Is Yale Edeiken in Jail?
Anonymous
newsgroups for the past few weeks, has been
Yale Edeiken, the disgraced lawyer/liar of
Allentown,Pa.
Has Scott Bradbury, of Texas, been successful
in his charges of illegal activities, filed with the
Pa. Law association?
Could it be that Yale has had visitors, such as
from Christian Identity, who were able to
reason with him, showing him the error of
his ways?
If the discussions have proven successful,perhaps
the same method of discussion persuasion
should be exercised on other Nazikor folks,
such as Jay Winkler.
After all, even Joerg Haider, of the Austria
Freedom Party, had a prominent JEW as his
deputy leader, so there must be other honest jews.
Jay likes to discuss late nights all subjects.
He can be reached @ 403-281-5593,
or visited, even by Christian Identity members,
at 614 Oakhill Pl., Calgary, Canada
Yale F. Edeiken
Anonymous <rema...@anon.xg.nu> wrote in message
news:235952045d8a0567...@anon.xg.nu...
> Conspicuous by the absence of postings to
> newsgroups for the past few weeks, has been
> Yale Edeiken, the disgraced lawyer/liar of
> Allentown,Pa.
I'm still here you lying nazi.
I;m still in practice.
> Has Scott Bradbury, of Texas, been successful
> in his charges of illegal activities, filed with the
> Pa. Law association?
No such charges were ever filed.
In fact legal sanctions were just assessed against the criminal Bradbury
for contempt ordering him to pay me a large sum in ;ega; fees.
> Could it be that Yale has had visitors, such as
> from Christian Identity, who were able to
> reason with him, showing him the error of
> his ways?
Why? Did some of your friends die suddenly?
--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/
Gord McFee
19:08:12 GMT, "Yale F. Edeiken" <ya...@enter.net> wrote:
> Anonymous <rema...@anon.xg.nu> wrote in message
> news:235952045d8a0567...@anon.xg.nu...
> > Conspicuous by the absence of postings to
> > newsgroups for the past few weeks, has been
> > Yale Edeiken, the disgraced lawyer/liar of
> > Allentown,Pa.
>
> I'm still here you lying nazi.
Damn straight.
> I;m still in practice.
>
> > Has Scott Bradbury, of Texas, been successful
> > in his charges of illegal activities, filed with the
> > Pa. Law association?
>
> No such charges were ever filed.
>
> In fact legal sanctions were just assessed against the criminal Bradbury
> for contempt ordering him to pay me a large sum in ;ega; fees.
Yeehah!!
> > Could it be that Yale has had visitors, such as
> > from Christian Identity, who were able to
> > reason with him, showing him the error of
> > his ways?
>
> Why? Did some of your friends die suddenly?
ROTFL.
--
Gord McFee
I'll write no line before its time
Visit the Holocaust History Project
http://www.holocaust-history.org
Visit the Nizkor site
http://www.nizkor.org
Brimstone
Brimstone
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Brimstone
Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA> wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>In <20870c5d...@usw-ex0102-015.remarq.com> in
alt.revisionism,
>on Mon, 03 Apr 2000 23:20:14 -0700, Brimstone
><mr_brimsto...@excite.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Damn, you mean Morris lied? I'm shocked.
>
A, B,
>or C ratings to lawyers.
Ok...Prove it.
>
>They are quite clear about how they're rating system works.
David
>Michael knows very well how their rating system works, but he
chooses
>to lie about it.
I have never known Dr. Michael to lie.
>
>One really has to wonder about David's mental health when he
tells
>such transparent lies.
Do you really believe that someone who lies has a mental health
problem? Morris I believe you're fucked up.
>You are not helping your friend by egging him on and validating
his
>delusions.
You can't read worth a fuck...I have no friends on usenet. I do
support people whom I believe to be truthful. You're not one of
those people Morris.
Brimstone
>- --
> John Morris
<John....@UAlberta.CA>
> at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur
scientia>
>
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use
<http://www.pgp.com>
>
>iQA/AwUBOOmMZ5QgvG272fn9EQISNgCg9J4mKDzUIWALGtp4AgGMCJce04IAoIIR
>2AiD+JPCpTv8uR6GnXeXTj8z
>=vtDO
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Doc Tavish
References: <235952045d8a0567...@anon.xg.nu>
Subject: Re: Is Yale Edeiken in Jail?
Message-ID: <w_5G4.563$5e.5...@newshog.newsread.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 19:08:12 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.16.155.115
X-Complaints-To: Abuse Role <ab...@enter.net>,
We Care <ab...@newsread.com>
X-Trace: newshog.newsread.com 954788892 207.16.155.115
(Mon, 03 Apr 2000 15:08:12 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000 15:08:12 EDT
Organization: ENTER.net (enter.net)
On 3-Apr-2000, "Yale F. Edeiken" <ya...@enter.net> wrote:
> Anonymous <rema...@anon.xg.nu> wrote in message
> news:235952045d8a0567...@anon.xg.nu...
> > Conspicuous by the absence of postings to
> > newsgroups for the past few weeks, has been
> > Yale Edeiken, the disgraced lawyer/liar of
> > Allentown,Pa.
> I'm still here you lying nazi.
>
> I;m still in practice.
You need to PRACTICE your typing because you aren't much as a
lawyer at least according to one independent group that I have no
affiliation with:
http://x22.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=567621236&fmt=text
Yale F. Edeiken attempts intimidation:
> > > See you in February, sucker.
> > Just look at what I've found out about you Yale. Look below!
> That I was placed on a list by some kook.
>
> Big deal.
>
> --YFE
Yes, Mr Edeiken. It IS a big deal. Based upon your own admission
to this newsgroup, you
* Were sued twice for malpractice.
* Missed a statute of limitations.
* Missed a court deadline.
That is why you are blacklisted by Citizens for Legal Responsibility.
