Yale F. Edeiken PUBLIC CENSURE Text and Links V2.0
Ward Cleaver
http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=3870...@news3.enter.net&lr=&hl=en
Archived locally as: YaleSuedTwice
From: "Yale F. Edeiken" <ya...@enter.net>
Subject: KOOK WEBSITE
Date: 2000/01/02
Message-ID: <3870...@news3.enter.net>
"I have never been charged with any unethical activity relating to the
practice of law..."
IS THAT SO? Here you are caught lying once again Yale:
http://padisciplinaryboard.org/attdiscdcd.php?id=40290
(Link active October 29, 2003. Archived locally as: shyster_censured)
Attorney ID - 40290
Edeiken, Yale F.
^^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Attorney Inquiry
Attorney ID Case County District
40290 122 DB 95 Lehigh II Public Censure Administered 10/20/98
^^^^^^^^^
<STOP>
A PDF file is available which gives a report on the above
122 DB 95 against Shyster Yale Fatso Edeiken:
http://padisciplinaryboard.org/attopinion.php?case=122DB95
^^^^^^^
http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/disciplinaryboard/dboardopinions/122DB95.RPT.pdf
(Link active October 28, 2003. Archived locally as: "Edeiken_Gets_His" and
122DB95.RPT)
BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, : No. 403, Disciplinary Docket No.3
Petitioner :
: No. 122DB1995
v. :
:
Attorney Registration No. 40290 :
Yale F. Edeiken Esq., :
885 COLD SPRING ROAD; APARTMENT 2 :
ALLENTOWN, PA 18103 :
610-435-9820 :
Respondent : Lehigh County
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF
THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
TO THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND JUSTICES
OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA:
Pursuant to Rule 208( d)(2)(iii) of the Pennsylvania Rules of
Disciplinary Enforcement, The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania ("Board") herewith submits its findings and recommendations to your
Honorable Court with respect to the above-captioned Petition for Discipline.
I. HISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS
A Petition for Discipline was filed on May 24, 1996 against Respondent,
Yale F. Edeiken, Esquire.
The Petition alleged that Respondent failed to appear for a Private Reprimand
scheduled for December 7, 1995. The Petition charged Respondent with violation
ofPa.R.D.E. 203(b)(2), as well as Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4(d), 1.1 ,
1.3, 1.15(b), and 1.16(d).
A hearing was held on January 9, 1997, before Hearing Committee [ ]
comprised of Chair [ ], Esquire, and Member [ ], Esquire. Respondent was
represented at the hearing by [ ], Esquire. Petitioner was represented by [ ],
Esquire. The Committee filed a Report on September 22, 1997 and recommended a
public censure. No exceptions were filed by the parties.
This matter was adjudicated by the Disciplinary Board at the meeting held on
November 14, 1997.
II. FINDINGS OF FACT
The Board makes the following findings of fact:
1. Petitioner, whose principal office is now located at Suite 3710, One
Oxford Centre, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, is invested, pursuant to Rule 207 of
the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement (hereafter Pa.R.D.E.), with
the power and the duty to investigate all matters involving alleged misconduct
of an attorney admitted to practice law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and
to prosecute all disciplinary proceedings brought in accordance with the various
provisions of the aforesaid Rules.
2. Respondent was admitted to practice law in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania on March 29, 1984.
3. In accordance with Rule 208(a)(5), Pa.R.D.E., it was determined that
Respondent should receive a Private Reprimand with condition as a result of
misconduct arising from his representation of [A] by his grandmother and legal
guardian, [B].
4. By notice dated August 28, 1995, the Secretary of the Disciplinary
Board notified Respondent that a three member panel of the Board had determined
that Respondent should receive a Private Reprimand with condition.
5. The Notice of August 28, 1995, also informed Respondent that he had
the option of attending the Private Reprimand or notifying the Secretary, in
writing, within twenty days of the date of the Notice, that Respondent wished
the matter to be referred for institution of formal proceedings.
6. The Notice included a copy of the Board's Order directing the Private
Reprimand with the following condition:
At least ten days prior to the scheduled private reprimand,
Respondent shall submit proof that he has:
1. Delivered to [B] each and every document relating to his
representation of [B] or her grandson.
2. Provided to [B] the name of his professional malpractice carrier
and policy number, if any.
3. Costs, if any, are to be paid by Respondent.
7. Respondent did not demand that formal proceedings be instituted
against him.
8. As a result of Respondent's failure to demand formal proceedings,
Respondent is deemed to have conclusively violated Rules of Professional Conduct
1.1, 1.3, 1.15(b), and 1. 16(d), as set forth in the Notice of August 28, 1995.
