Bradshit's lies again
david...@my-deja.com
I am delighted to be in excellent shape and can outperform you in any
athletic event or any exercise involving intelligence.
You are physically and mentally ill and soon to be sleeping out of
cardboard boxes
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Neo
<david...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8qdbe7$1or$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> 100% AIDS free here,
>
> I am delighted to be in excellent shape and can outperform you in any
> athletic event or any exercise involving intelligence.
>
> You are physically and mentally ill and soon to be sleeping out of
> cardboard boxes
>
LMFAO
Neo
--
"At its worst, college will reinforce an inbred intellectual
smugness, dress it in facts, and provide you with a document
asserting your immunity to all future intellectual experience."
Paul Lutus
alg...@freedom.net
<david...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8qdbe7$1or$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> 100% AIDS free here,
>
> I am delighted to be in excellent shape and can outperform you in any
> athletic event or any exercise involving intelligence.
>
> You are physically and mentally ill and soon to be sleeping out of
> cardboard boxes
And Ill bet that even then the neighbors will be complaining about him
lowering the property values of the neighborhood.
Stephen R Gould
news:8qdbe7$1or$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> 100% AIDS free here,
>
> I am delighted to be in excellent shape and can outperform you in any
> athletic event or any exercise involving intelligence.
>
> You are physically and mentally ill and soon to be sleeping out of
> cardboard boxes
>
SRG
Buster Cherry
>100% AIDS free here,
>
>I am delighted to be in excellent shape and can outperform you in any
>athletic event or any exercise involving intelligence.
>
>You are physically and mentally ill and soon to be sleeping out of
>cardboard boxes
YOU WANT TO BITE THE HEAD OF BRADBURY'S COCK OFF AND SUCK THE BLOOD DON'T
YOU JOYBOY? DOES YOUR MOTHER KNOW WHAT A COCK EATER YOU ARE? DOES SHE
TAKE HER DENTURES OUT AND SUCK COCK WITH YOU?
Yale F. Edeiken
Stephen R Gould <srg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:F9Ay5.1821$tl2.1...@bgtnsc07-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Since he weighed in at his last visit to Hermann Hospital at well over
300 lbs., the plural is more likely.
--YFE
The Holocaust History Project is at http://www.holocaust-history.org/
The Einsatzgruppen page is at http://www.pgonline.com/electriczen/
The Cybrary of the Holocaust is at http://www.remember.org/
Buster Cherry
>
>Stephen R Gould <srg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:F9Ay5.1821$tl2.1...@bgtnsc07-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>> <david...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>> news:8qdbe7$1or$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> > 100% AIDS free here,
>> >
>> > I am delighted to be in excellent shape and can outperform you in any
>> > athletic event or any exercise involving intelligence.
>> >
>> > You are physically and mentally ill and soon to be sleeping out of
>> > cardboard boxes
>> >
>> That's "box" singular - the other one's for Don Ellis.
>
> Since he weighed in at his last visit to Hermann Hospital at well over
>300 lbs., the plural is more likely.
LOOKS LIKE YOU POSTED SUBPOENAED INFORMATION. MEDICAL RECORDS ARE
ARE CONFIDENTIAL TOO. YOUR MOTIVE FOR POSTING WHAT BRADBURY WEIGHS
WAS MEANT TO BE DEFAMATORY.
YOU FUCKED UP BIG TIME NOW KIKE AND I AM SURE THAT BRADBURY WILL
REPORT YOU. YOU ARE DEFINITELY ON YOUR WAY TO DISBARRMENT KIKE.
Doc Tavish
said Yale F. Edeiken has once again made subpoenaed information public
again! What are the penalties for an unscrupulous and unethical attorney
to subpoena medical records and then make certain details available to the
public and in an obvious move to be defamatory!?
Does the term disbarment come to mind?
The following abuse of the legal system was made by:
Yale F. Edeiken -- Attorney at Law - Allentown Pennsylvania
Supreme Court ID# 40290 <http://www.enter.net/walker.html>
From: "Yale F. Edeiken" <ya...@enter.net>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Bradshit's lies again
Special note: Bradshit is what attorney Yale F. Edeiken refers to me as in
public forum which is also a violation of the disciplinary rules as
detailed here:
http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/pa-code/query=*/doc/{@161}?
Pennsylvania Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct (1999 edition)
Rule 3.6 Trial Publicity
(a) A lawyer shall not make an extrajudicial statement that a reasonable
person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication if
the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that it will have a substantial
likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding.
(b) A statement referred to in paragraph (a) ordinarily is likely to have
such an effect when it refers to a civil matter triable to a jury, a
criminal matter, or any other proceeding that could result in
incarceration, and the statement relates to:
(1) the character, credibility, reputation or criminal record of a party,
suspect in a criminal investigation or witness, or the identity of a
witness, or the expected testimony of a party or witness;
<end>
Yale wants a jury trial YET he's prejudicing some of his "witnesses" he's
intending to call by means of these public communications! My attorney has
also been informed of this unethical activity by Edeiken.
On 22 Sep 2000 07:28:55 GMT, fw_c...@my-deja.com (Buster Cherry) wrote:
>On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 03:42:52 GMT, "Yale F. Edeiken" <ya...@enter.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>Stephen R Gould <srg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>>news:F9Ay5.1821$tl2.1...@bgtnsc07-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>> <david...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>>> news:8qdbe7$1or$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>>> > 100% AIDS free here,
>>> >
>>> > I am delighted to be in excellent shape and can outperform you in any
>>> > athletic event or any exercise involving intelligence.
>>> >
>>> > You are physically and mentally ill and soon to be sleeping out of
>>> > cardboard boxes
>>> That's "box" singular - the other one's for Don Ellis.
Yale F. Edeiken now makes known a detail of my medical records:
>> Since he weighed in at his last visit to Hermann Hospital at well over
>>300 lbs., the plural is more likely.
>LOOKS LIKE YOU POSTED SUBPOENAED INFORMATION. MEDICAL RECORDS
>ARE CONFIDENTIAL TOO. YOUR MOTIVE FOR POSTING WHAT BRADBURY WEIGHS
>WAS MEANT TO BE DEFAMATORY.
>
>YOU FUCKED UP BIG TIME NOW KIKE AND I AM SURE THAT BRADBURY WILL
>REPORT YOU. YOU ARE DEFINITELY ON YOUR WAY TO DISBARRMENT KIKE.
This blatant move to further violate my right to privacy has already been
FWD to my attorney with the explicit instructions that Yale F. Edeiken be
reported to the proper authorities.
Disciplinary Rules of the State of Pennsylvania state:
Rule 8.3. Reporting Professional Misconduct.
(a) A lawyer having knowledge that another lawyer has committed a
violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial
question as to that lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a
lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate professional
authority.
Rule 8.4. Misconduct.
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
(a) violate or attempt to violate the rules of professional conduct,
knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of
another;
(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty,
trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;
In other words my own attorney will be subjected to disciplinary measures
if he does not report this ongoing gross misconduct!
My attorney has also been compelled as of late to report Edeiken for
distribution of my unlisted address and unlisted telephone number obtained
by use of subpoena which is detailed here:
http://x72.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=664516757
"Disciplinary Rules and a Bold Faced Pathological Liar -- Yale F. "Tubby"
Edeiken"
My attorney has also been compelled as of late to hold Yale F. Edeiken to
his written agreement (which he did agree to) to not make any more direct
contact with me as detailed here: <Same Link as Above>
My attorney has also been compelled as of late to hold Yale F. Edeiken
accountable for his making an obscene threatening telephone call to my
residence while in the capacity of the plaintiff's (himself) attorney
as detailed here: http://x70.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=671805963
"MUST READ!! Tubby's Denial of Making an Obscene Telephone Call and
Disciplinary Rule Violations aka Re: ATTENTION Don Ellis and Pat Blakely
<2> - YFE Telephone Threat .ra (0/1)" Anyone who cares to listen to this
shyster slug's criminal threats just request it from me
<doc_t...@my-deja.com> and I will e-mail you an ~96kb Real Audio clip
of the beast making vul;gar threats past 1:00am in the morning!
Again I ask-- Does the term disbarment come to mind?
Does Yale F. Edeiken bring honour to the State of Pennsylvania's legal
system? How much does he adhere to this?
http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/pa-code/query=*/doc/{t2}?