That is why you dare not sue me for defamation when I assert that in
my view you are not a fit and proper person to practise law in the state
of Pennsylvania.
That is why you only have a C rating for legal ability.
I think Mr Bradbury's lawyers might have quite a bit of fun with you in
February, deadline-misser Edeiken.
David
---------- Forwarded Message Follows ----------
Here is exactly what the link <http://www.clr.org/pa.html> says
of Yale F. Edeiken:
Judicial/Legal Misconduct
in Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following are some of the attorneys or judges who have been reported to
have been disciplined by the State of Pennsylvania for unethical conduct,
sued for malpractice, incarcerated, whom we understand have been charged
with unethical conduct, have engaged in conduct which tends to defeat the
administration of justice or to bring the courts and the legal business into
disrepute, etc.
EDEIKEN, YALE F.
<other names deleted because they aren't relevant>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 1998-99 by Citizens for Legal Responsibility .
All rights reserved.
email: c...@clr.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Created August 25, 1998 Last Updated November 8, 1999
I now ask one and all does not the website above in its description
of lawyers like Yale F. Edeiken fit especially when you compare
what Citizens for Legal Responsibility claim as compared to the
shenanigans by Yale as documented by DejaCom as truthfully
and in full context shown below? How can anyone defend Yale's
abuse of the legal system in light of the above and below?
Doc Tavish
----end----
I would say that obtaing private information from an ISP under the aegis of
an ethical attorney and then releasing to people that criminally misuse it more
than qualifies Yale F. Edeiken for the onerous position described above with
these words: "...attorneys ...who have been reported to have been disciplined
by the State of Pennsylvania for unethical conduct, sued for malpractice,
incarcerated, whom we understand have been charged with unethical
conduct, have engaged in conduct which tends to defeat the administration
of justice or to bring the courts and the legal business into disrepute, etc."
For the record-- Yale did NOT make it to their list on account of any complaint
from me! They will be informed of any future criminal prosecutions concerning
Edeiken.
> > Has Scott Bradbury, of Texas, been successful
> > in his charges of illegal activities, filed with the
> > Pa. Law association?
> No such charges were ever filed.
Wanna bet?
> In fact legal sanctions were just assessed against the criminal Bradbury
> for contempt ordering him to pay me a large sum in ;ega; fees.
Folks what we have here is another attempt by shady lawyers to line their own
pockets. Yale F. Edeiken acting as his own lawyer had filed a civil lawsuit
against me. He now in turn expects me to pay him for suing me! Now I ask
in the most polite way: "How god damned stupid is this shyster?"
I tell you what as a matter of fact as well Yale-- your continual referal to me
as being a criminal, and your posting who I am and where I live is not too
wise. You are supposed to be a respecatble attorney yet you libel a private
citizen. How on G-d's Green Acres can you (as a lawyer) continually call me
a "criminal" when I have never been convicted? BTW I am going to make sure
that your legal firm receives these latest attacks against me as well as
Sheriff Rossi and Judge Wallisch. They are entitled to know your capers
as well as a federal grand jury. Please keep posting more actionable libel
please!
I tell you what Yale-- instead of you using your legal profession to intimidate me
you should be preparing to defend yourself with being an accessory and intelligence
behind federal crimes that have been perpetrated against me because of you
very own actions!
> > Could it be that Yale has had visitors, such as
> > from Christian Identity, who were able to
> > reason with him, showing him the error of
> > his ways?
> Why? Did some of your friends die suddenly?
>
>
> --YFE
Doc Tavish
--
"For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which none of your adversaries
will be able to withstand or contradict." Son of Man {Luke 21:15 RSV}
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <8cbeh...@news1.newsguy.com> in alt.revisionism, on Tue, 4 Apr
2000 00:55:03 GMT, "Doc Tavish" <doc_t...@NOSPAMmy-deja.com> wrote:
[snip]
>You need to PRACTICE your typing because you aren't much as a
>lawyer at least according to one independent group that I have no
>affiliation with:
>http://x22.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=567621236&fmt=text
You are fool if you believe David Michael's slanders. That is, in
fact a very good rating for a lawyer.
You should get a lawyer as highly regarded by his peers. You need to
stop treating this like a game and get a lawyer.
- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOOlae5QgvG272fn9EQKpQgCgjfVSOoj1rc3zfjbe/k5ALral2m0AnAzu
L77TzOv0Dbnb+yKI0UgMPyQ7
=NBv0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Yale F. Edeiken
Defendant Bradbury <sonn...@flash.net> wrote in message n
> > I'm still here you lying nazi.
> >
> > I;m still in practice.
> You need to PRACTICE your typing because you aren't much as a
> lawyer at least according to one independent group that I have no
> affiliation with:
Which turned out to be an anonymus complaint put in the the day before
you "found" it.
> > No such charges were ever filed.
>
> Wanna bet?
Yes. I do. And you have been ordered by the courts to produce them and
never have.
> > In fact legal sanctions were just assessed against the criminal
Bradbury
> > for contempt ordering him to pay me a large sum in ;ega; fees.
> Folks what we have here is another attempt by shady lawyers to line their
own
> pockets. Yale F. Edeiken acting as his own lawyer had filed a civil
lawsuit
> against me. He now in turn expects me to pay him for suing me! Now I ask
> in the most polite way: "How god damned stupid is this shyster?"
That is, of course, a lie. You failed to show up for a deposition
ordred by the court.
Certrifed check only, vriminal.
> I tell you what as a matter of fact as well Yale-- your continual referal
to me
> as being a criminal
I certainly do. You are one.
> and your posting who I am and where I live is not too
> wise.
Nope. it's in the public domain.
> You are supposed to be a respecatble attorney yet you libel a private
> citizen.
Yhe truth is not libel.
How on G-d's Green A>cres can you (as a lawyer) continually call me
> a "criminal" when I have never been convicted?