9. By Notice dated November 3, 1995, Respondent was directed to appear
before the Board on December 7, 1995 to receive a Private Reprimand.
10. Respondent received the Board's Notice, which was sent by regular
and certified mail, return receipt requested, to Respondent's office address.
11. Respondent knew he was to appear on December 7, 1995 to receive a
Private Reprimand.
12. Respondent failed to appear and failed to provide proof of his
compliance with the condition.
13. By letter of December 11, 1995, Respondent was directed by James J.
Powell, then Board Chair, to provide good cause for his failure to appear and
noncompliance with the condition.
14. Respondent received the letter, which was sent regular and certified
mail, return receipt requested, to Respondent's address.
15. Respondent was to reply to Board Chair Powell's letter on or before
December 29, 1995.
16. As of the date of the filing of the Petition for Discipline in this
matter, Respondent has not replied to the December 11, 1995 letter.
17. At the disciplinary hearing, Respondent made a statement of remorse
for his actions and testified that he did not show the respect that was owed to
the profession. (N.T. 11)
18. Respondent received an Informal Admonition in 1995 and a Private
Reprimand in 1993.
III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
By his actions as set forth above, Respondent violated the following Rule
of Disciplinary Enforcement and Rules of Professional Conduct:
1. Pa.R.D.E. 203(b)(2) - willful failure to appear before the Board for a
Private Reprimand is grounds for discipline.
2. RPC 8.4{ d) - It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in
conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.
3. RPC 1.1 - A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client.
4. RPC 1.3 - A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness
in representing a client.
5. RPC I.I5(b) - A lawyer shall promptly deliver to the client or third
person any funds or other property the client or third person is entitled to
receive. Upon request from the client or third person, the lawyer shall promptly
render a full accounting.
6. RPC 1.16( d) - Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take
steps to the extent reasonable to protect the client's interests, such as
surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled and refunding
advance payment of fees that has not been earned.
IV. DISCUSSION
This matter is before the Board upon a Petition for Discipline charging
Respondent with violation of Rule 203(b )(2), Pa.R.D.E., because of his failure
to appear for a Private Reprimand. The Petition also alleged violations of Rules
of Professional Conduct based on Respondent's misconduct during the course of
representation of a client, which misconduct led to the original determination
of a Private Reprimand. Respondent stipulated to his failure to appear and the,
underlying misconduct. The issue before the Board is the extent of discipline
warranted by Respondent's misconduct.
Respondent was hired by [B] in 1990 to represent her grandson, [A], with
regard to claims of abuse while in foster care. Respondent never filed an action
of any kind for over two years. In 1992 Respondent was contacted by Attorney
[C], who requested Respondent to turn over the [A] file to him. Respondent
agreed to do this but never returned the file. [C] attempted to contact
Respondent, but he could not be reached although many attempts were made. [B]
filed a complaint against Respondent with the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
Petitioner recommended a Private Reprimand. A three member panel of the
Board determined that a Private Reprimand with condition was appropriate.
Respondent was notified of this determination by Notice of August 25, 1995.
Respondent was advised that he could request formal proceedings if he did not
want to receive the Private Reprimand. Respondent did not request formal
proceedings. By Notice of November 3, 1995, Respondent was notified that the
date of the Private Reprimand was December 7, 1995. Respondent failed to appear
nor did he provide any explanation for his absence.
Respondent's failure to appear before the Board for a Private Reprimand
constitutes an infraction of the Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement and warrants
discipline. Although the underlying misconduct was not egregious, Respondent
further entangled himself in the disciplinary system by avoiding his Private
Reprimand. Respondent admits that his actions were arrogant and arose out of his
belief that the Board was wrong. Respondent further admits that he did not show
the respect that was due to the Board and the profession. Respondent testified
that he appreciates that his failure to appear was a dereliction of his duty as
an attorney.
The facts of this case demonstrate to the Board that public discipline is
appropriate.
Previous cases recognized the necessity for public discipline in
situations such as the instant matter.
In the cases of In re Anonymous No. 67 DB 87,9 Pa. D. & C. 4th 479
(1991) and In re Anonymous No.3 DB 85, 41 Pa. D. & C. 3d 70 (1986), the
attorneys failed to appear for a private reprimands.
Neither attorney had a feasible explanation for the failure to appear
and received a public censure.
Public discipline emphasizes to the attorney that the rules governing
the legal profession may not be trivialized through avoidance of a sanction. The
Board recommends a public censure.