"Pennsylvania Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct (1999 edition)"
INTRODUCTION
Preamble: A Lawyer's Responsibilities
A lawyer is a representative of clients, an officer of the legal system
and a public citizen having special responsibility for the quality of
justice... A lawyer's conduct should conform to the requirements of the
law, both in professional service to clients and in the lawyer's business
and personal affairs. A lawyer should use the law's procedures only for
legitimate purposes and not to harass or intimidate others. A lawyer
should demonstrate respect for the legal system and for those who serve
it, including judges, other lawyers and public officials."
Does the making of obscene telephone calls, making known subpoenaed
confidential information, making defamatory remarks against another person
in public forum fit with the spirit of the above document and its rules?
Does Yale F. Edeiken bring honour and quality to Pennsylvania! NO!
A question to any attorney reading this-- would you want this despicable
booger to be a law partner of yours?
Signed,
A Victim
>> --YFE
Patrick L. Humphrey
wrote:
>said Yale F. Edeiken has once again made subpoenaed information public
>again! What are the penalties for an unscrupulous and unethical attorney
>to subpoena medical records and then make certain details available to the
>public and in an obvious move to be defamatory!?
It's not surprising you'd do a 180 so fast, Scottie -- you don't have a life
outside of Usenet, anyway. As for your assertion, for all you know, he could
have taken a look at your driver's license information -- that *is* public,
you know.
>Does the term disbarment come to mind?
The term "raving fruitcake" comes to mind when I see one of your rants,
Bradbury. Looks like the court up there in Pennsylvania sees it that way, too
-- that's why you lost.
--PLH, and that's why I'll be pedaling through Bellville next April knowing I
have nothing to fear from any of the town's residents
Yale F. Edeiken
Doc Tavish <doc_t...@NOSPAMscottsmail.com> wrote in message
news:s3nmsssfdsv6brdd8...@4ax.com...
> I was going to take off for a little R & R and then I get an e-mail which
> said Yale F. Edeiken has once again made subpoenaed information public
> again! What are the penalties for an unscrupulous and unethical attorney
> to subpoena medical records and then make certain details available to the
> public and in an obvious move to be defamatory!?
Wrong again, Bradshit.
1. Subpeonad information is NOT confidential. You must petition the
court to place t under seal. You had advance notice of my intention to
serve the subpoean and of the subpeonna itself. You made no objection.
2. The material is NOT confidential as you invited the public to liik
at it. Most recently on September 21, 2000, you posted the following
invitation to the public to review your medical records from Hermann
Hospital stating:
"You think I made the above up to escape your deposition but the order
about my NOT driving was issued December 22, 1999 or eight whole days
before I had an official notice that you had even filed a lawsuit! If you
wish to verify this then contact:
Hermann Hospital
Medical Records
P.O. Box 200758
Houston, Texas 77216-0758
"The discharge document which has an area on it which says:
"Resumption of Normal Activities" has entered:
Date you can return to work: HOLD
Date you can resume driving a car: HOLD
Date you can resume your normal sexual activities: 12/22/99
(At least they didn't want me to be miserable on top of not being able to
work or drive! :-) Tavish comment)
The release document is dated 12/22/99 and its number is:
50 04882 6 9356"
Having invited the public to look at them you can no longer claim that
they are "confidential."
Now perhaps you will explain why the discharge summary, WGICH YOU
QUOTED, has no restriction against travelling?
The remainder of this delusional and dishonest post from the diseased mind
of Scott Bradbury (doc_t...@my-deja.com) writing under the name of "Doc
Tavish" is deleted as the garbage that it is.
Scott Bradbury of Bellville, Texas, is well-know for his tortured
perversion of Christianity which he espouses and for spamming his barely
coherent ravings to dozens of unrelated newsgroups. He is a notorious liar
and anti-Semite whose activities are characterized by utter dishonesty and
include such criminal activities as forging the posts of others and issuing
death threats. He has threatened one person who exposed his lies with
sexual molestation, torture, death and mutilation. There is, of course, not
a word of truth in the venom he spews so freely.
For a refutation of this and his other lies about the Talmud and Judaism
consult:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Cyprus/8815/
For a humorous take on the ravings of this madman see:
http://internettrash.com/users/satireworld/tartindex.html#hooligan
Allan Matthews
Bradbury, cowering ineffectively behind doc_t...@NOSPAMscottsmail.com,
spewed:
[Boogerman's silly whining snipped]
> Yale F. Edeiken now makes known a detail of my medical records:
> >> Since he weighed in at his last visit to Hermann Hospital at well over
> >>300 lbs., the plural is more likely.
>
> >LOOKS LIKE YOU POSTED SUBPOENAED INFORMATION. MEDICAL RECORDS
> >ARE CONFIDENTIAL TOO.
If the information was subpoenaed then it becomes a public court
document. In other words, it's a matter of public record now that
you're a big-time lard butt, Snottie.
Also, as you have been told many times, Blimpy, the truth cannot be
defamatory, as it's THE TRUTH!
Guess we now know why you're so good at hog calls, Boogerman. They're
aimed at you freqently by mistake.
ROTFL!!
Stay lame Blimpy. You're great entertainment.
And remember kids - don't be like "Sieg Heil" Scottie - STAY IN SCHOOL!
[Snottie's abusive cross-posting trimmed]
allan
--
allan_m...@bigfoot.com
=========================================
"Did you make mankind after we made you?"
- from XTC's "Dear God"
=========================================
http://www2.shore.net/~matthews/
Yale F. Edeiken
Allan Matthews <allan_m...@bigfoot.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.143547621...@news.ne.mediaone.net...
> In article <s3nmsssfdsv6brdd8...@4ax.com>, Scott "Blimpy"
> Bradbury, cowering ineffectively behind doc_t...@NOSPAMscottsmail.com,
> spewed:
>
> [Boogerman's silly whining snipped]
>
> > >> Since he weighed in at his last visit to Hermann Hospital at well
over
> > >>300 lbs., the plural is more likely.
> >
> > >LOOKS LIKE YOU POSTED SUBPOENAED INFORMATION. MEDICAL RECORDS
> > >ARE CONFIDENTIAL TOO.
>
> document. In other words, it's a matter of public record now that
> you're a big-time lard butt, Snottie.
>
And, as you forgot to mention Bradshit asked everybody to read his
discharge summary.
> Also, as you have been told many times, Blimpy, the truth cannot be
> defamatory, as it's THE TRUTH!
>
> Guess we now know why you're so good at hog calls, Boogerman. They're
> aimed at you freqently by mistake.
>
> ROTFL!!
>
> Stay lame Blimpy. You're great entertainment.
>
> And remember kids - don't be like "Sieg Heil" Scottie - STAY IN SCHOOL!
And stay away from the qll-you-can-eat restaurants as well.
> [Snottie's abusive cross-posting trimmed]
>
> allan
For a humorous take on the ravings of Bradshit see:
http://internettrash.com/users/satireworld/tartindex.html#hooligan
Nele Abels-Ludwig
[...]
> If the information was subpoenaed then it becomes a public court
> document. In other words, it's a matter of public record now that
> you're a big-time lard butt, Snottie.
Being miserably uninformed about US legal procedures, and the
Anglo-Saxon legal system in general, may I ask what a
"subpoena" actually is? I've encountered the term quite often here.
Nele
--
"Sandsack ist gut für Härte, Sandsack ist gut für Schnelligkeit, aber
Sandsack wehrt sich nicht. Ihr müßt trainieren mit Partner!" Sensei
Leszek, 3. Dan Kyokushin Karate auf dem Sommerlager 2000.
Allan Matthews
Marburg.DE>, Ab...@stud-mailer.uni-marburg.de says...
> On Fri, 22 Sep 2000, Allan Matthews wrote:
> [...]
> > document. In other words, it's a matter of public record now that=20
> > you're a big-time lard butt, Snottie.
>
> Being miserably uninformed about US legal procedures, and the
> Anglo-Saxon legal system in general, may I ask what a
> "subpoena" actually is? I've encountered the term quite often here.
They are usually used to demand a person appear to give testimony or for
the turning over of documentary evidence of some sort. Ignoring them is
not a good idea, as Snottie has learned.
allan
--
allan_m...@bigfoot.com
=========================================
"You and I are not on the same wavelength
and the reason we are not is because you
are trying to be rational."