Because you have continually committed criminal acts.
> BTW I am going to make sure
> that your legal firm receives these latest attacks against me
Since your cohorts have criminally harassed yhem due to Lord Haw Haw's
efforts and, at least one of them, has stated he wished to kick your balls
so far up that you'll have tsticles for eyeballs -- good luck.
> as well as
> Sheriff Rossi and Judge Wallisch.
Since Jusge Wallitsch has read your gibberish and tought you were a
deranged and violence-prone goof (you didn't show up for that hearing
either) and referred them to Sheriff Rossi, I'm sure they'll be impressed as
well.
> They are entitled to know your capers
> as well as a federal grand jury. Please keep posting more actionable libel
> please!
I intend to keep telling one and all the truth about you.
And when will I be getting that certified check?
Bradbury is a notorious liar and anti-Semite noted for his utter dishonesty
and 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.
--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/
david.e...@btinternet.com
John Morris wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
In <8cbeh...@news1.newsguy.com> in alt.revisionism, on Tue, 4 Apr
2000 00:55:03 GMT, "Doc Tavish" <doc_t...@NOSPAMmy-deja.com> wrote:
[snip]
>You need to PRACTICE your typing because you aren't much as a
>lawyer at least according to one independent group that I have no
>affiliation with:
>http://x22.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=567621236&fmt=text
You are fool if you believe David Michael's slanders. That is, in
fact a very good rating for a lawyer.
Since John Morris evidently doesn't know what 'slander' is or how it differs from 'libel' one would be a fool if one accepts his views of what makes a 'good rating' for a lawyer.
You should get a lawyer as highly regarded by his peers. You need to
stop treating this like a game and get a lawyer.- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>iQA/AwUBOOlae5QgvG272fn9EQKpQgCgjfVSOoj1rc3zfjbe/k5ALral2m0AnAzu
L77TzOv0Dbnb+yKI0UgMPyQ7
=NBv0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
David
On 5 February 2000 William Daffer wrote: 'total honesty isn't required'.
On 21 November 1998 Scot Murphy wrote: 'Yes, these are newsgroups I lurked through--though never contributed to'.
On 30 January 2000 Michael Ragland wrote: 'I must admit I have at times done revisionist postings to confuse others and help the anti-revisionist side. How so, well I've stated the Nazis killed millions of Jews but Hitler didn't know about it! I realize that by acknowledging the Nazis killed millions of Jew, even if I have demonstrated there is no proof Hitler knew about the extermination, I have caused some damage to revisionists.'
On 8 February 2000 Michael Ragland wrote: 'Sometimes telling half-truths, white lies, etc. is important for self-preservation and to achieve certain ends.'
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <38E97D1A...@btinternet.com> in alt.revisionism, on Tue, 04
Apr 2000 06:26:50 +0100, net loon and criminal
"david.e...@btinternet.com" <david.e...@btinternet.com>
wrote:
>John Morris wrote:
>> In <8cbeh...@news1.newsguy.com> in alt.revisionism, on Tue, 4
>> Apr 2000 00:55:03 GMT, "Doc Tavish" <doc_t...@NOSPAMmy-deja.com>
>> wrote:
>> [snip]
>> >You need to PRACTICE your typing because you aren't much as a
>> >lawyer at least according to one independent group that I have no
>> >affiliation with:
>> >http://x22.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=567621236&fmt=text
>> You are fool if you believe David Michael's slanders. That is, in
>> fact, a very good rating for a lawyer.
>Since John Morris evidently doesn't know what 'slander' is or how it
>differs from 'libel' one would be a fool if one accepts his views of
>what makes a 'good rating' for a lawyer.
It's not my view, but the view of Yale's peers when polled by
Martindale-Hubbell.
I'm sorry that reality is so troublesome to you.
- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOOmBTpQgvG272fn9EQI50gCeNU4P12vrDXkTAmQZDq0QUFQO+wAAoOGy
DfymSFeaTEYJWXB2oW9nLnZW
=znzR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
david.e...@btinternet.com
John Morris wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
In <38E97D1A...@btinternet.com> in alt.revisionism, on Tue, 04
Apr 2000 06:26:50 +0100, net loon and criminal
"david.e...@btinternet.com" <david.e...@btinternet.com>
wrote:
>John Morris wrote:
>> In <8cbeh...@news1.newsguy.com> in alt.revisionism, on Tue, 4
>> Apr 2000 00:55:03 GMT, "Doc Tavish" <doc_t...@NOSPAMmy-deja.com>
>> wrote:
>> [snip]
>> >You need to PRACTICE your typing because you aren't much as a
>> >lawyer at least according to one independent group that I have no
>> >affiliation with:
>> >http://x22.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=567621236&fmt=text
>> You are fool if you believe David Michael's slanders. That is, in
>> fact, a very good rating for a lawyer.
>Since John Morris evidently doesn't know what 'slander' is or how it
>differs from 'libel' one would be a fool if one accepts his views of
>what makes a 'good rating' for a lawyer.It's not my view, but the view of Yale's peers when polled by
Martindale-Hubbell.I'm sorry that reality is so troublesome to you.
- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>iQA/AwUBOOmBTpQgvG272fn9EQI50gCeNU4P12vrDXkTAmQZDq0QUFQO+wAAoOGy
DfymSFeaTEYJWXB2oW9nLnZW
=znzR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Yup. He could have got an A or a B. Instead he got a C. That appears to be the lowest rating available.
Come on, Morris . . . don't wiggle out of it. You've accused me of 'slander'. Now give us your definition of slander please.
