From: Jan Drew on

> Jan Drew wrote:
>> "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: Jan Drew on

"Mark Probert" <markprobert(a)lumbercartel.com> wrote
> Jan Drew wrote:
>> "Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname(a)ratbags.com> wrote:
>>> "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
>>
>> Wrong. The source has been posted.

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


From: Jan Drew on

"Mark Probert" <markprobert(a)lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:HhH9g.8$Lz2.3(a)fe10.lga...
> Jan Drew wrote:
>> "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.
>
> Once again, Jan, you provide the proof that you are stalking, harassing
> and annoying me.

If your past behavior annoys you...you have yourself to blame.
>
>>
>> Sad he could not win a case in court... then was dishonest and disbarred.
>
> Once again, Jan, you provide the proof that you are stalking, harassing
> and annoying me.

If your past behavior annoys you...you have yourself to blame.

Your present behavior shows you have not learned a thing.

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


From: Max C. on
Rich wrote:
> For the most part, the "killed soil" theory is a marketing claim of the
> supplement pushers. Soils that are deficient in plant nutrients produce
> stunted plants with poor product yields, so farmers are careful to correct
> soil deficits.

Feel free to attempt to back that up with some evidence. Good luck,
though, because it's 100% wrong. Farmers can get very high crop yields
using the standard NPK farming method. That doesn't mean that the
crops contain the amount of nutrients they could in properly treated
soil. It also doesn't mean those plants will have the trace minerals
they should. Unlike farmers of yesteryear, today's farmers are content
to grow the same crops on the same pieces of land year after year.
Since certain crops need certain nutrients more than others, it's not
hard to understand why those nutrients would be depleted from the soil
if the crops weren't rotated. Additionally, the *ideal* rotation is to
rotate crops with livestock... allowing the livestock to graze in a
field one or two years, adding beneficial fecal matter back into the
soil. The use of certain chemicals also kills off the bacteria living
in the soil that aid in the soil's ability to provide nutrients to
plants. This concept can be seen by anyone willing to test the theory
as I have myself. Get 2 sets of plants. Water one set with tap water
and the other set with filtered water... making sure the chlorine has
been removed. Time after time you will see that the filtered water
plants will grow much better.

But never mind my experiences... as they are only anecdotal. How about
NASA's take on it?

http://soil.gsfc.nasa.gov/fss/soilquar.htm
"The second sign of physical deterioration in the conventionally
cultivated soil is in the color of the soil. Darkness in color of a
soil usually represents the presence of organic matter, which is good
for the soil as it allows the soil to absorb water, improves soil
structure, and adds more natural nutrients to the soil which allow for
plant growth. In comparison to the composted and the forested soils,
the conventionally cultivated soil is the lightest in color- a 10YR4/4,
as determined by the Munsell Soil Color Book."

I highly recommend the rest of that article.

> The article quotes "a recent U.S. study," but does not provide a referrence
> or link. Without any way to validate the authority of this claimed study,
> one must conclude the claims are bullshit.

Well, it took me all of 2 minutes to find it. It's interesting to me
that you'd rather spend 2 seconds to call it "bullshit" than 2 minutes
to find something that could possibly have a profound impact on your
life. It speaks volumes of your position and reason for being here.

> Even if this were true, which I doubt, any needs for supplementation would
> be more than met by taking a cheap daily vitamin from the local drug store
> without consulting any altie quacks or buying expensive products from scam
> internet sources.

I couldn't disagree with you more. Cheap multi vitamins are synthetic
fractions of entire vitamin complexes. Many of them aren't even used
properly by the body. Evidence of this is obvious by taking a
synthetic B vitamin and watching your urine turn neon yellow. When I
take Standard Process's B complex vitamin, I see no change in urine
color.

Add to that the fact that even *IF* the body can use a specific
fractionated vitamin in the multi, it will be far less effective and
beneficial to the body than a food-based supplement containing entire
complexes. Take this study for example:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=12008112&dopt=Abstract

The final sentence of the abstract says this:
"In well-nourished human volunteers, fruits and vegetables have been
shown to decrease oxidative DNA damage in several studies, but data
from short-term human intervention studies suggest that the protective
agents are not vitamin C, vitamin E, beta-carotene, or flavonoids."

Now how could that be? Aren't vitamin C, vitamin E, beta-carotene and
flavonoids beneficial? The answer is that, as in so many other
studies, when you artificially separate out individual components from
the complex in which they belong in order to study that component, you
destroy the natural potency of the complex. Even if you were to
recombine them, they would never be as potent as they were before
separation. As Dr. Royal Lee was so fond of saying, you can give a
chemist a watch. He can break it open, grind it in his mortar and
analyze its individual compounds and tell you what ingredients were
used to make that watch, but he will never be able to make it a
functioning timepiece again. It has been broken.

The same is true with functioning nutrients. This is especially true
of enzymes. To my knowledge, humans have not been able to destroy an
enzyme and then chemically rebuild it. Nor have we been able to
reproduce the complex mechanisms built in to the nutrients of our food.
We have successfully created synthetic fractions of many vitamins, but
most of those fractions are limited to the antioxidant portion of said
vitamin complex. As such, they are inferior to food-based vitamin
supplements.