- Richard G. Philllips
=========================================
http://www2.shore.net/~matthews/
Joel Rosenberg
Allan> In article
Allan> <Pine.LNX.4.21.000922...@stud-login2.Uni-
Marburg.DE> , Ab...@stud-mailer.uni-marburg.de says...
>> On Fri, 22 Sep 2000, Allan Matthews wrote: [...] > If the
>> information was subpoenaed then it becomes a public court=20 >
>> document. In other words, it's a matter of public record now
>> that=20 > you're a big-time lard butt, Snottie.
>>
>> Being miserably uninformed about US legal procedures, and the
>> Anglo-Saxon legal system in general, may I ask what a
>> "subpoena" actually is? I've encountered the term quite often
>> here.
Allan> They are usually used to demand a person appear to give
Allan> testimony or for the turning over of documentary evidence
Allan> of some sort. Ignoring them is not a good idea, as Snottie
Allan> has learned.
No, he hasn't. Scotty hasn't yet learned to sit up and beg, much less
roll over.
Yosarian
<allan_m...@bigfoot.nospam.com> wrote:
>In article <Pine.LNX.4.21.000922...@stud-login2.Uni-
>Marburg.DE>, Ab...@stud-mailer.uni-marburg.de says...
>> On Fri, 22 Sep 2000, Allan Matthews wrote:
>> [...]
>> > If the information was subpoenaed then it becomes a public court=20
>> > document. In other words, it's a matter of public record now that=20
>> > you're a big-time lard butt, Snottie.
>>
>> Being miserably uninformed about US legal procedures, and the
>> Anglo-Saxon legal system in general, may I ask what a
>> "subpoena" actually is? I've encountered the term quite often here.
>
>They are usually used to demand a person appear to give testimony or for
>the turning over of documentary evidence of some sort. Ignoring them is
>not a good idea, as Snottie has learned.
>
>allan
Hey Snotty, is ignorance bliss??
Sara Salzman
Matthews <allan_m...@bigfoot.nospam.com> wrote:
>In article <s3nmsssfdsv6brdd8...@4ax.com>, Scott "Blimpy"
>Bradbury, cowering ineffectively behind doc_t...@NOSPAMscottsmail.com,
>spewed:
>
>[Boogerman's silly whining snipped]
>
>> Yale F. Edeiken now makes known a detail of my medical records:
>> >> Since he weighed in at his last visit to Hermann Hospital at well
>> >> over
>> >>300 lbs., the plural is more likely.
>>
>> >LOOKS LIKE YOU POSTED SUBPOENAED INFORMATION. MEDICAL RECORDS
>> >ARE CONFIDENTIAL TOO.
>
>If the information was subpoenaed then it becomes a public court
>document. In other words, it's a matter of public record now that
>you're a big-time lard butt, Snottie.
>
>Also, as you have been told many times, Blimpy, the truth cannot be
>defamatory, as it's THE TRUTH!
>
>Guess we now know why you're so good at hog calls, Boogerman. They're
>aimed at you freqently by mistake.
>
>ROTFL!!
>
>Stay lame Blimpy. You're great entertainment.
>
>And remember kids - don't be like "Sieg Heil" Scottie - STAY IN SCHOOL!
>
>[Snottie's abusive cross-posting trimmed]
>
>allan
300 pounds?!? This is the person who likes to call other people "Tubby"
and "Fat Sow"?
Glass houses, Mr. Bradbury. And you sure seem to like handing out stones.
Sara
--
"I am patient with stupidity, but not with those who are proud of it."
Edith Sitwell
Jeffrey G. Brown
>YOU WANT TO BITE THE HEAD OF BRADBURY'S COCK OFF AND SUCK THE BLOOD DON'T
>YOU JOYBOY?
What's interesting, of course, is that Scottie fantasizes about this
sort of homosexual S&M action, but then uses his own fantasies to claim
that _someone else_ is a pervert.
Explain to us again how that works, Cockroach Boy...
JGB
================================================================== =====
Jeffrey G. Brown jg_b...@my-deja.com
For centuries, philosophers and theologians have debated what it means
to be human. Perhaps the answer has eluded us because it is so simple.
To be human is to choose. - "The Outer Limits: Feasibility Study", 1997
Lurker No More!
news:wk7l84x...@winternet.com...
> >>>>> In article <MPG.14356d55b...@news.ne.mediaone.net>,
Allan Matthews <allan_m...@bigfoot.nospam.com> writes:
>
> Allan> In article
> Marburg.DE> , Ab...@stud-mailer.uni-marburg.de says...
> >> On Fri, 22 Sep 2000, Allan Matthews wrote: [...] > If the
> >> information was subpoenaed then it becomes a public court=20 >
> >> document. In other words, it's a matter of public record now
> >>
> >> Being miserably uninformed about US legal procedures, and the
> >> Anglo-Saxon legal system in general, may I ask what a
> >> "subpoena" actually is? I've encountered the term quite often
> >> here.
>
> Allan> testimony or for the turning over of documentary evidence
> Allan> of some sort. Ignoring them is not a good idea, as Snottie
> Allan> has learned.
>
> No, he hasn't. Scotty hasn't yet learned to sit up and beg, much less
> roll over.
Is that what you ask your whore of a mother to do, kike?
BTW, what's it like being a member of the world's most despised people,
the dirty, rotten, worthless Jews? How does it feel knowing that people
hate you and your ugly kind for all the misery, hatred and hypocrisy you
pig-bastards keep pouring into the world?
Go fuck yourself, kike-swine.
Buck Turgidson
"Lurker No More!" wrote:
Hey, David Michael: Here's another example of one of those well-argued,
well-referenced articles of historical interest you were talking about!
-- --Dep
"Always tell the truth. It's the § "Truth is just...truth. You can't
easiest thing to remember." § have opinions about truth."
--David Mamet --Peter Schickele
Like short-haired women? Snotty comments? Penguins?
http://members.aol.com/deppitybob/shlu/PAGEONE.html
Lurker No More!
news:39CC034A...@pop.mindspring.com...
It's a perfect respond to your kike-master's stupid comments.
BTW, where are Rosenkike's well-argued, well-referenced articles of
historical interest? Where are _yours_?
Pfft. Stupid ass-licking maggot. So the world a favor and go kill
yourself.
Yale F. Edeiken
Nele Abels-Ludwig <Ab...@stud-mailer.uni-marburg.de> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.21.000922...@stud-login2.Uni-Marburg.DE...
On Fri, 22 Sep 2000, Allan Matthews wrote:
[...]
> If the information was subpoenaed then it becomes a public court
Being miserably uninformed about US legal procedures, and the
Anglo-Saxon legal system in general, may I ask what a
"subpoena" actually is? I've encountered the term quite often here.
Legasl process issued by a court as an order to a person or organization
not party to a lawsuit to testify at trial (ad testifucandum) or produce
documents or other things (duces tecum).
Materail that is subpoenaed must be turned over or there must be an
appearance to testify. The material becomes publ;ic information unless a
court orders otherwise.
Subpoenas are NOT automatically issued and the other side has an
opportnuity to ogject ("quash") any subpoena.
Yale F. Edeiken
Sara Salzman <cata...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:catamont-71FE82...@news.concentric.net...
> In article <MPG.143547621...@news.ne.mediaone.net>, Allan
> Matthews <allan_m...@bigfoot.nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <s3nmsssfdsv6brdd8...@4ax.com>, Scott "Blimpy"
> >Bradbury, cowering ineffectively behind doc_t...@NOSPAMscottsmail.com,
> >spewed:
> >
> >[Boogerman's silly whining snipped]
> >
> >> >> Since he weighed in at his last visit to Hermann Hospital at well
> >> >> over
> >> >>300 lbs., the plural is more likely.
> >>
> >> >LOOKS LIKE YOU POSTED SUBPOENAED INFORMATION. MEDICAL RECORDS
> >> >ARE CONFIDENTIAL TOO.
> >
> >document. In other words, it's a matter of public record now that
> >you're a big-time lard butt, Snottie.
> >
> >defamatory, as it's THE TRUTH!
> >
> >Guess we now know why you're so good at hog calls, Boogerman. They're
> >aimed at you freqently by mistake.
> >
> >ROTFL!!
> >
> >Stay lame Blimpy. You're great entertainment.
> >
> >And remember kids - don't be like "Sieg Heil" Scottie - STAY IN SCHOOL!