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <38E983B7...@btinternet.com> in alt.revisionism, on Tue, 04
Apr 2000 06:55:03 +0100, net loon and criminal
"david.e...@btinternet.com" <david.e...@btinternet.com>
wrote:
>John Morris wrote:
>> In <38E97D1A...@btinternet.com> in alt.revisionism, on Tue,
>> 04 Apr 2000 06:26:50 +0100, net loon and criminal
>> "david.e...@btinternet.com" <david.e...@btinternet.com>
>> wrote:
>> >John Morris wrote:
>> >> In <8cbeh...@news1.newsguy.com> in alt.revisionism, on Tue, 4
>> >> Apr 2000 00:55:03 GMT, "Doc Tavish"
>> >> <doc_t...@NOSPAMmy-deja.com> wrote:
>> >> [snip]
>> >> >You need to PRACTICE your typing because you aren't much as a
>> >> >lawyer at least according to one independent group that I have
>> >> >no affiliation with:
>> >> >http://x22.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=567621236&fmt=text
>> >> You are fool if you believe David Michael's slanders. That is,
>> >> in fact, a very good rating for a lawyer.
>> >Since John Morris evidently doesn't know what 'slander' is or how
>> >it differs from 'libel' one would be a fool if one accepts his
>> >views of what makes a 'good rating' for a lawyer.
>> It's not my view, but the view of Yale's peers when polled by
>> Martindale-Hubbell.
>> I'm sorry that reality is so troublesome to you.
>Yup.
Yup what? Yup, reality is troublesome to you?
> He could have got an A or a B. Instead he got a C. That appears to
> be
>the lowest rating available.
There is no such rating system used by Martindale-Hubbell.
>Come on, Morris . . . don't wiggle out of it. You've accused me of
>'slander'. Now give us your definition of slander please.
slander (-ah-') n., & v.t. 1 n. false report maliciously uttered
to person's injury
--Concise Oxford 7th edition.
The "false report" and "malice" certainly apply. If you are going to
stand on pedantry, I suppose you didn't really utter it, but wrote
it.
- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOOmHFZQgvG272fn9EQKuNACg5gNWRy8rSqkgW67W2LBPYvuhvKsAn0lr
w692jg92uvd5+hDhN70VgnvX
=uhgx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
david.e...@btinternet.com
John Morris wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
In <38E983B7...@btinternet.com> in alt.revisionism, on Tue, 04
Apr 2000 06:55:03 +0100, net loon and criminal
"david.e...@btinternet.com" <david.e...@btinternet.com>
wrote:>John Morris wrote:
>> In <38E97D1A...@btinternet.com> in alt.revisionism, on Tue,
>> 04 Apr 2000 06:26:50 +0100, net loon and criminal
>> "david.e...@btinternet.com" <david.e...@btinternet.com>
>> wrote:
>> >John Morris wrote:
>> >> In <8cbeh...@news1.newsguy.com> in alt.revisionism, on Tue, 4
>> >> Apr 2000 00:55:03 GMT, "Doc Tavish"
>> >> <doc_t...@NOSPAMmy-deja.com> wrote:
>> >> [snip]
>> >> >You need to PRACTICE your typing because you aren't much as a
>> >> >lawyer at least according to one independent group that I have
>> >> >no affiliation with:
>> >> You are fool if you believe David Michael's slanders. That is,
>> >> in fact, a very good rating for a lawyer.
>> >Since John Morris evidently doesn't know what 'slander' is or how
>> >it differs from 'libel' one would be a fool if one accepts his
>> >views of what makes a 'good rating' for a lawyer.
>> It's not my view, but the view of Yale's peers when polled by
>> Martindale-Hubbell.
>> I'm sorry that reality is so troublesome to you.
>Yup.
Yup what? Yup, reality is troublesome to you?
> He could have got an A or a B. Instead he got a C. That appears to
> be
>the lowest rating available.
Yes there is.There is no such rating system used by Martindale-Hubbell.
>Come on, Morris . . . don't wiggle out of it. You've accused me of
>'slander'. Now give us your definition of slander please.
slander (-ah-') n., & v.t. 1 n. false report maliciously uttered
to person's injury
--Concise Oxford 7th edition.The "false report" and "malice" certainly apply. If you are going to
stand on pedantry, I suppose you didn't really utter it, but wrote
it.
Aha. So it wasn't slander then, was it?
- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOOmHFZQgvG272fn9EQKuNACg5gNWRy8rSqkgW67W2LBPYvuhvKsAn0lr
w692jg92uvd5+hDhN70VgnvX
=uhgx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
David
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <38E98A5C...@btinternet.com> in alt.revisionism, on Tue, 04
Apr 2000 07:23:24 +0100, "david.e...@btinternet.com"
<david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>John Morris wrote:
>> >John Morris wrote:
>> >> >John Morris wrote:
>> >> >> [snip]
>> >> >> >http://x22.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=567621236&fmt=text
>> >Yup.
>Yes there is.
Nope.
>> >Come on, Morris . . . don't wiggle out of it. You've accused me
>> >of 'slander'. Now give us your definition of slander please.
>> slander (-ah-') n., & v.t. 1 n. false report maliciously uttered
>> to person's injury
>> --Concise Oxford 7th edition.
>> The "false report" and "malice" certainly apply. If you are going
>> to stand on pedantry, I suppose you didn't really utter it, but
>> wrote it.
>Aha. So it wasn't slander then, was it?
If you want to be pedantic about it.
- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOOmK+ZQgvG272fn9EQJdmwCgwja42NksfhI8BaWjlOha/fFwcCsAnRL7
pvL+yKlGcUK6+2uq+1Q66t5F
=4aPl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <20870c5d...@usw-ex0102-015.remarq.com> in alt.revisionism,
on Mon, 03 Apr 2000 23:20:14 -0700, Brimstone
<mr_brimsto...@excite.com.invalid> wrote:
>Damn, you mean Morris lied? I'm shocked.
Nope. I'm telling the truth. Martindale-Hubbell does not give A, B,
or C ratings to lawyers.
