| Jan Drew 2006-10-15, 9:33 pm |
|
"Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:ivrYg.1781$IW6.184@trndny01...
> awthrawthr@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> Didn't you mean to say that you are unable to find a single iota of
> evidence. Sure you did. Just to let you know, I never expected a straight
> answer from you.
Poor Mark just digs a hole deeper and deeper.
Asterisks added for focus.
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
>
>
> The operative words are could be. After that, you need to prove causal
> relationship. You can't, and you will continue to weasel.
>
>
> You would not know the truth if it were inserted proctoscopically, which
> is the most direct route to your "thinking center".
>
>
> Your ability to weasel out of a direct answer is truly pathetic. I have
> seen far better weaselers.
You didn't ever have the guts to weasel.
Because YOU knew YOU were guilty.
Furthermore your denying it shows what a true liar you are.
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
You goofed and showed all your birthday, remember?
Poor, pathetic, Mark![vbcol=seagreen]
>
>
>
> I see. So, do feel free to document how they have changed.
>
> Maybe
>
> I usually look at the survival rates for individual cancers, not cancer as
> a whole. Again, you weasel.
>
>
> Incorrect. With the clock started earlier, survival is made more likely in
> many cancers, like breast cancer.
>
>
> Do try to actually prove that supplements affect the cure rate. Your
> sunrise rant is merely a red herring.
>
>
> In your "reality" there are only two answers.
>
|