> >
> >[Snottie's abusive cross-posting trimmed]
> >
> >allan
>
>
> 300 pounds?!? This is the person who likes to call other people "Tubby"
> and "Fat Sow"?
>
> Glass houses, Mr. Bradbury. And you sure seem to like handing out stones.
Well over 300 pounds. He hasn't seen 3000 pounds since Kathy Lee
Gifford saw 40.
Doc Tavish
<doc_t...@NOSPAMscottsmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>Disciplinary Rules of the State of Pennsylvania state:
>
>Rule 8.3. Reporting Professional Misconduct.
>(a) A lawyer having knowledge that another lawyer has committed a
>violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial
>question as to that lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a
>lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate professional
>authority.
>
>Rule 8.4. Misconduct.
>It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
>(a) violate or attempt to violate the rules of professional conduct,
>knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of
>another;
>(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty,
>trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;
>
>In other words my own attorney will be subjected to disciplinary measures
>if he does not report this ongoing gross misconduct!
[...]
>My attorney has also been compelled as of late to hold Yale F. Edeiken
>accountable for his making an obscene threatening telephone call to my
>residence while in the capacity of the plaintiff's (himself) attorney
>as detailed here: http://x70.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=671805963
>"MUST READ!! Tubby's Denial of Making an Obscene Telephone Call and
>Disciplinary Rule Violations aka Re: ATTENTION Don Ellis and Pat Blakely
><2> - YFE Telephone Threat .ra (0/1)" Anyone who cares to listen to this
>shyster slug's criminal threats just request it from me
><doc_t...@my-deja.com> and I will e-mail you an ~96kb Real Audio clip
>of the beast making vul;gar threats past 1:00am in the morning!
So far I've had and answered five requests for the Real Audio file.
Also I've had nine comments from alleged attorneys (I have to take their
word that they are attorneys) who agree that Edeiken's tactics, especially
in public forum, are unprofessional and unethical in those general words.
No one has condoned Edeiken's behavior or methods.
Yale F. Edeiken -- Attorney at Law - Allentown Pennsylvania
Supreme Court ID# 40290 <http://www.enter.net/walker.html>
I welcome all replies-- I will not post them or identify you. I deleted
all replies so far! Your comments are most welcomed and encouraging.
Send comments to <doc_t...@my-deja.com> preferably or you may send them
to the e-mail address above too! Yale F. Edeiken has already started to
flood my e-mail box again in spite of making a written agreement to not
make direct contact with me to my attorney. I think I have the kill filter
set right to eliminate his unwelcome threats!
Here is the written agreement Yale F. Edeiken does not respect. I delete
the name of my attorney in order to reduce the risk he will get harassed
by Edeiken's fellow miscreants!
From: Yale F. Edeiken <ya...@enter.net>
Message ID: <001501bfc9d5$2ddae340$d99c10cf!oemcomputer>
To: Dxxx...@aol.com
References: <e8.501626...@aol.com
Subject: Re: Edeiken v. Bradbury
Date: Mon, May 29 2000 21:20:00 -0400
[...]
> Finally as you know the disciplinary rules prohibit you from having
> any direct contact with my client as long as he has an attorney.
> Please refrain from having any contact with Mr. Bradberry.
If this confirms your representation I certainly will.
If so I expect to hear an explanation of why you advised
a client to defy a court order. As you well know that constitutes
a flagrant violation of the disciplinary rules, Furter, should you
actually be representing this creature, I expect a check for the
sanctions already imposed to be forwarded to me immediately.
-- Yale F. Edeiken
<End of EXACT copy of a small portion of the e-mail>
From another letter which I have hard copy of my attorney told
Yale F. Edeiken (May 27, 2000): "It is my client's position that he will
not be attending any depositions or proceedings in Lehigh County... Please
refrain from having any contact with Mr. Bradberry (sic)."
To this day Yale F. Edeiken has not kept his word on any matter!
Here is a request my attorney made to Yale F. Edeiken dated 5/30/2000
"It is common courtesy to forward any documentation to new counsel in the
case. If you are unwilling to do so, let me know and I will be happy to go
to the courthouse and pick it up. All I want is an address where things
can be served should that prove necessary."
My attorney said that because Edeiken had written him: "Due to the
campaign of criminal harassment being conducted by your prospective client
and his accomplices you may NOT have either my telephone number or my
correct address." The NOT was as it appeared on my hard copy!
Back to what my attorney wrote Yale F. Edeiken:
"I have agreed to represent Mr. Bradberry (sic) for the purposes of
evaluating the case to see if Mr. Bradberry (sic) even needs
representation in this litigation, or if this is just a frivolous attempt
to harass someone you disagree with politically in another state..
Regarding your "expectation" that I will explain my advice to my client to
you, I wouldn't hold my breath. As you might have heard, communications
between attorney and client are privileged."
Doc Tavish
---
To see the real reason why my opposition has pulled out all stops in their
efforts to silence me just click this link and read all of the links
contained within it! <http://x72.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=670644088>
David Gehrig
<< snip >>
> Well over 300 pounds. He hasn't seen 300 pounds since Kathy Lee
> Gifford saw 40.
Well, now we know why the doctor didn't bother to tell him to abstain from sex.
He might as well have told him to abstain from levitation.
@%<
gole...@my-deja.com
David Gehrig <zem...@earthlink.net> wrote:
[..]
> Well, now we know why the doctor didn't bother to tell him to abstain
> from sex.
> He might as well have told him to abstain from levitation.
Scotty couldn't have sex even if he could find a willing human. He has
previously admitted to having an erectile dysfunction.
Golem613
Buck Turgidson
"Lurker No More!" wrote:
> "Buck Turgidson" <deppi...@pop.mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:39CC034A...@pop.mindspring.com...
> > "Lurker No More!" wrote:
> > > "Joel Rosenberg" <jo...@winternet.com> wrote in message
> > > news:wk7l84x...@winternet.com...
> > > > >>>>> In article
> <MPG.14356d55b...@news.ne.mediaone.net>,
> > > Allan Matthews <allan_m...@bigfoot.nospam.com> writes:
> > > >
> > > > Allan> In article
> > > > Allan>
> <Pine.LNX.4.21.000922...@stud-login2.Uni-
> > > > Marburg.DE> , Ab...@stud-mailer.uni-marburg.de says...
> > > > >> On Fri, 22 Sep 2000, Allan Matthews wrote: [...] > If the
> > > > >> information was subpoenaed then it becomes a public
> court=20 >
> > > > >> document. In other words, it's a matter of public record
> now
> > > > >> that=20 > you're a big-time lard butt, Snottie.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Being miserably uninformed about US legal procedures, and
> the
> > > > >> Anglo-Saxon legal system in general, may I ask what a
> > > > >> "subpoena" actually is? I've encountered the term quite
> often
> > > > >> here.
> > > >
Hey, David Michael: Would you call LNM's contribution above well-argued,
well-referenced, both, or neither?
Gord McFee
-0500, "Lurker No More!" <no...@all.4now> wrote:
> It's a perfect respond to your kike-master's stupid comments.
>
> BTW, where are Rosenkike's well-argued, well-referenced articles of
> historical interest? Where are _yours_?
>
> Pfft. Stupid ass-licking maggot. So the world a favor and go kill
> yourself.
On August 18, 2000, David E. Michael wrote, "On one side there will
be the revisionists with well-argued, well-referenced articles of
historical interest."
--
Gord McFee
I'll write no line before its time
Visit the Holocaust History Project
http://www.holocaust-history.org
David Gehrig
>
> In article <39CC33D2...@earthlink.net>,
> David Gehrig <zem...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> > from sex.
>
> > He might as well have told him to abstain from levitation.
>
> previously admitted to having an erectile dysfunction.
Ah, the things you miss when you killfile trolls.
@%<
alg...@freedom.net
Doc Tavish <doc_t...@NOSPAMscottsmail.com> wrote in message
news:s3nmsssfdsv6brdd8...@4ax.com...
> This blatant move to further violate my right to privacy has already been
> FWD to my attorney with the explicit instructions that Yale F. Edeiken be
> reported to the proper authorities.
In this case the "proper authorities would be Weight Watchers.
> Signed,
> A Victim
You are victim only of your own stupidity.
Cooter
says...
One wonders how a federal judge will view your posting medical records
you've obtained using subpoena in order to expose to public humiliation
a person you are litigating. Your motive is most apparent in this post.