They are quite clear about how they're rating system works. David
Michael knows very well how their rating system works, but he chooses
to lie about it.
One really has to wonder about David's mental health when he tells
such transparent lies.
You are not helping your friend by egging him on and validating his
delusions.
- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOOmMZ5QgvG272fn9EQISNgCg9J4mKDzUIWALGtp4AgGMCJce04IAoIIR
Doc Tavish
On 3-Apr-2000, "Yale F. Edeiken" <ya...@enter.net> wrote:
> Defendant Bradbury <sonn...@flash.net> wrote in message n
> > > I'm still here you lying nazi.
Looks very ill mannered and defamatory to me Yale and you as an attorney in open
public forum show to all reading just what a reputable attorney you are. I won't name
the law firm you work for but I'd bet they'd be very embarassed if they see how
you have handled yourself. If you think they'd be proud of you then you tell everyone
who you work for. Perhaps your fine behaviour will be an advertisement to get them
more business! What do you think? :-)
> > > I;m still in practice.
> > You need to PRACTICE your typing because you aren't much as a
> > lawyer at least according to one independent group that I have no
> > affiliation with:
> Which turned out to be an anonymus complaint put in the the day before
> you "found" it.
Yeah! We are all really convinced. Your credibilty has really proven itself!
Why did you delete this part Yale? Is it too damned painful for you
to deal with:
http://x22.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=567621236&fmt=text
~~~End of Restoration of What Yale Deleted~~~
> > > No such charges were ever filed.
> > Wanna bet?
> Yes. I do. And you have been ordered by the courts to produce them and
> never have.
Bzzzzzt. Wrong again "criminal defendant" Edeiken. The charges which have been filed
were after your request! More will be filed within a few days. Your postings within the past
48 hours will show beyond any doubt who has harassed who. Just keep posting your
wild and misguided accusations-- they are excellent ammunition in proving that you bear
malice toward me. I have been objective but you have not. I have dotted all my "i"s and
crossed my "t"s and have provided all documentation which refutes your charges.
You on the other hand can only libel, defame, and make personal attack. As I said
in another very recent post--- keep it up and perhaps you'll make the case that you
be submitted for psychiatric evaluation. One of your co-horts has already been
ordered by a judge to attend mental counseling sessions!
BTW Yale regarding the two lawsuits filed against you-- we never had a report
of the outcome. I'll bet that you lost both! Care to deny this?
Cordially,
david.e...@btinternet.com
John Morris wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
In <38E98A5C...@btinternet.com> in alt.revisionism, on Tue, 04
Apr 2000 07:23:24 +0100, "david.e...@btinternet.com"
<david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote:>John Morris wrote:
>> >John Morris wrote:
>> >> >John Morris wrote:
>> >> >> [snip]
>> >> >> >http://x22.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=567621236&fmt=text
>> >Yup.
Yup.>Yes there is.
Nope.
>> >Come on, Morris . . . don't wiggle out of it. You've accused me
>> >of 'slander'. Now give us your definition of slander please.
>> slander (-ah-') n., & v.t. 1 n. false report maliciously uttered
>> to person's injury
>> --Concise Oxford 7th edition.
>> The "false report" and "malice" certainly apply. If you are going
>> to stand on pedantry, I suppose you didn't really utter it, but
>> wrote it.
>Aha. So it wasn't slander then, was it?
So if you'd sued me for slander you'd have lost, wouldn't ya? :)-If you want to be pedantic about it.
- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOOmK+ZQgvG272fn9EQJdmwCgwja42NksfhI8BaWjlOha/fFwcCsAnRL7
pvL+yKlGcUK6+2uq+1Q66t5F
=4aPl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
David
david.e...@btinternet.com
John Morris wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> In <20870c5d...@usw-ex0102-015.remarq.com> in alt.revisionism,
> on Mon, 03 Apr 2000 23:20:14 -0700, Brimstone
> <mr_brimsto...@excite.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> >Damn, you mean Morris lied? I'm shocked.
>
> Nope. I'm telling the truth. Martindale-Hubbell does not give A, B,
> or C ratings to lawyers.
>
Oh yes they do.
>
> They are quite clear about how they're rating system works. David
> Michael knows very well how their rating system works, but he chooses
> to lie about it.
>
Nope, I choose to represent Mr Edeiken's rating for legal ability exactly
as it appeared when I looked it up on the Martindale-Hubbell page on the
WWW.
>
> One really has to wonder about David's mental health when he tells
> such transparent lies.
>
It's absolutely fine, thank you, and the truth of what I have said may be
verified on the Martindale-Hubbell WWW page..
>
> You are not helping your friend by egging him on and validating his
> delusions.
>
> - --
> John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
> at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
>
> iQA/AwUBOOmMZ5QgvG272fn9EQISNgCg9J4mKDzUIWALGtp4AgGMCJce04IAoIIR
> 2AiD+JPCpTv8uR6GnXeXTj8z
> =vtDO
Brimstone
have to go to get this information?
Brimstone
david.e...@btinternet.com
Doc Tavish wrote:
> On 3-Apr-2000, "Yale F. Edeiken" <ya...@enter.net> wrote:
>
> > Defendant Bradbury <sonn...@flash.net> wrote in message n
>
> > > > I'm still here you lying nazi.
>
> Looks very ill mannered and defamatory to me Yale
Yup. Me too
> and you as an attorney in open
> public forum show to all reading just what a reputable attorney you are. I won't name
> the law firm you work
I will. Todd Miller and Associates of Allentown. The information is in the public domain and has
already been posted in this forum by several individuals. I repost it now to alert lurkers that
this is a company to AVOID.
> for but I'd bet they'd be very embarassed if they see how
> you have handled yourself. If you think they'd be proud of you then you tell everyone
> who you work for. Perhaps your fine behaviour will be an advertisement to get them
> more business! What do you think? :-)
>
Well I certainly wouldn't use an attorney with two malpractice suits against his name and a C
rating for legal ability who regularly posts obscenities on the Internet.
