Re: Happy Thanksgiving to all

[Mark Probert]

On Nov 26, 9:34 pm, Jan Drew <jdrew63...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 6:37 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 26, 12:12 am, Jan Drew <jdrew63...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 25, 9:30 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 25, 9:24 pm, Jan Drew <jdrew63...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Nov 25, 9:00 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Nov 25, 8:56 pm, Jan Drew <jdrew63...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > The observance of Thanksgiving this week affords us an opportunity to
> > > > > > > put our lives in perspective.
>
> > > > > > > And Happy Birthday to Mark S Probert.
>
> > > > > > Why thank you Jan. It means so much to me, especially after you posted
> > > > > > your usual crap about me.
>
> > > > > I have posted the truth about you. Taken from your very own words.
>
> > > > > > As your birthday present to me, please try to understand that wishes
> > > > > > like this are utterly fucking meaningless when the rest of your posts
> > > > > > abuse, harass and stalk my family and me.
>
> > > > > > You wishes are empty. Just like your head.
>
> > > > > Wow! That's kind and you are using profanity again.
>
> > > > You deserve the unkindness and profanity. Examine YOUR behavior and
> > > > see just how damn hypocritical it is to wish me a happy birthday after
> > > > putting my name in the subject line six times. If you cannot see that,
> > > > show this to your preacher. Maybe he can explin it to you.
>
> > > > Look at it this way, your actions are like the kid who murders his
> > > > family and then pleads for mercy because he is an orphan.
>
> > > > > To color the truth is to lie.
> > > > > To NOT identify a liar is to lie.
> > > > > Habitual liars are damned by God.
>
> > > > That is not so
>
> > > Yes, it is.  You have made that same claim that I have stalked your
> > > family.
> > > Now, prove it.  
>
> > You have posted their identities, their places of business, links to
> > their lives.
>
> No, Mark I reposted what YOU posted.
>
>  YOU have no right to do that. I can, because they are MY
>
> > family, not yours. I do not bring your family into the newsgroup, even
> > though they have had their identities posted by others.
>
> That is a blatant lie.  FACT:
> You have posted about your family many times and even the picture of
> your son's.
> Then, lied and posted you have no children/kids.
>
>
>
> > > Then, kindly shut up.
>
> > Shove it. You just do not like the fact that I call you for what you
> > are.
>
> > > This thread is Happy Thanksgiving to all.-
>
> > You should give thanks I have higher standards than you do.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> You mean like your low atandards of lying,harassing and remaining
> silent when disbarred.
> You lied about that. too.
>
> Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative, alt.health, japan.life.health,
> misc.health
> From: "Mark Probert" <mark_probertREMOVEGARB...@hotmail.com> - Find
> messages by this author
> Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 14:42:31 -0400
> Local: Wed, Jul 17 2002 1:42 pm
> Subject: Re: Mark Probert
> Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
> | Report Abuse
>
> Smith. You must be new. Go to google and read every post of mine. You
> will
> find out that I am into my third career, am the father of two special
> chidlren, married for nearly 30 years, and devoutly believe in fact
> based
> medicine.
>
> http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/propagandistprobert.htmlhttp://www.humanticsfoundation.com/SandraProbert.htm
>
> http://humanticsfoundation.com/DisinfoAgents.htm#ProberttheCowward
>
> 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:  Mark Probert - view profile
> Date:  Sun, Feb 11 2001 4:17 pm
> Email:   Mark Probert <markpr...@my-deja.com>
> Groups:   k12.chat.teacher
>
> Noah has had one since 11/26/96 (my birthday).
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/msg/f06b48baa0...
>
> From: "M,a,r,k P,r,o,b,e,r,t-July 23, 2004" <M,a,r,k P,r,o,b,e,r,t
> 07-23...@lymbercartel.com>
> Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 14:35:11 GMT
> Local: Fri, Jul 23 2004 10:35 am
> Subject: Re: Asbestos Deaths Up
>
> The simple fact is that there is no cover-up regarding asbestos. In
> the
> 1980's, under AHERA, schools nationwide removed tons of it.
> Construction
> companies were forced to perform abatement before renovations or
> demolition.
> There is no doubt that there are very sick people with asbestosis and
> mesothelioma who were exposed to asbestos. I meet several of them
> every
> month and can usually find some documentation of their possible
> exposure so
> they can recevie WC benefits.
>
> Backj in the 1950's and 1960's, there was no idea that asbestos
> exposure
> could be so dangerous. During WWII boat builders at the Navy Yards
> were
> routinely exposed to it, brought the dust home, and exposed their
> families.
> No one knew.