--CooterBob--
Yale F. Edeiken
Cooter <Coot...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8qikr...@news1.newsguy.com...
> you've obtained using subpoena in order to expose to public humiliation
> a person you are litigating. Your motive is most apparent in this post.
>
> --CooterBob--
Absolutely nothing. First, Bradshit did not make any request to seal
the document and second because he invited the public to look at it:
You think I made the above up to escape your deposition but the order
about my NOT driving was issued December 22, 1999 or eight whole days
before I had an official notice that you had even filed a lawsuit! If you
wish to verify this then contact:
Hermann Hospital
Medical Records
P.O. Box 200758
Houston, Texas 77216-0758
The discharge document which has an area on it which says:
"Resumption of Normal Activities" has entered:
Date you can return to work: HOLD
Date you can resume driving a car: HOLD
Date you can resume your normal sexual activities: 12/22/99
(At least they didn't want me to be miserable on top of not being able to
work or drive! :-) Tavish comment)
The release document is dated 12/22/99 and its number is:
50 04882 6 9356
For a humorous take on the ravings of Bradshit see:
http://internettrash.com/users/satireworld/tartindex.html#hooligan
--YFE
Cooter
Hardly looks like Bradbury invited the public to have it. Only looks like
he suggested that you verify that he was telling the truth. I would hardly
think that he wanted his personal medical records made public and I doubt
if a federal judge will either. You have no scruples or ethics
Mr. Edeiken. This post shows plainly your motives of posting a detail
of confidential medical records. I am no attorney but I'd imagine your
doing so is quite a very serious offense. You will also be stumped for words
when a federal judge asks you what your motives were too. Judging by this
post and how you enjoin the merriment and ridiculing I would say a federal
judge will take a very dim view of your activity. You knew what you were
doing and you show no remorse.
--CooterBob--
Yale F. Edeiken
Then read it again. It was not addressed to me but to the puublic:
For a humorous take on the ravings of the madman Bradshit see:
Derek Bell
: The term "raving fruitcake" comes to mind when I see one of your rants,
: Bradbury.
Does this mean he's beginning to resemble William Grosvenor? I mean
"roving" and "raving" differ by only one letter!
Derek
--
Derek Bell db...@maths.tcd.ie | Socrates would have loved
WWW: http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~dbell/index.html| usenet.
PGP: http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~dbell/key.asc | - J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk
Patrick L. Humphrey
>Patrick L. Humphrey <pat...@eris.io.com> wrote:
>: The term "raving fruitcake" comes to mind when I see one of your rants,
>: Bradbury.
> Does this mean he's beginning to resemble William Grosvenor? I mean
>"roving" and "raving" differ by only one letter!
I dunno -- how morbidly fat is Willie, anyway?
--PLH, let's hear it for Bradbury -- two tons of stupidity
Doc Tavish
I am not knowledgable of having my private confidential medical records
sealed because I am NOT an attorney! You on the other hand are an attorney
and a most unethical and unscrupulous bastard one at that!
>>and second because he invited the public to look at it:
I most certainly did not! Once again you lie you bastard! I said you may
verify what I posted! No where did I invite the public to gaze upon my
private medical records. I don't think a federal judge will think so
either! Your obvious lack of remorse shows painfully too! You released
my private medical info just so you and your fellows can have some
merriment! A federal judge will see this believe me as well as your
Disciplinary Board along with all the posts by your pals ridiculing me!
>Hardly looks like Bradbury invited the public to have it.
I didn't intend for the public to read it. In fact I only encouraged the
shyster to confirm what I posted. My exact words were: "If you
wish to verify this then contact.." No where did I say or imply:
"If the public wishes to verify this then contact.."
>Only looks like he suggested that you verify that he was telling the truth.
>I would hardly think that he wanted his personal medical records made public
>and I doubt if a federal judge will either.
I will be finding out next week. I've retrieved all of the shyster's post
concerning his releasing my medical records info and we will see how the
feds view such especially seeing how he thinks its so funny! I don't think
asshole Edeiken will be laughing and gay too much longer! A federal judge
will also see my original post concerning those records and he will decide
if either Edeiken or I am right!
>You have no scruples or ethics Mr. Edeiken.
True! Read my new sig line!
I see no where in the above the public is invited to gaze at my private
information and the "you" is referring to Yale F. Edeiken being "invited"
to verify what I claimed. I wasn't giving the unethical bastard carte'
blanche to invade my privacy and then use my medical records to have
merriment made against me! Like I said-- a federal judge will see these
antics. I don't think displaying subpoenaed medical records to public view
is the workings of an ethical attorney. I think it is a very illegal act!
A Victim of Attorney Misconduct,
Scott Bradbury aka Doc Tavish
---
Concerning unethical attorneys and judges in the State of Pennsylvania:
<http://www.clr.org/pa.html> and <http://www.enter.net/walker.html>
Yale F. Edeiken --Attorney at Law - Supreme Court ID# 40290
Joel Rosenberg
Scared Scotty> On 23 Sep 2000 17:28:04 GMT, Coot...@yahoo.com
Scared Scotty> I am not knowledgable of having my private
Scared Scotty> confidential medical records sealed because I am
Scared Scotty> NOT an attorney!
Nor, apparently, despite your claims to the contrary, do you have
other than an imaginary one.
Tsk, tsk, Defendant Bradbury.
David Gehrig
>
> Cooter <Coot...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:8qikr...@news1.newsguy.com...
> > In article <YQSy5.1270$mC.6...@monger.newsread.com>, ya...@enter.net
> > says...
<< snip >>
> > One wonders how a federal judge will view your posting medical records
> > you've obtained using subpoena in order to expose to public humiliation
> > a person you are litigating. Your motive is most apparent in this post.
> >
> > --CooterBob--
>
> Absolutely nothing. First, Bradshit did not make any request to seal
> the document and second because he invited the public to look at it:
>
> You think I made the above up to escape your deposition but the order
> about my NOT driving was issued December 22, 1999 or eight whole days
> before I had an official notice that you had even filed a lawsuit! If you
> wish to verify this then contact:
> Hermann Hospital
> Medical Records
> P.O. Box 200758
> Houston, Texas 77216-0758
And that, "Cooter Bob," is the sound of a white power ranger getting
exactly what he asked for.
@%<
David Gehrig
<< snip >>
> > Absolutely nothing. First, Bradshit did not make any request to seal
> >the document and second because he invited the public to look at it:
>
> Hardly looks like Bradbury invited the public to have it.
Looks like an open invitation published in a public newsgroup.
<< snip >>
> I am no attorney
Clearly. Meanwhile, please keep encouraging Snott in this fantasy about
a Federal judge -- it will encourage him to say even more outrageous
things.
@%<
jg__夾篤n@m棣deja.com
>No where did I invite the public to gaze upon my private medical records.
Sure you did, Scottie, when you said:
If you wish to verify this then contact:
Hermann Hospital
Medical Records
P.O. Box 200758
Houston, Texas 77216-0758
> [...deletia...]
>I didn't intend for the public to read it.
Sure you did, Scottie. We know this 'cause you told us who to call:
If you wish to verify this then contact:
Hermann Hospital
Medical Records
P.O. Box 200758
Houston, Texas 77216-0758
> [...deletia...]
>No where did I say or imply:
>"If the public wishes to verify this then contact.."
It's a public newsgroup, moron. Post here and you're talking to the
public.
> [...deletia...]
>I see no where in the above the public is invited to gaze at my private
>information...
How about:
If you wish to verify this then contact:
Hermann Hospital
Medical Records
P.O. Box 200758
Houston, Texas 77216-0758
> [...deletia...]
>I think it is a very illegal act!
We've already seen how much you know about the law, Cockroach Boy.
In case you've forgotten: you lost.
Yale F. Edeiken
Doc Tavish <doc_t...@NOSPAMscottsmail.com> wrote in message
Then you should have hired one to explain this rather simple procedure.
And you should not have returned noth the notice that I would issue the
suvpiena and the subpiena to me with insults scrawled on them.
Such an application would have been useless in any case. Your public
announcement of part of the contents wioyld have made such a court ruling
impossible.
> >>and second because he invited the public to look at it:
>
> I most certainly did not!
You most certainly did. You printed part of iot an invited the world to
verfiy its contents.
>No where did I invite the public to gaze upon my
> private medical records. I don't think a federal judge will think so
> either!