> > > > I;m still in practice.
>
> > > You need to PRACTICE your typing because you aren't much as a
> > > lawyer at least according to one independent group that I have no
> > > affiliation with:
>
Yup, Citizens for Legal Responsibility had him blacklisted on their web page.
>
<snip>
> I would say that obtaing private information from an ISP under the aegis of
> an ethical attorney and then releasing to people that criminally misuse it more
> than qualifies Yale F. Edeiken for the onerous position described above with
> these words: "...attorneys ...who have been reported to have been disciplined
> by the State of Pennsylvania for unethical conduct, sued for malpractice,
> incarcerated, whom we understand have been charged with unethical
> conduct, have engaged in conduct which tends to defeat the administration
> of justice or to bring the courts and the legal business into disrepute, etc."
>
Absolutely. He seems to be trying the same game with me but for reasons that will soon become
apparent he failed rather spectacularly.
>
>
> BTW Yale regarding the two lawsuits filed against you-- we never had a report
> of the outcome. I'll bet that you lost both! Care to deny this?
>
> Cordially,
> Doc Tavish
He admitted that he lost one. The outcome of the other can be obtained from a private detective
for a modest fee. I'll get around to doing it after the end of the financial year.
david.e...@btinternet.com
Brimstone wrote:
> I would like to know more about the listing. David where would I
> have to go to get this information?
>
> Brimstone
>
http://www.pacificnet.net/bklaw/mh.htm
Please note that they explain their rating system as follows:
<begin quote>
Martindale-Hubbell is probably the largest, oldest and most comprehensive
directory of attorneys in the United States. Its first books were published in
1868.
Martindale-Hubbell developed a rating system in which certain select attorneys
receive ratings based on legal ability and professional standards and ethics.
The rating consists of two letters. The first relating to Legal Ability, and
ranges from "A" (very high to preeminent), "B" (High to Very High), to "C" (Fair
to High). The second is the General Recommendation Rating, which is always "V".
If Martindale-Hubbell cannot give a "V" rating to an attorney, he receives no
rating
<end quote>
Edeiken received the lowest possible rating for legal ability when I checked a
few months ago. At the moment, however, the ratings are not online.
>
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
David
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <38E99BCF...@btinternet.com> in alt.revisionism, on Tue, 04
Apr 2000 08:37:51 +0100, net loon and criminal
"david.e...@btinternet.com" <david.e...@btinternet.com>
wrote:
>Doc Tavish wrote:
[snip]
>> > > You need to PRACTICE your typing because you aren't much as a
>> > > lawyer at least according to one independent group that I have
>> > > no affiliation with:
>Yup, Citizens for Legal Responsibility had him blacklisted on their
>web page.
This would be the "organization" which claims that the judges in his
divorce case committed treason when they granted his wife a divorce.
What I don't understand is why you persist in the fiction that CLR is
a reliable source for rating lawyers. It was obvious long ago that
it is a kook web site.
I guess what escapes me is how you form these hatreds so powerful
that you would sacrifice your credibility in favour pure malice. But
then that would also probably explain why you are a "racial
nationalist."
Anyway, since you have revived your ugly lie, newcomers can judge for
themselves the quality of your sources:
- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOOmhv5QgvG272fn9EQKLhQCgpCe7z9exRrJY44qo8ceOJNU657YAoIzI
YPp1lq9x5tRlsT8zFryI8/qE
=Gw/A
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <38E99F32...@btinternet.com> in alt.revisionism, on Tue, 04
Apr 2000 08:52:19 +0100, net loon and criminal
"david.e...@btinternet.com" <david.e...@btinternet.com>
wrote:
>Brimstone wrote:
>> I would like to know more about the listing. David where would I
>> have to go to get this information?
>> Brimstone
>http://www.pacificnet.net/bklaw/mh.htm
Pfft.
http://www.martindalehubbell.com/
>Please note that they explain their rating system as follows:
><begin quote>
>Martindale-Hubbell is probably the largest, oldest and most
>comprehensive directory of attorneys in the United States. Its first
>books were published in 1868.
>Martindale-Hubbell developed a rating system in which certain select
>attorneys receive ratings based on legal ability and professional
>standards and ethics. The rating consists of two letters. The first
>relating to Legal Ability, and ranges from "A" (very high to
>preeminent), "B" (High to Very High), to "C" (Fair to High). The
>second is the General Recommendation Rating, which is always "V". If
>Martindale-Hubbell cannot give a "V" rating to an attorney, he
>receives no rating
><end quote>
>Edeiken received the lowest possible rating for legal ability when I
>checked a few months ago. At the moment, however, the ratings are
>not online.
Leave it to you to lie by omission.
<quote>
Ratings reflect the confidential opinions of bar members and the
judiciary, and attest to the individual lawyer's legal ability and
adherence to professional standards of ethics. Exclusive to the
Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory, ratings are accepted as
exceptionally valuable benchmarks by members of the legal community,
and testify to the unique and respected position the Law Directory
occupies in the legal profession. They are intended for the use of
lawyers and law firms in the practice of their profession. The public
at large is encouraged to consult http://www.lawyers.com, a site
specially designed to meet the legal information needs of
non-lawyers.
Martindale-Hubbell solicits confidential opinions from members of the
Bar, including those who have ratings and those who do not. In
addition, members of the Judiciary are queried. Opinions are
solicited via written questionnaires and by Martindale-Hubbell
representatives who conduct interviews.
Ratings fall into two categories: Legal Ability and General-Ethical
Standards. Unless a rating is established in both categories, no
rating is published.
