I agree Myrl, I'm tired of hearing that old recording.  However,
something was
posted a while back that verified the information.  It wasn't Mark
that posted it,
and I hardly think that there are two Mark S. Proberts  with the same
information
living in the same area married to the same name.

It is old hearing about it.  It's like a warped 45 that doesn't play
well after it has been
played to death or left out in the sun.

Speaking of which, do you know if you leave an old 33-1/3 (the old
kind from the 40's) out in the hot sun,
that you can mold it into a interesting planter?   I thought someone
might be interested in this recycling tip
for those old collectors of Doris Day records that they don't know
what to do with!

On Apr 4, 6:48 pm, "Jan Drew" <jdrew1...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Jan - Why would it be of interest to you or anyone on this newsgroup,
that Mark may have been an attorney - or may not have been an
attorney?

Oh, just the simple fact he lied over and over.
I would think that you would not want lying on this newsgroup.
But wait....YOU are also one.

You have no proof that our Mark Probert is the Mark Probert you wish
to discredit for something that has to do with folks here.

There you go lying, again.

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).

==

If you care to look, you will find Mark himself posting with Mark S Probert
Merrick, NY
at the bottom of his posts.

Myrl, please focus on my original post. That is a serious matter
affecting everyone.