>
> When I was in elementary school, I received a kit from a group in
> Canada,
> where asbestos was mined, called "Asbestos-The Magic Mineral." I
> brought it
> to school for a science project. No one knew.
>
> Once the dangers became known, precautions were put in place, and,
> eventually, abatement was begun. There is far less asbestos in our
> environment to day, and HULDA CLARK HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!
>
> Anyone claiming that there was a cover-up is an liar.
>
> http://www.asbestosnews.com/news/asbestos-exposure.html
>
> Asbestos Exposure News
> "Asbestos cover-up"
> July 16, 2004
> According to an Environmental Protection Agency memo, after the World
> Trade Center collapse, city and federal officials concealed data
> showing lower Manhattan air had more than double the level of asbestos
> considered safe for humans. Despite this, the public was told it was
> safe to return downtown. City tests were so overloaded September 13
> with asbestos in the air that the lab could not conclude asbestos
> levels. The city never released the asbestos information to the
> public, and information on it's Website had 17 instances of
> understated or blank data.
> For more information on asbestos exposure, please contact us.
> More Asbestos Law News....
> =============http://xtramsn.co.nz/business/0,,5008-4090727,00.html
> Execs Charged Over Asbestos Cover-Up
> 08/02/2005 04:50 PM - Reuters - James Vicini
>
> WR Grace & Co and seven current or former executives were charged on
> Monday with conspiring to endanger residents in Libby, Montana, and
> concealing the health risks from asbestos-contaminated vermiculite,
> the US Justice Department said.
>
> According to the indictment returned by a federal grand jury in
> Montana, Grace spread the asbestos throughout the community to such
> locations as commercial buildings and schools, including an outdoor
> ice skating rink, school running tracks and baseball fields.
>
> The 10-count indictment charges the defendants with conspiracy, clean-
> air violations, wire fraud and obstruction of justice involving
> asbestos-related diseases linked to its former vermiculite mining and
> processing operations.
>
> Grace, named in all 10 counts, could face fines of hundreds of
> millions of dollars, a Justice Department official said.
>
> Under the law, a company can be fined for up to twice the gain for
> activities associated with its criminal conduct, the official said.
> The indictment said Grace reaped more than US$140 million in profits
> from asbestos-contaminated vermiculite.
>
> Grace said in a statement that it "categorically denies any criminal
> wrongdoing," and that it was supporting the long-term health care of
> the citizens of Libby.
>
> A specialty chemicals company currently in bankruptcy proceedings,
> Grace operated the vermiculite mine from 1963 to 1990, and it
> continued processing operations until 1992.
>
> The vermiculite, with uses that included insulation, was contaminated
> with a form of asbestos known as tremolite.
>
> According to the indictment, the conspiracy began in 1976 and
> continued until 2002. The conspirators knowingly released asbestos
> into the air, placing at risk families of Grace employees and area
> residents.
>
> "It was a purpose of the conspiracy to increase profits and avoid
> liability by misleading the government and preventing the government
> from using its authorities to protect against risks to human health
> and the environment," the indictment said.
>
> About 1,200 Libby residents so far have been identified as having
> asbestos-related lung abnormalities as a result of being exposed to
> the asbestos from the mine, the 49-page indictment stated.
>
> Libby's population totals about 8,000 people. The indictment said 70
> percent of those with the abnormalities did not work in the mine.
>
> The indictment said Libby's death rate from asbestosis, a scarring of
> the lungs, is 40 to 80 times higher than expected when compared to
> rates for Montana and the United States.
>
> It said the lung cancer rate is about 30 percent higher for the town
> compared with rates in the state and the United States.
>
> Named in the indictment were Alan Stringer, a manager at the Libby
> Mine; Henry Eschenbach, a health and safety expert at WR Grace's
> Industrial Chemicals Group (ICG); and Jack Wolter a vice-president of
> WR Grace's Construction Products Division (CPD).
>
> Also named were William McCaig a maintenance superintendent and
> operations manager at the mine; Robert Bettacchi, a president of the
> CPD unit; Mario Favorito, legal counsel to WR Grace's ICG unit and
> Robert Walsh, with positions that included executive vice president of
> Grace Specialty Chemicals.
>
> Eschenbach declined to comment. Efforts to reach the other defendants
> were not immediately successful.
>
> Grace and 61 of its US subsidiaries and affiliates, filed for
> bankruptcy in April, 2001, under the weight of asbestos lawsuits.
> Members of the US Senate are working on a trust fund to compensate
> asbestos victims and end injury lawsuits.