As soon as y7ou prointed part of it, your invitation was to the world.
> Your obvious lack of remorse shows painfully too!
I have nothing to be remorseful about.
> You released
> my private medical info just so you and your fellows can have some
> merriment!
WRONG You released them for the specific puirpose of making a false
charge against me.
>A federal judge will see this believe me as well as your
> Disciplinary Board along with all the posts by your pals ridiculing me!
>
And they will laugh at you for the asshole that you are.
> >Hardly looks like Bradbury invited the public to have it.
>
> I didn't intend for the public to read it.
Then you should not have piublished part of it, make fraudulent claims
about it, and invite others to look at it.
>In fact I only encouraged the
> shyster to confirm what I posted. My exact words were: "If you
> wish to verify this then contact.." No where did I say or imply:
> "If the public wishes to verify this then contact.."
I received no direct communcation from you nor do I care about it. The
court record speaks for itself and that was not aprt of it. Your post was
addressed to the general publlc.
> >Only looks like he suggested that you verify that he was telling the
truth.
> >I would hardly think that he wanted his personal medical records made
public
> >and I doubt if a federal judge will either.
> I will be finding out next week. I've retrieved all of the shyster's post
> concerning his releasing my medical records info and we will see how the
> feds view such especially seeing how he thinks its so funny!
The feds think you are funny.
>I don't think
> asshole Edeiken will be laughing and gay too much longer! A federal judge
> will also see my original post concerning those records and he will decide
> if either Edeiken or I am right!
Not a chance, Bradshit.
> >>You think I made the above up to escape your deposition but the order
> >>about my NOT driving was issued December 22, 1999 or eight whole days
> >>before I had an official notice that you had even filed a lawsuit! If
you
> >>wish to verify this then contact:
> >>Hermann Hospital
> >>Medical Records
> >>P.O. Box 200758
> >>Houston, Texas 77216-0758
> >>
> >>The discharge document which has an area on it which says:
> >>"Resumption of Normal Activities" has entered:
> >>Date you can return to work: HOLD
> >>Date you can resume driving a car: HOLD
> >>Date you can resume your normal sexual activities: 12/22/99
> >>(At least they didn't want me to be miserable on top of not being able
to
> >>work or drive! :-) Tavish comment)
> >>The release document is dated 12/22/99 and its number is:
> >>50 04882 6 9356
>
A notice made to the public. It destoryed all confidentiality
> A Victim of Attorney Misconduct,
> Scott Bradbury aka Doc Tavish
A victim of your own stupidity. Now go eat a piazza . . . or two . . .
. or three . . . . or four.
The remainder of this delusional and dishonest post from the diseased mind
of Scott Bradbury (doc_t...@my-deja.com) writing under the name of "Doc
Tavish" is deleted as the garbage that it is.
Scott Bradbury of Bellville, Texas, is well-know for his tortured
perversion of Christianity which he espouses and for spamming his barely
coherent ravings to dozens of unrelated newsgroups. He is a notorious liar
and anti-Semite whose activities are characterized by utter dishonesty and
include such criminal activities as forging the posts of others and issuing
death threats. He has threatened one person who exposed his lies with
sexual molestation, torture, death and mutilation. There is, of course, not
a word of truth in the venom he spews so freely.
For a refutation of this and his other lies about the Talmud and Judaism
consult:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Cyprus/8815/
For a humorous take on the ravings of this madman see:
patbl...@my-deja.com
Illiterate lawyer Edeiken strikes again with over one dozen misspellings.
Yale F. Edeiken was also found guilty of physically assaulting a woman.
Illiterate Yale F. Edeiken <ya...@enter.net> wrote in message
news:kYez5.848$np1.1...@newshog.newsread.com...
> And you should not have returned noth the notice that I would issue
the
> suvpiena and the subpiena to me with insults scrawled on them.
3 misspellings in one sentence.
>
> Such an application would have been useless in any case. Your public
> announcement of part of the contents wioyld have made such a court ruling
> impossible.
Up to 4 misspellings.
> You most certainly did. You printed part of iot an invited the world
to
> verfiy its contents.
6 words misspelled.
>
>
> As soon as y7ou prointed part of it, your invitation was to the world.
8 misspellings
>
>
> > Your obvious lack of remorse shows painfully too!
>
> I have nothing to be remorseful about.
Actually when you are burning in hell and crying out that you should of
listened to DocTavish, you will try to be very remorseful.
> WRONG You released them for the specific puirpose of making a false
> charge against me.
9 misspelled words
> Then you should not have piublished part of it, make fraudulent claims
> about it, and invite others to look at it.
up to 11 misspellings.
> I received no direct communcation from you nor do I care about it.
The
> court record speaks for itself and that was not aprt of it. Your post
was
> addressed to the general publlc.
A dozen misspelled words.
> A notice made to the public. It destoryed all confidentiality
A bakers dozen, 13 misspelled words
Most drunks can type better than that. But then again, we are talking about
a convicted woman beater.
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeeds.com ****
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Newsfeeds.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
http://www.newsfeeds.com | http://www.newsfeeds.com
|
* Anonymous posting server! | * Totally Uncensored!
* SUPER Servers! | * Over 80,000 Newsgroups!
* BINARIES ONLY Servers! | * 16 seperate Newsgroup Servers!
* SPAM FILTERED Server! | * Instant access!
* ADULT ONLY Server! | * Multiple OC 3's and OC 12's!
* MP3 ONLY Server! | * 99% Article Completion!
* MULTIMEDIA ONLY Server! | * Months of Retention!
* 7 UNCENSORED Newsgroup Servers | * Lightning FAST downloads!
|
http://www.newsfeeds.com | http://www.newsfeeds.com
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
**** Point your newsreader to post.newsfeeds.com ****
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Doc Tavish
>*** post for free via your newsreader at post.newsfeeds.com ***
>
>Illiterate lawyer Edeiken strikes again with over one dozen misspellings.
>
>Yale F. Edeiken was also found guilty of physically assaulting a woman.
>
>http://www.clr.org/pa.html
>
>
>Illiterate Yale F. Edeiken <ya...@enter.net> wrote in message
>news:kYez5.848$np1.1...@newshog.newsread.com...
>> And you should not have returned noth the notice that I would issue
>the suvpiena and the subpiena to me with insults scrawled on them.
>3 misspellings in one sentence.
>> Such an application would have been useless in any case. Your public
>> announcement of part of the contents wioyld have made such a court ruling
>> impossible.
>Up to 4 misspellings.
>> You most certainly did. You printed part of iot an invited the world
>>to verfiy its contents.
>6 words misspelled.
I did not invite the world to see my private medical records. Offered only
to let YOU confirm what I posted was true in these very exact precise
words which a federal judge will read and let all reading take notice that
Attorney Yale F. Edeiken does not follow his state's disciplinary rules:
http://x64.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=671126308
Subject: Rule 4011. Limitation of Scope of Discovery and Deposition - Yale
F. Edeiken Made False Statements to The Court
Date: 09/18/2000
Author: Doc Tavish <doc_t...@NOSPAMscottsmail.com>
[...]
Here is the rule on depositions which you willfully disobeyed and
willfully filed a false statement to the court:
http://search.pacode.com/cgi-bin/wg2?WAISdocID=399747648+135+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
Rule 4011. Limitation of Scope of Discovery and Deposition.
No discovery or deposition shall be permitted which
(a) is sought in bad faith;
(b) would cause unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, burden
or expense to the deponent or any person or party;
(c) is beyond the scope of discovery as set forth in Rules 4003.1 through
4003.6; or
(d) Rescinded.
(e) would require the making of an unreasonable investigation by the
deponent or any party or witness.
(f) Rescinded.
Explanatory Note
The amendments, as already pointed out, make two important changes in
present Rule 4011. They delete subdivision (d) limiting the discovery of
trial preparation material, and subdivision (f) forbidding any discovery
which would require a deponent, whether or not a party, to give an opinion
as an expert witness over his objection. These changes have already been
discussed under Rules 4003.3 to 4003.5, supra. Minor stylistic changes
have been made in subdivision (b). The provision protecting trade secrets
or other confidential research, development, or commercial information has
been transposed from subdivision (c) to Rule 4012(a)(9).
Source
The provisions of this Rule 4011 amended November 20, 1978, effective
April 16, 1979, 8 Pa.B. 3551; amended March 5, 1997, effective July 1,
1997, 27 Pa.B. 1443. Immediately preceding text appears at serial page
(209493).