V. RECOMMENDATION
The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania recommends
that the Respondent, Yale F. Edeiken, Esquire receive a public censure from the
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
It is further recommended that the expenses incurred in the
investigation and prosecution of this matter are to be paid by the Respondent.
Respectfully submitted,
THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
By:__________________________
Thomas J. Elliott, Member
Date: February 26, 1998
Board Members Saltz, Nix and Carson recused themselves.
PER CURIAM:
AND NOW, this 20th day of April, 1998, upon consideration of the Report and
Recommendations of the Disciplinary Board dated February 26, 1998, it is hereby
ORDERED that Yale F. Edeiken, Esquire be subjected to a PUBLIC CENSURE by the
Supreme Court.
It is further ORDERED that Respondent shall pay costs to the Disciplinary
Board pursuant to Rule 208(g), Pa.R.D.E.
--end of 122DB1995.PDF--
The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania plainly ruled: "AND
NOW, this 20th day of April, 1998, upon consideration of the Report and
Recommendations of the Disciplinary Board dated February 26, 1998, it is hereby
ORDERED that Yale F. Edeiken, Esquire be subjected to a PUBLIC CENSURE by the
Supreme Court." YET Yale "Fatboy Edeiken has claimed AFTER the date of his
PUBLIC CENSURE: "I have never been charged with any unethical activity relating
to the practice of law..."
Did anyone count all of the "Rules of Professional Conduct" or ethics documented
above Yale F. Edeiken violated?
And let us not forget Yale F. Edeiken in fact was charged and convicted for
assaulting a female deputy sheriff right in his own county courthouse!
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=8cgk8901c82%40news1.newsguy.com&rnum=1
Subject: John Morris Confirms Authenticity of: LEHIGH DEPUTY SAYS LAWYER
HARASSED HER IN SHOVING INCIDENT
Date: 2000/04/06
Message-ID: <8cgk8...@news1.newsguy.com>
References: <26b33bde...@usw-ex0101-005.remarq.com>
http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=26b33bde...@usw-ex0101-005.remarq.com&lr=&hl=en
(Archived locally as: 26b33bde)
<7remes8f7fgvc8lq0...@4ax.com>
<1f6neso4j4ujdp6q7...@4ax.com>
From: John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: LEHIGH DEPUTY SAYS LAWYER HARASSED HER IN SHOVING INCIDENT
Organization: University of Alberta
Reply-To: John....@UAlberta.CA
Message-ID: <1f6neso4j4ujdp6q7...@4ax.com>
http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=1f6neso4j4ujdp6q7...@4ax.com&lr=&hl=en
(Archived locally as: JohnConfirmsShoving_1 and JohnConfirmsShoving_2)
> In <7remes8f7fgvc8lq0...@4ax.com> in alt.revisionism,
> on Wed, 05 Apr 2000 09:17:26 -0400, RiP <Ri...@up.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
:.
> >First it was Ragland who made the 'funny papers' as a criminal and
> >now Yale!
:.
> Now? There's one little part "Brimstone" forgot to include, the date
> of the article:
>
> Date: Wednesday, September 19, 1990
> Page: B02
> Edition: FIFTH
> Section: LOCAL/REGION
Thanks for verifying the authenticity of the article John. Doesn't matter
to me the date it occurred. It establishes that Edeiken gives in to fits
of rage and that is good enough for me as well as any trial held against him.
His history is admissible evidence too you should know!
Lurkers here is the article:
(FREE Preview: http://tinyurl.com/35rhv active May 28, 2004)
LEHIGH DEPUTY SAYS LAWYER HARASSED HER IN SHOVING INCIDENT
by VALERIE HILDEBEITEL, The Morning Call
A Lehigh County deputy sheriff has filed harassment charges
against an Allentown attorney over a courthouse confrontation
that happened last month, Sheriff Ron Neimeyer has confirmed.
The charges against attorney Yale F. Edeiken were filed in the
district attorney's office Wednesday, according to the deputy
involved.
Deputy Brenda Hartman said Edeiken shoved her as she was taking
a female prisoner from a courtroom to a holding cell to await
probation processing on the afternoon of June 12.
Hartman said she took the prisoner into an elevator and Edeiken
and another man followed.
The deputy said Edeiken confronted the man, who was later
identified as the woman's ex-husband, and she ordered both to
stop and that one man leave the elevator.
The ex-husband complied and as he exited, Hartman said, Edeiken
shoved her to the back of the elevator and swung his briefcase
at the man.
Sheriff Neimeyer said the deputy reported the incident to him,
and he sent her to the district attorney's office.