The Legal Ability Ratings (C, B, A) take into consideration the
standard of ability for the area where the lawyer practices, the
attorney's expertise, nature of practice and qualifications relevant
to the profession. Where a lawyer's practice is limited or
specialized, rating opinions are made on the basis of performance in
those specific fields of law.
The General-Ethical Standards Rating (V) covers adherence to
professional standards of conduct and ethics, reliability, diligence
and other criteria relevant to the discharge of professional
responsibilities.
In the United States, 43% of the active bar is rated. Omission of
individual lawyer ratings should not be construed as unfavorable
since Martindale-Hubbell does not undertake to develop ratings for
every lawyer. In addition, certain lawyers have requested their
ratings not be published. In other instances, definitive information
required to establish a rating has yet to be developed.
CV®, BV®, and AV® are trademarks of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc,
used under license. For more information on Martindale-Hubbell
Ratings, visit http://www.martindale.com/company/ratings.html .
-
----------------------------------------------------------------------
- ----------
YALE F. EDEIKEN
[...]
CV*
ADMITTED: 1974
-
----------------------------------------------------------------------
- ----------
*The Martindale-Hubbell CV Rating indicates good to high legal
ability and very high ethical standards as established by
confidential opinions from members of the Bar.
<quote>
- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOOmj2pQgvG272fn9EQLV8gCg7PWJ+XnZK89jR6Pu7L09SfwnJM8An2Yb
D/A+piqRh7MPllC3vBtwh0xE
=2aUV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
John Morris
Hash: SHA1
In <04e40620...@usw-ex0102-015.remarq.com> in alt.revisionism,
on Mon, 03 Apr 2000 23:54:57 -0700, Brimstone
<mr_brimsto...@excite.com.invalid> wrote:
[snip]
>You can't read worth a fuck...I have no friends on usenet.
And I can't say that I am at all surprised.
[snip]
- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOOmkk5QgvG272fn9EQI5WQCdGP/UEoNTh4G7WdDtfo1plONUPrkAoPCi
mNX59oY4Yy0RYC88lUA9DDMB
=9NpM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Sara Salzman
signing himself DAVID.
Too bad these little boys can't keep their nyms straight.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
--
-Sig currently on vacation
Yale F. Edeiken
<david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:38E983B7...@btinternet.com...
John Morris wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1In <38E97D1A...@btinternet.com> in alt.revisionism, on Tue, 04
Apr 2000 06:26:50 +0100, net loon and criminal
"david.e...@btinternet.com" <david.e...@btinternet.com>
wrote:>John Morris wrote:
>> In <8cbeh...@news1.newsguy.com> in alt.revisionism, on Tue, 4
>> Apr 2000 00:55:03 GMT, "Doc Tavish" <doc_t...@NOSPAMmy-deja.com>
>> wrote:>> [snip]
>> >You need to PRACTICE your typing because you aren't much as a
>> >lawyer at least according to one independent group that I have no
>> >affiliation with:>> >http://x22.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=567621236&fmt=text
>> You are fool if you believe David Michael's slanders. That is, in
>> fact, a very good rating for a lawyer.>Since John Morris evidently doesn't know what 'slander' is or how it
>differs from 'libel' one would be a fool if one accepts his views of
>what makes a 'good rating' for a lawyer.It's not my view, but the view of Yale's peers when polled by
Martindale-Hubbell.
Yup. He could have got an A or a B. Instead he got a C. That appears to be the lowest rating available.You are wrong.But that's not unusal for a lying nazi like you.Now answer this:Some might wonder why Lord Haw-Haw, who describes the nazis as "our side" in World War II and claims that the Jews of Europe would have "better off" if Hitler had won, has resorted to advocating the criminal harassment of innocent people to silence his opponents. Perhaps the reason is that whenever he opens his mouth and tries to present his arguments, he is regularly and consistently humiliated.
Here is one example. Lord Haw-Haw claimed that the IMT trial at Nuremberg did not follow the Anglo-American rules of evidence. When challenged to produce a single example of such deviation all Lord Haw-Haw could claim was that movies were not admissible as evidence.
Although Lord Haw-Haw could provide no reference demonstrating that Lord Lawrence made such a decision he continued to claimed that Anglo-American law was violated British stated that:
1. Motion pictures were not admissible in evidence in British courts prior to 1945.
2. That the standard for admission into evidence of motion pictures and still pictures is different.
Lord Haw Haw could post no authority or source for those statements.
Lord Haw-Haw was, thereafter, provided with an authoritative source on British law (Wigmore on Evidence) written in 1940 which stated that motion pictures were admissible in evidence and that the standard by which they are evaluated is identical to that used for still photography. The same authoritative source states that the standards were the same in both criminal and civil matters.
Lord Haw-Haw never produced an authoritative source which contradicts this. Since, if he had a basis for his claims, he could instantly have fired back some source. Instead he consistently ran away from this point. It gives rise to a strong presumption that he did not know what he was talking about but fabricated his allegations from whole cloth.
Will Lord Haw Haw ever provide some citation which backs up his contentions?
Or are we going to see nothing but elbows and assholes.
-- YFE
Yale F. Edeiken
<david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:38E99734...@btinternet.com...
>
>
> John Morris wrote:
>
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > on Mon, 03 Apr 2000 23:20:14 -0700, Brimstone
> > <mr_brimsto...@excite.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > >Damn, you mean Morris lied? I'm shocked.
> >
> > Nope. I'm telling the truth. Martindale-Hubbell does not give A, B,
> > or C ratings to lawyers.
> Oh yes they do.
It's a surprise to them, then.
They ahve no such rating system.
> > They are quite clear about how they're rating system works. David
> > Michael knows very well how their rating system works, but he chooses
> > to lie about it.
> >
>
> Nope, I choose to represent Mr Edeiken's rating for legal ability exactly
> as it appeared when I looked it up on the Martindale-Hubbell page on the
> WWW.
That's a lie.