***END***
Compare part (b) "would cause unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment,
oppression, burden or expense to the deponent or any person or party" to
what I said publicly and what Yale acknowledged in public and is in
DejaCom archives as saying:
http://x63.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=608277101
Here is Yale's first reply to my medical condition:
Xref: http://x39.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=567038486&fmt=text
Subject: Re: Delusional Yale F. Edeiken Spews His Dementia
Date: 12/31/1999
Author: Yale F. Edeiken <ya...@enter.net>
I, Doc Tavish, had stated:
>The document did not detail any of the complaints nor any date. Fair warning:
>With my complex medical problems and now not even being able to drive my
>own personal vehicle how do you expect any judge to order me to your state
>over what is plainly a frivolous lawsuit?
(Xref: http://x46.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=566703041&fmt=text)
(Yale F. Edeiken replies):
It is amazing that you have been able to determine this. Given your
threats of violence, no judge would, under any circumstance, fail to order
your appearance at a deposition. Whatever accomodations might be
otherwise made are now out the question.
You just dig yourself in deeper with every post.
~~~End of DejaCom Archive~~~
You think I made the above up to escape your deposition but the order
about my NOT driving was issued December 22, 1999 or eight whole days
before I had an official notice that you had even filed a lawsuit! If you
wish to verify this then contact:
Hermann Hospital
Medical Records
P.O. Box 200758
Houston, Texas 77216-0758
The discharge document which has an area on it which says:
"Resumption of Normal Activities" has entered:
Date you can return to work: HOLD
Date you can resume driving a car: HOLD
Date you can resume your normal sexual activities: 12/22/99
(At least they didn't want me to be miserable on top of not being able to
work or drive! :-) Tavish comment)
The release document is dated 12/22/99 and its number is:
50 04882 6 9356
~~~END~~~
For the record it is now September 5, 2000 and I am still not allowed to
drive except for very short hops such as groceries and prescriptions AND I
am not currently fit for any work due to my medical condition and not
being allowed to drive!
Compare part (a) "is sought in bad faith" to what Yale posted in public
forum about his "deposition" he had arranged for me! Is the following not
"bad faith"?
http://x33.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=559273259&fmt=text
"The next proceeding, if Defendant Tavish shows up, will be a deposition
that will be taken in the dead of winter in Allentown."
http://x25.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=559265740&fmt=text
"And you deserve to be sitting in a cold courtroom watching a jury look at
you you with loathing and disgust. February, Defendant Tavish. I'll inform
you of the exact date when it becomes impossible for you to buy cheap
airfare. And you are about to regret your illegal actions for years to
come."
http://x35.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=558789961&fmt=text
"One can only hope it includes a plastic shield for when the jury starts
spitting at you. And add soe warm clothing for
your deposition. It is quite cold up herein February."
Notice how the "bad faith" is evident in the above unprofessional and
unethical utterances of Yale F. Edeiken which also violate part (b) which
states: No discovery or deposition shall be permitted which "would cause
unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, burden or expense to
the deponent or any person or party;"...
I told you numerous times and the "public" may be my witness as well as
DejaCom archives that I was not fit to travel. Did you make this important
truth known to the court? NO! You kept giving them the impression that I
was being "arrogant" etc. and willfully in contempt.
You are dishonest, unethical, and most unscrupulous!
Yale F. Edeiken Attorney at Law -- Allentown, Pennsylvania,
Supreme Court ID# 40290 <http://www.enter.net/walker.html>
The facts are plain and simple you lied to the court!
Doc Tavish
BTW The conduct you displayed in public forum about how you would handle
your "deposition" also violates this "Disciplinary Rule":
http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/pa-code/query=*/doc/{@161}?
Pennsylvania Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct (1999 edition)
Rule 3.6 Trial Publicity
(a) A lawyer shall not make an extrajudicial statement that a reasonable
person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication if
the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that it will have a substantial
likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding.
(b) A statement referred to in paragraph (a) ordinarily is likely to have
such an effect when it refers to a civil matter triable to a jury, a
criminal matter, or any other proceeding that could result in
incarceration, and the statement relates to:
(1) the character, credibility, reputation or criminal record of a party,
suspect in a criminal investigation or witness, or the identity of a
witness, or the expected testimony of a party or witness;
(2) in a criminal case or proceeding that could result in incarceration,
the possibility of a plea of guilty to the offense or the existence or
contents of any confession, admission, or statement given by a defendant
or suspect or that person's refusal or failure to make a statement;
(3) the performance or results of any examination or test or the refusal
or failure of a person to submit to an examination or test, or the
identity or nature of physical evidence expected to be presented;
(4) any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of a defendant or suspect in
a criminal case or proceeding that could result in incarceration;
(5) information the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is likely to be
inadmissible as evidence in a trial and would if disclosed create a
substantial risk of prejudicing an impartial trial;..
<end>
I now ask-- who has violated the above Pennsylvania State Disciplinary
Rule by publicizing his "lawsuit"? Who has prejudiced others in public
communication using such words as Bradshit, Defendant, Criminal, Mentally
Diseased etc ad infinitum!? I have it all on file too!
[...]
~~End of DejaCom Archival Excerpt~~
Does any competent, ethical attorney with scruples see any thing amiss
about Attorney Yale F. Edeiken - Allentown Pennsylvania
Supreme Court ID# 40290 <http://www.enter.net/walker.html> ?
>> As soon as y7ou prointed part of it, your invitation was to the world.
>8 misspellings
>> > Your obvious lack of remorse shows painfully too!
>> I have nothing to be remorseful about.
Thanks for admitting it. I'm sure a federal judge will be interested to
know too!
>Actually when you are burning in hell and crying out that you should of
>listened to DocTavish, you will try to be very remorseful.
>> WRONG You released them for the specific puirpose of making a false
>> charge against me.
>9 misspelled words
What false charge did I make against you shyster? You're the one who makes
false charges and I am in the process of having your feet held to the
fire! It is my goal to have you removed from the legal profession! You
bring much dishonor to it! I will also show a federal judge your public
rants about what you're doing to me as "treatment" and that you offered to
give tow other persons the same "treatment" you're giving me! Does
disbarment enter your mind? For the lurker's sake I will show Edeiken
referring to his abuse of the legal system as treatment at the end of this
reply.
>> Then you should not have piublished part of it, make fraudulent claims
>> about it, and invite others to look at it.
>up to 11 misspellings.
No where did I invite others to look at my medical records! The exact
words I said as archived with DejaCom and shown above in full context
are: " If you wish to verify this then contact..." The word "you" is
exclusive to one person only YOU, you lying unethical bastard!
>> I received no direct communcation from you nor do I care about it.
A federal judge will find the above statement interesting as well!
>>The court record speaks for itself and that was not aprt of it. Your post
>>was addressed to the general publlc.
>A dozen misspelled words.
>> A notice made to the public. It destoryed all confidentiality
>A bakers dozen, 13 misspelled words
>Most drunks can type better than that. But then again, we are talking about
>a convicted woman beater.
He is a drunk or at least that is how he sounds over the telephone. For
those interested in shyster Edeiken they may listen to the obscene illegal
telephone call he made to my residence past 1:00am in the morning in July.
I have attached a Real Audio file which is currently being circulated to
the authorities! Listen to the shyster spew and tell me if he isn't on
drugs, inhalants or just plain drunk! For the record I did not do what the
bastard accuses me of either!
For the record here is Attorney Yale F. Edeiken - Allentown Pennsylvania
Supreme Court ID# 40290 <http://www.enter.net/walker.html> threatening two
other people with the "treatment":
http://x72.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=606331601
Subject: Re: Defendant Bradbury's Lapse in Judgment
Date: 04/04/2000
Author: Yale F. Edeiken <ya...@enter.net>
david.michael <david....@england.com> taking a break from his usual
program of criminal harassment of others wrote in message
news:38E904B5...@england.com...
> Yale F. Edeiken wrote:
>
> <snip Yale's waffle and name calling>
> > > You are libelous and defamatory on top of being a hypocrite!
> > This statement is actionable defendant Bradbury.
> >
> > And while we are on the subject, when will I be getting the
> > certified check for the money you owe me?
> And while we are on that subject, Mr Edeiken (welcome back, by the way),
And thank you for the criminal harassment in which you engaged.
