From: Jan Drew on

"Max C." <maxc246(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1147463673.916939.317270(a)j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Mark Probert wrote:
>> (They would not be worn out if *S*o *C*alled *A*lternative *M*edicine
>> had some form of basis in reality.)
>
> So Alternative Medicine is a S C A M? Is that what you're implying by
> emphasizing those letters? Does that apply to all alternative
> therapies? Many, if not most alternative practitioners focus on
> nutrition and its role in human health. Are you saying that good
> nutrition is a scam? Are you saying the chiropractors are scam
> artists? Your sweeping generalization requires some specificity,
> because if you really believe that modern medical professionals are the
> only ones qualified to heal the human body, most readers in the
> alternative news groups will have had enough personal experience with
> alternative practitioners to think of you as a quack.
>
> You see, that's exactly what the pharma hounds and FDA lap dogs of
> yesteryear preached. Many of these "experts" testified in court that
> the absence of vitamins and minerals from the human diet could not
> cause degenerative, functional or infectious disease. Of course, we
> now know beyond a doubt that such testimony is pure rubbish. Even the
> average person on the street understands that vitamins and minerals are
> required for good health.
>
> So, what exactly do you mean by your above statement?
>
> Max.

He doesn't know, it is just his insane need to argue.

Sad he could not win a case in court... then was dishonest and disbarred.


From: marcia on

Jan Drew wrote:
> He doesn't know, it is just his insane need to argue.
>
> Sad he could not win a case in court... then was dishonest and disbarred.

Having a little trouble with the concept of live & let live?

From: Jan Drew on

"marcia" <design1(a)insight.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1147472843.120768.191150(a)d71g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Jan Drew wrote:
>> He doesn't know, it is just his insane need to argue.
>>
>> Sad he could not win a case in court... then was dishonest and disbarred.
>
> Having a little trouble with the concept of live & let live?

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


From: Peter Bowditch on
"Jan Drew" <jdrew1374(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>*Substantial* *real* *solid* *convincing* *hard* *clear-cut* *reasonable*
> *significant* *credibile* *compelling* *copious* *direct*

For those who came in late, this is a list of attributes that Jan
believes are not relevant to evidence.

I especially like the way that she doesn't like the use of the word
"credible". By rejecting this adjective, she is tacitly admitting that
only things which can't be believed should be believed. That's faith
for you.
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
From: Peter Bowditch on
"marcia" <design1(a)insight.rr.com> wrote:

>
>Jan Drew wrote:
>> He doesn't know, it is just his insane need to argue.
>>
>> Sad he could not win a case in court... then was dishonest and disbarred.
>
>Having a little trouble with the concept of live & let live?

Marcia, you have to realise that in altworld everyone with the same
name is the same person. Jan says that this Mark Probert is that Mark
Probert (without any evidence except that Ilena Rosenthal said it
first), Mr William P O'Neill of the decaying Canadian Cancer Research
Group says that the Aborigine Peter James Bowditch who was drunk at a
football match in Darwin in 1986 is the now-white Peter James Bowditch
who types before you.

As your name is Marcia I must assume that you are the Marcia who is a
judge on Australian Idol. Love your work, and have done so since you
first appeared in Australia in the cast of Hair.

Which brings us back to something else that Jan doesn't know, but that
is a matter for another thread and another day.
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com