"It certainly was conduct that is not expected," Neimeyer said
Friday. "We're on the same side. My officers are officers of the
court, as is Mr. Edeiken.
"We won't brook that type of conduct from anyone else," the
sheriff said. "Why should we (take it) from him?"
---end of article---
Care to verify that this article is authentic as well John?
http://www.mcall.com/cgi-bin/slwebsto.cgi?DBLIST=mc90&DOCNUM=39046 <Now dead
http://web.archive.org/web/20001120101500re_/www.mcall.com/cgi-bin/slwebsto.cgi?DBLIST=mc90&DOCNUM=39046
(Link active February 1, 2004, Archived locally as: DOCNUM39046)
Date: Wednesday, September 19, 1990
Page: B02
Edition: FIFTH
Section: LOCAL/REGION
Column:
Corrections:
Memo:
CITY ATTORNEY FOUND GUILTY IN ELEVATOR CONFRONTATION
by KRISTIN CASLER, The Morning Call
Allentown attorney Yale F. Edeiken was found guilty and fined $600 plus
costs for a confrontation with a Lehigh County deputy sheriff and another
man in a courthouse elevator.
During the June 12 incident, Edeiken struck Deputy Brenda Hartman with his
briefcase and allegedly threatened the man by saying he had a gun,
according to District Justice Diane Jepsen, who heard the case. Edeiken
later was found to have a permit for and was carrying a .357 Magnum.
Jepsen ordered Edeiken, whose office is at 39 N. 5th St., to pay the fine
after a hearing Monday on charges of harassment and disorderly conduct
filed by Hartman. Jepsen said Edeiken no longer has a permit for his gun.
According to the complaint, Hartman was in the courthouse side elevator,
which usually is reserved for prisoner transport, with Joanne Keller.
Keller, who was not handcuffed, had just been sentenced and Hartman was
taking her to pay fines and costs before her release.
Also on the elevator were Edeiken, David Raymond, public defender Earl
Supplee and county courier Bill Bichel.
Edeiken told Jepsen that Raymond, a convicted felon who had burglarized
him, pushed his way onto the elevator.
But Jepsen said other witnesses testified that Raymond already was on the
elevator when Edeiken boarded and started a shoving match. Witnesses
varied on what was said.
Witnesses said Edeiken called Hartman a whore, but Edeiken said he was
referring to Keller.
Raymond is a friend of Keller, and Keller once resided at a house owned by
Edeiken. Edeiken was at the courthouse as a character witness for Keller
at her sentencing.
Edeiken swung his briefcase at Raymond, striking him and Hartman,
according to testimony.
Hartman opened the elevator doors on the third floor and ordered Edeiken
to get out. He refused, and as Raymond attempted to exit, Edeiken told
Raymond he had a gun and moved as if he was going to draw it. No weapon
was seen.
Raymond and Supplee then went downstairs for help, and Hartman took
Edeiken and Keller to the bullpen where prisoners are held pending their
proceedings, Jepsen said. Hartman told them to stay until she got help.
When she returned, Edeiken was gone.
---end---
~~End of GOOGLE Archive~~
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=6nnnjts00vnb4kfovfuekvejvq8k7pau4j%404ax.com&rnum=5
Subject: How Can I Retract What an Allentown Newspaper Reported and has Been
"Admitted as Fact?" IT'S THEIR WORDS NOT MINE!!!!
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 20:53:26 -0500
Message-ID: <6nnnjts00vnb4kfov...@4ax.com>
(Excerpted)
Return-Path: <ya...@enter.net>
Received: from mail1.enter.net (sourcenat1.bigmailbox.com [209.132.220.250]) by
mailrecv11.bigmailbox.com (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f5SH6MI09103 for
<doc_t...@my-deja.com> ; Thu, 28 Jun 2001 10:06:23 -0700
Received: from oemcomputer (mat-4-8.enter.net [207.16.155.156]) by
mail1.enter.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with SMTP id f5SH6LY27630 for
<doc_t...@my-deja.com> ; Thu, 28 Jun 2001 13:06:21 -0400
From: ya...@enter.net
Message-ID: <001601c0fff6$31c67020$9c9b10cf@oemcomputer>
To: <doc_t...@my-deja.com>
Subject: Fw: Allentown Attorney Goes Amuck in County Courthouse and Goes on a
Spree of Violence
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 13:17:21 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This publication contains defamatory material.
An immediate retraction is demanded.
<<Doc Tavish comment June 28, 2001: Take it up with The Morning Call- they
reported your shoving match and resultant conviction. I am only showing the
link to their archive which has (excerpt) as text...>>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tavish
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>