Brown and her
co-authors knew, however, that most of those tested had been drinking
*bottled* or *filtered* water before their blood was analyzed."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/19/AR2010051902599.html?wprss=rss_nation

That just demonstrates that such punishments do not necessarily
have anything to do with professional misconduct.
From: Mark Probert-Drew on
On May 24, 7:17 pm, Jan Drew <jdrew63...(a)aol.com> wrote:
> On May 24, 5:58 am, Peter Parry <pe...(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:
>
> > Andrew Wakefield has today been struck off the medical register for
> > serious professional misconduct . The GMC said he acted in a way that
> > was dishonest, misleading and irresponsible and that there were
> > "multiple separate instances of serious professional misconduct".
>

I am not the subject of this thread.

You cannot stand the fact that he was de-licensed for good cause shown
and have to put up a smokescreen.

From: Mark Probert-Drew on
On May 24, 7:29 pm, Jan Drew <jdrew63...(a)aol.com> wrote:
> On May 24, 4:57 pm, dr_jeff <u...(a)msu.edu>
>
> <...>
>
> Is still lying.  He is not a doctor.

According to what Wakefield told Matt Lauer, and it is on line and I
have posted the link, you are wrong.