Mr Impotence

Question:

Do look up the definition of a troll.

I did. It had your DMV picture in the example. —   Bob Kaplow   NAR # 18L   To reply, there’s no internet on Mars (yet)! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle:      http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf     www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/    www.nira-rocketry.org    www.nar.org         S&T is becoming this decades Steve Weaver!

Response:

Do look up the definition of a troll. I did. It had your DMV picture in the example.

Bob. Jan will now call you a liar.

Response:

How surprising, Mark not only tells the lies, he is eager to repeat them. There were no lies. Just truths about you that you do not want to deal with.

So what? You have never proven that it is me.

Response:

This is posted to change the visible title of the thread back to that shown above.

Response:

How surprising, Mark not only tells the lies, he is eager to repeat them. There were no lies. Just truths about you that you do not want to deal with. So what? You have never proven that it is me.

That would be another lie. http://tinyurl.com/zzg7l http://tinyurl.com/outgd http://tinyurl.com/m9qtq http://tinyurl.com/guxbn http://tinyurl.com/jowy4 http://tinyurl.com/mb7eq Don’t you ever get tired of making a complete fool of yourself, Mark? 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