> >> > Are you saying the chiropractors are scam
> >> > artists?
> >>
> >> The premises that spinal misalignment is the cause of disease and that
> >> "adjustments" are necessary to health, or that a chiropractor is an
> >> alternative choice for a family physician are false and dangerous.
> >
> > I agree with the second, but not the first. The use of chiropractics
> > in the treatment of neurodegenerative disease is not well understood,
> > so there's no way your first statement could be documented to be
> > absolute. Take this link, for example:
> >
> > http://nccam.nih.gov/training/centers/descriptions.htm#chiropractic
> > "The long-range goal of this Developmental Center for Research on CAM
> > is to improve understanding of the clinical role and mechanisms of
> > action of chiropractic spinal manipulation. Three preclinical projects
> > will explore the mechanisms underlying chiropractic manipulation,
> > studying its biological effects on nerve regulation, biomechanics and
> > joints, as well as its effects on behavior. A fourth project will
> > explore variables that predict clinical effectiveness of spinal
> > manipulation in patients with lower back pain. Investigators will use
> > pilot data obtained with the support of this three-year award to submit
> > competitive grant applications to the National Institutes of Health,
> > and will provide research training experiences for future CAM
> > investigators. The Center will build on the progress made at the
> > NCCAM-supported Consortial Center for Chiropractic Research at Palmer
> > Center for Chiropractic Research."
> >
> > That page was last modified yesterday, so I doubt the data from said
> > study is available. It's evidence that spinal misalignment could
> > possibly be the cause of some diseases. I suppose we'll just have to
> > wait and see.
>
> I have a paraplegic friend who wins wheelchair marathons. Try to tell him
> he's not healthy because his spine is out of alignment.

Hmmm... I believe if I were Mark Probert, right about here I'd have to
start screaming "Strawman." I never said you can't be healthy without
a chiropractor. That would be absurd, as chiropractic is a relatively
new idea to the human race. It's right above, but let me say it again
: "It's evidence that spinal misalignment could possibly be the cause
of some diseases." Since I don't know your "friend" I can't possibly
comment on his scenario, nor would I want to, since I have no way of
knowing he exists. Funny how you pro-med guys are constantly resorting
to anecdotal evidence to try to prove a point, but then scream bloody
murder if an "altie" tries to do so.

> > Fair enough, but I question the methods often required to show proof.
> > Just because a given treatment does not have an associated double
> > blinded, placebo controlled study to validate it does not mean it's
> > invalid. In fact, a double blinded, placebo controlled study can often
> > be misleading, since every single human study on the planet is
> > multifaceted by the very nature of studying humans. We're not rats
> > isolated in a cage, and it's very difficult, if not impossible to make
> > 100% sure all variables are accounted for in ANY long-term study.
>
> Science is not perfect, and of course there is a vast unknown. But science
> has proven to be the most effective and efficient way of knowing. Any
> "knowledge" you internalize without the benefit of science is suspect, and
> you should be ready to discard it the instant scientific evidence becomes
> available. By the way, "double blinded placebo controlled" studies are not
> the only methods of modern science. In fact that modality is generally only
> used to test the effectiveness of medications. There is a lot more to
> science than that.

Well, I think we can rest assured that we agree 100% on that last
paragraph.

My problem with science these days is the way it's used to twist the
truth. I'll give you a perfect example. You may or may not be
familiar with this page:

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Tests/ak.html

I'll be the first to admit that Applied Kinesiology is one step shy of
voodoo. Science may NEVER be able to explain some of the things AKers
have been able to accomplish. I have dozens of personal experiences
that boggle the mind. However, while Stephen Barrett appears to use
scientific means to discredit the entire idea of AK, he lacks the
scientific principles to accept a challenge to his position. True
science can't explain how AK works, but it can certainly be used to
VERIFY it works, and such has already been done. Dozens, if not
hundreds of studies have been performed in an attempt to not only prove
AK works, but to understand HOW it works. Anyone interested in
researching it for themselves can start here:

http://icak.com/college/research/icak_compendium_030406.shtml

The International College of Applied Kinesiology has written Barrett in
a good faith effort to debate him on the claims on his site. To my
understanding, Barrett has never replied, much less had the courage to
publicly debate the issue. That's not science. That's junk science.
At times I feel there's more junk science going around today than real
science. After all, someone has to PAY for science.

Max.

From: Max C. on
Mark Probert wrote:
> I consider it an opinion and that is all that I need.
>
> See? I learned your dodge real good!

Ah, so maybe you should cut a slit in the back of your pants so you can
pull your tail out from between your legs. That's not a question
dodge. It's a downright refusal to answer. What's wrong? Got no
snappy comebacks for my questions, or just don't have the answers?

Max.

> > It's an exact account of what happened the first time Dr. Royal Lee was
> > hauled to court by the FDA. The FDA brought "experts" that testified
> > in court that the absence of vitamins and minerals from the human diet
> > could not cause degenerative, functional or infectious disease. I've
> > listened to a lecture of Dr. Lee's explaining the entire case in
> > detail. You can see a sample of his story here:
> >
> > http://www.galaxynutrients.com/category_s/39.htm
> > "This is nothing new for Dr. Nelson. Ten years ago he, with his group
> > of experts, testified in a similar court, that neither degenerative
> > disease, infectious disease, nor functional disease could result from
> > any nutritional deficiency."
> >
> > So, my post did not contain my opinion at all. Now, answer the
> > questions.
> >
> > Max.
> >