> you might recall that you threatened to sue me several months ago. As yet, as
> far as I am aware, nothing has happened on that front. Why not?
I recall no such thiong but you lie is noted. I never threatened to sue
you, as you well know.
Second, you have been sued as you well know. You will soon be getting the
same treatment as Defendant Bradbury. I think you will be as cowardly as
him about showing up.
Now how about a straight answer to the questions that you have been
dodging like the lying lying nazi fuck you are...
~~~End of DejaCom Archival Snippet~~~
Notice that Yale F. Edeiken said on April 4, 2000: "I never threatened to
sue you, as you well know." which is a lie because on November 28, 1999
this post was made:
http://x22.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=554666508
Subject: Re: For Moshe Schorr and Friends -- non-Jews and Heretics <<
Date: 11/28/1999
Author: Yale F. Edeiken <ya...@enter.net>
David E Michael <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:384139EB...@btinternet.com...
[...]
> No -- with respect, you've not been reading the threads. I made a
> derogatory comment about Mr Edeiken's suitability to practise as a
> lawyer in Pennsylvania given that he has lied in public.
Which is now the subject of a lawsuit.
~~~End of DejaCom Archive~~~
Speaking of giving people the "treatment":
http://x60.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=606674598
Subject: Re: More Actionable Libel, Lies, and Slander From a Disreputable
Attorney - Yale F. Edeiken aka Re: --->All Men Are Created...
Date: 04/04/2000
Author: Yale F. Edeiken <ya...@enter.net>
Mike Kalvatis OBC <ex...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:2v1kesg09ajao94oe...@4ax.com...
> again Sara, you don't know what you are talking about. Give all the
> details about this judgement including the amount awarded, the
> presiding judge, case number, and any witnesses. If you can't list
> them all, then you don't know what you are talking about.
She knows.
All she needs is the court order.
> While your at it, discuss your prior illegal drug history with us
> please. Was it just pot or something stronger? And don't lie on this
> one.
Apparently Ellis wants to begin receiving the same treatment as his
criminal accomplice Scott Bradbury.
--YFE
~~~End of DejaCom Archival Snippet~~~
I really take issue with Edeiken referring to his abusing the legal
system against me as "treatment."
Doc Tavish
>*** post for free via your newsreader at post.newsfeeds.com ***
>
>Illiterate lawyer Edeiken strikes again with over one dozen misspellings.
>
>Yale F. Edeiken was also found guilty of physically assaulting a woman.
>
>http://www.clr.org/pa.html
>
>
>Illiterate Yale F. Edeiken <ya...@enter.net> wrote in message
>news:kYez5.848$np1.1...@newshog.newsread.com...
>> And you should not have returned noth the notice that I would issue
>the suvpiena and the subpiena to me with insults scrawled on them.
>3 misspellings in one sentence.
>> Such an application would have been useless in any case. Your public
>> announcement of part of the contents wioyld have made such a court ruling
>> impossible.
>Up to 4 misspellings.
>> You most certainly did. You printed part of iot an invited the world
>>to verfiy its contents.
>6 words misspelled.
I did not invite the world to see my private medical records. Offered only
[...]
You think I made the above up to escape your deposition but the order
about my NOT driving was issued December 22, 1999 or eight whole days
before I had an official notice that you had even filed a lawsuit! If you
wish to verify this then contact:
Hermann Hospital
Medical Records
P.O. Box 200758
Houston, Texas 77216-0758
The discharge document which has an area on it which says:
"Resumption of Normal Activities" has entered:
Date you can return to work: HOLD
Date you can resume driving a car: HOLD
Date you can resume your normal sexual activities: 12/22/99
(At least they didn't want me to be miserable on top of not being able to
work or drive! :-) Tavish comment)
The release document is dated 12/22/99 and its number is:
50 04882 6 9356
>> As soon as y7ou prointed part of it, your invitation was to the world.
>8 misspellings
>> > Your obvious lack of remorse shows painfully too!
>> I have nothing to be remorseful about.
Thanks for admitting it. I'm sure a federal judge will be interested to
know too!
>Actually when you are burning in hell and crying out that you should of
>listened to DocTavish, you will try to be very remorseful.
>> WRONG You released them for the specific puirpose of making a false
>> charge against me.
>9 misspelled words
What false charge did I make against you shyster? You're the one who makes
false charges and I am in the process of having your feet held to the
fire! It is my goal to have you removed from the legal profession! You
bring much dishonor to it! I will also show a federal judge your public
rants about what you're doing to me as "treatment" and that you offered to
give two other persons the same "treatment" you're giving me! Does
disbarment enter your mind? For the lurker's sake I will show Edeiken
referring to his abuse of the legal system as treatment at the end of this
reply.
>> Then you should not have piublished part of it, make fraudulent claims
>> about it, and invite others to look at it.
>up to 11 misspellings.
No where did I invite others to look at my medical records! The exact
words I said as archived with DejaCom and shown above in full context
are: " If you wish to verify this then contact..." The word "you" is
exclusive to one person only YOU, you lying unethical bastard!
>> I received no direct communcation from you nor do I care about it.
A federal judge will find the above statement interesting as well!
>>The court record speaks for itself and that was not aprt of it. Your post
>>was addressed to the general publlc.
>A dozen misspelled words.
>> A notice made to the public. It destoryed all confidentiality
>A bakers dozen, 13 misspelled words
>Most drunks can type better than that. But then again, we are talking about
>a convicted woman beater.
He is a drunk or at least that is how he sounds over the telephone. For
those interested in shyster Edeiken they may listen to the obscene illegal
telephone call he made to my residence past 1:00am on a morning in July
2000.
I have attached a Real Audio file which is currently being circulated to
the authorities! Listen to the shyster spew and tell me if he isn't on
drugs, inhalants, or just plain drunk! For the record I positively did not
do what the bastard accuses me of either! Notice his two threats too and
compare them to what he said above about his deposition: ".. you are about
to regret your illegal actions for years to come" and in his obscene,
harassing, threatening telephone call he slobbers: "for the rest of my
life I will make your life a living hell... go stick your head in the
toilet and flush it because that's what your life is worth for now on."
Is this a proper manner for an attorney for the plaintiff (himself) to
act? Would any ethical attorney want this shyster to be a partner with him
in a law firm? Does this shyster bring honor to the legal system?
Nele Abels-Ludwig
[...]
> Legasl process issued by a court as an order to a person or organization
> not party to a lawsuit to testify at trial (ad testifucandum) or produce
> documents or other things (duces tecum).
>
> Materail that is subpoenaed must be turned over or there must be an
> appearance to testify. The material becomes publ;ic information unless a
> court orders otherwise.
>
> Subpoenas are NOT automatically issued and the other side has an
> opportnuity to ogject ("quash") any subpoena.
Ah, I see. Thanks for the clear answer.
Nele
--
"Sandsack ist gut für Härte, Sandsack ist gut für Schnelligkeit, aber
Sandsack wehrt sich nicht. Ihr müßt trainieren mit Partner!" Sensei
Leszek, 3. Dan Kyokushin Karate auf dem Sommerlager 2000.
Jason James
Porky,..I notice your demonstrating your manliness over myself " you
spineless worm"(unquote) once again by eliciting sympathy when your ass is
in a sling of your own construction. Didnt work the first time, maybe this
time?
JJ
<jg__§¨¿wn@m´Ðdeja.com> wrote in message
news:jg_brown-DBD632.22323023092000@news-server...
David Gehrig
>
> Doc Tavish <doc_t...@NOSPAMscottsmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4vfqssk0amqdf94av...@4ax.com...
<< snip >>
> > >>The release document is dated 12/22/99 and its number is:
> > >>50 04882 6 9356
> >
>
> A notice made to the public. It destoryed all confidentiality
In other words, the McTavish Mouth has struck again, and Bradshit
has given himself yet another pedicure with a Tommy gun.
And as sure as the sun rises, in another day or so he'll do it again,
and then blame the Jews when he does.
> > A Victim of Attorney Misconduct,
> > Scott Bradbury aka Doc Tavish
>
> A victim of your own stupidity. Now go eat a piazza . . . or two . . .
> . or three . . . . or four.
Suddenly not sure if that's a typo or not.
@%<
Brian Blank
He has the convention for his political party (C.R.A.P) in a telephone
booth. That is his excuse why nobody else is there........
Regards,
Brian Blank