>
> http://www.kaimin.org/viewarticle.php?id=3934
> Mining company guilty of asbestos cover-up in Libby
> Tristan Scott
> Montana Kaimin
> Top employees of W.R. Grace & Co. knew its Montana mine was releasing
> dangerous cancer-causing asbestos into the air and even conspired to
> hide the known hazards from workers and area residents, according to a
> federal grand jury indictment released Monday.
> The now-closed vermiculite mine in Libby, a small northwest Montana
> town where Grace operated for nearly 30 years, has been tied to nearly
> 200 deaths and infecting many more people with the lung disease
> asbestosis.
> Montana U.S. Attorney Bill Mercer announced the indictment Monday at
> the Missoula County courthouse.
> Seven of the company’s previous and existing employees were indicted
> on 10 counts for conspiracy, violating the federal Clean Air Act, wire
> fraud and obstructing justice.
> The decision is being hailed by environmentalists as one of the most
> important environmental indictments in history.
> Grace and its employees are charged with releasing tremolite asbestos
> — a carcinogen found in vermiculite ore — into the air and hindering
> federal investigations, including a 1999 inspection conducted by the
> Environmental Protection Agency, which former manager Alan Stringer
> tried to inhibit by giving false and misleading information he knew
> was inaccurate.
> According to the 49-page indictment, Grace knew of employee health
> problems as early as 1976, and was privy to studies and reports on the
> dangers of asbestos vermiculite.
> Exposure to asbestos can lead to lung cancer and asbestosis — a
> disease that causes scarring of the lung.
> Knowing the dangers of its product, company officials supplied
> vermiculite to a junior high school for use on its running track and
> lied about it during the EPA’s investigation, according to the
> indictment. The document also cites instances in which the company
> lied about having provided vermiculite insulation to locals for their
> homes, as well as for use at a nearby ice rink.
> The EPA has since declared the mine a Superfund site, and has spent
> more than $55 million on cleanup.
> A dispute over a federal judge’s 2003 ruling that Grace must repay the
> EPA for that amount is ongoing.
> The company was not available for comment Monday.
> Stringer faces up to 70 years in prison, while Jack Wolter, a former
> executive, and Robert Bettacchi, a senior vice president, each face
> maximum prison terms of 55 years.
> The company could face a fine of up to $280 million, twice the amount
> of mining profits earned during its years of operation.
> News of asbestos contamination in Libby first surfaced in 1999 after
> national reports linked the mine’s pollution to the deaths and
> illnesses of nearby residents.
> Grace filed for bankruptcy in 2001 after the company was bombarded
> with asbestos-related lawsuits.
> Vermiculite from the Libby mine was frequently used as attic
> insulation and as an ingredient in fireproofing products, potting
> soils and fertilizers.
> While many former employees have developed asbestosis as a result of
> their direct exposure to the mine, their family members also suffer,
> since the tiny asbestos fibers were brought home on workers’ clothing.http://landofpuregold.com/truth202.htm
> 9/11 Memo Reveals Asbestos 'Cover-Up'
> By Sam Smith, July 16, 2004
>
> An Environmental Protection Agency memo claims city and federal
> officials concealed data that showed lower Manhattan air was clouded
> with asbestos after the World Trade Center collapse.
>
> And officials sat on the alarming information even as they told the
> public it was safe to return downtown, the internal memo says. Testing
> by the city Department of Environmental Protection showed the air
> downtown had more than double the level of asbestos considered safe
> for humans, claimed federal EPA environmental scientist Cate Jenkins,
> who supplied the memo to The Post.
>
> The data, which Jenkins says she culled from state records, appear
> damning. On the day after the attack, the memo claims, city test
> results from the corner of Centre and Chambers streets and from the
> corner of Spruce and Gold streets showed asbestos concentration at
> about twice the level considered safe by the EPA.
> The city did not release this information to the public, Jenkins
> says.
>
> The next day, Sept. 13, city tests were "overloaded" with asbestos in
> the air ­ so much that the lab could not conclude precise amounts ­
> along Church Street.
> Again, the information was withheld, the memo claims.
>
> When the city published the test results for the weeks following 9/11
> on its Web site in February 2002, there were 17 instances where the
> data was either understated or left blank, Jenkins asserts in her
> report.
>
> "New York City could wiggle out of the [claim of] concealment, because
> they weren't making any explicit statements about data at the time,"
> Jenkins told The Post. "But the EPA can't wiggle out of this. They
> said the air was safe at the same time they were coordinating data
> with the city."
>
> To drive her point home, Jenkins compares statements made by the EPA
> on the same day test data was showing dangerous levels of asbestos. On
> Sept. 18, then-EPA administrator Christie Whitman said the public in
> lower Manhattan was not being exposed to "excessive levels of
> asbestos."
>
> That same day, city testing data, some of which was later made public,
> showed asbestos levels 50 percent higher and more above what her
> agency considers safe, the memo states.
>
> http://www.google.com
>
>  Web Results 1 - 10 of about 28,600 for asbestos cover-up. (0.11
> seconds)
>
> Mark Probert" <markprob...@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
> >I received this email this morning. Since the sender used anonymous email,
> >I have no way of verifying it or knowing whether it is true or not. I post
> >the full header for reference.
> > ---------begin quoted material--------
> > Delivered-To: mark.prob...@gmail.com
> > Received: by 10.66.239.8 with SMTP id m8cs80233ugh;
> >         Tue, 28 Nov 2006 08:08:53 -0800 (PST)
> > Received: by 10.90.119.15 with SMTP id r15mr923548agc.1164730133350;
> >         Tue, 28 Nov 2006 08:08:53 -0800 (PST)
> > Return-Path: <jackr...@hushmail.com>
> > Received: from smtp3.hushmail.com (smtp3.hushmail.com [65.39.178.135])
> >         by mx.google.com with ESMTP id
> > f12si25098590qba.2006.11.28.08.08.52;
> >         Tue, 28 Nov 2006 08:08:53 -0800 (PST)
> > Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jackr...@hushmail.com designates
> > 65.39.178.135 as permitted sender)
> > Received: from smtp3.hushmail.com (localhost.hushmail.com [127.0.0.1])
> > by smtp3.hushmail.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 4229BA327A
> > for <mark.prob...@gmail.com>; Tue, 28 Nov 2006 08:08:39 -0800 (PST)
> > Received: from mailserver8.hushmail.com (mailserver8.hushmail.com
> > [65.39.178.61])
> > by smtp3.hushmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
> > for <mark.prob...@gmail.com>; Tue, 28 Nov 2006 08:08:38 -0800 (PST)
> > Received: by mailserver8.hushmail.com (Postfix, from userid 65534)
> > id 3E378DA84A; Tue, 28 Nov 2006 08:08:38 -0800 (PST)
> > Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 11:08:37 -0500
> > To: "Mark Probert" <mark.prob...@gmail.com>
> > Cc:
> > Subject: Re: Jan Drew
> > From: <jackr...@hushmail.com>
> > Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> > Message-Id: <20061128160838.3E378DA...@mailserver8.hushmail.com>
>
> To: 20061128160838.3E378DA...@mailserver8.hushmail.com
>
> > On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 11:03:56 -0500 Mark Probert
> > <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >On 11/28/06, jackr...@hushmail.com <jackr...@hushmail.com> wrote:
> > >> Dear Mr. Probert:
> > >> You do not know me, but I live in Indiana. I am writing to you,
> > >> since you are being attacked by Jan Drew. I know you will
> > >> understand.
> > >> Years ago my parents placed me in a child care center run by Jan
> > >> Drew. It was a nightmare.
> > >> I was physically and verbally abused by her and other people
> > >there.
> > >> When I did not immediately do what they wanted, I was punished.
> > >> Sometimes I was made to stay in a dark closet, other times I was
> > >> not allowed to eat or go to the bathroom. I soiled myself
> > >several
> > >> times and was punished, again, for that.
> > >> The worst part were the spankings with a big paddle They would
> > >make
> > >> me take my pants down and hit my rear with this. Some people
> > >seemed
> > >> to enjoy watching this. On several occasions, someone would
> > >touch
> > >> me, you know where.
> > >> They told me not to tell anyone, or they would report my parents
> > >> for child abuse and have me taken from my home. I was scared to
> > >> death this would happen and stayed silent.
> > >> Finally, after years of this abuse, I told my parents what was
> > >> happening, and they filed a complaint with the State of Indiana.
> > >> The State investigated and closed her down.
> > >> Even to this day, I am still afraid of her, and what she can do
> > >to
> > >> me. She is a mean, hurtful person who should never have been
> > >> allowed to be near children.
> > >> Jack
> > >Dear Jack:
> > >I am sorry to hear about what happened to you. Can I post your
> > >email to
> > >Usenet if I do not display your email address?
> > >Mark Probert
> > Dear Mr. Probert:
> > Yes, you can post this to Usenet, or send it to her ISP, or
> > whatever else you want to do with it. Hushmail will protect my
> > identity.
> > She is a very bad person, and I still have nightmares from what she
> > did to me.
> > Good luck, and I hope you find peace.
> > Jack Reid
>
> For starters.
>
> Now, ready to shup up??