The rating was vg-C.
And the rating is only given to the top 10% of attorneys AS THEY CLEAR:Y
STATE.
> > One really has to wonder about David's mental health when he tells
> > such transparent lies.
> It's absolutely fine, thank you, and the truth of what I have said may be
> verified on the Martindale-Hubbell WWW page..
Where it will be shown that Lord Haw Haw is lying again.
> >
> > You are not helping your friend by egging him on and validating his
> > delusions.
Some might wonder why Lord Haw-Haw, who describes the nazis as "our side"
Yale F. Edeiken
Doc Tavish <doc_t...@NOSPAMmy-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8cc1...@news1.newsguy.com...
>
> On 3-Apr-2000, "Yale F. Edeiken" <ya...@enter.net> wrote:
>
> > Defendant Bradbury <sonn...@flash.net> wrote in message n
>
> > > > I'm still here you lying nazi.
>
> Looks very ill mannered and defamatory to me Yale
But you look at the world through nazi colored glasses.
> and you as an attorney in open
> public forum show to all reading just what a reputable attorney you are. I
won't name
> the law firm you work for but I'd bet they'd be very embarassed if they
see how
> you have handled yourself. If you think they'd be proud of you then you
tell everyone
> who you work for. Perhaps your fine behaviour will be an advertisement to
get them
> more business! What do you think? :-)
I think that that the certified check had beeter be in my hands by the
date that it is due.
The dishonest post from the diseased mind of Scott Bradbury
(sonn...@flash.net) writing under the name of "Doc Tavish" is deleted as
the garbage that it is.
Bradbury is a notorious liar and anti-Semite noted for his utter dishonesty
and 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/
Yale F. Edeiken
<david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:38E99BCF...@btinternet.com...
>
>
> Doc Tavish wrote:
>
> > On 3-Apr-2000, "Yale F. Edeiken" <ya...@enter.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Defendant Bradbury <sonn...@flash.net> wrote in message n
> >
> > > > > I'm still here you lying nazi.
> >
> > Looks very ill mannered and defamatory to me Yale
>
>
> > and you as an attorney in open
> > public forum show to all reading just what a reputable attorney you are.
I won't name
> > the law firm you work
> I will.
Of course you will. That is because your primary weapon is criminal
harassment.
Thank you for proving it once more.
david.e...@btinternet.com
Sara Salzman wrote:
Here's DOC TAVISH, referring to SCOTT BRADBURY in the third person, and
signing himself DAVID.
Too bad these little boys can't keep their nyms straight.
In article <8cc1...@news1.newsguy.com>, doc_t...@NOSPAMmy-deja.com wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
--
-Sig currently on vacation
Nope, he was quoting me, not pretending to be me.
Ed Kadach
> > >
> > > I;m still in practice.
>
> > You need to PRACTICE your typing because you aren't much as a
> > lawyer at least according to one independent group that I have no
> > affiliation with:
>
> you "found" it.
>
> >
> > Wanna bet?
>
> never have.
>
> Bradbury
> > > for contempt ordering him to pay me a large sum in ;ega; fees.
>
> > Folks what we have here is another attempt by shady lawyers to line their
> own
> > pockets. Yale F. Edeiken acting as his own lawyer had filed a civil
> lawsuit
> > against me. He now in turn expects me to pay him for suing me! Now I ask
> > in the most polite way: "How god damned stupid is this shyster?"
>
> ordred by the court.
>
> Certrifed check only, vriminal.
Who exactly are you calling a vriminal? Oh, and by the way
I'LL send you that certrifed check.
Racialist regards to a maroon,
Ed Kadach
Gord McFee
+0100, "david.e...@btinternet.com" <david.e...@btinternet.com>
wrote:
> Doc Tavish wrote:
>
> > On 3-Apr-2000, "Yale F. Edeiken" <ya...@enter.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Defendant Bradbury <sonn...@flash.net> wrote in message n
> >
> > > > > I'm still here you lying nazi.
> >
> > Looks very ill mannered and defamatory to me Yale
>
> Yup. Me too
>
> > and you as an attorney in open
> > public forum show to all reading just what a reputable attorney you are. I won't name
> > the law firm you work
>
> I will. Todd Miller and Associates of Allentown. The information is in the public domain and has
> already been posted in this forum by several individuals. I repost it now to alert lurkers that
> this is a company to AVOID.
You will regret that, Second Stringer.
> > for but I'd bet they'd be very embarassed if they see how
> > you have handled yourself. If you think they'd be proud of you then you tell everyone
> > who you work for. Perhaps your fine behaviour will be an advertisement to get them
> > more business! What do you think? :-)
>
> Well I certainly wouldn't use an attorney with two malpractice suits against his name and a C
> rating for legal ability who regularly posts obscenities on the Internet.
I suggest you get an attorney very quickly.
> > > > > I;m still in practice.
> >
> > > > You need to PRACTICE your typing because you aren't much as a
> > > > lawyer at least according to one independent group that I have no
> > > > affiliation with:
> >
>
> Yup, Citizens for Legal Responsibility had him blacklisted on their web page.
After you and your friends complained to them anonymously.
[deleted]
--
Gord McFee
I'll write no line before its time
Visit the Holocaust History Project
http://www.holocaust-history.org
Visit the Nizkor site
http://www.nizkor.org
Brimstone
Brimstone
Susan Cohen
Secret Squirrel wrote:
> Conspicuous by the absence of postings to
> newsgroups for the past few weeks, has been
> Yale Edeiken[snip lie]
>
> Has Scott Bradbury, of Texas, been successful
> in his charges of illegal activities, filed with the
> Pa. Law association?
Funny, I was thinking that it had been a long time since we'd
heard from the Forces of Stupidity, of whom you, Scotty,
are one truly sad example.
Brimstone
Yale F. Edeiken
Ed Kadach <edd...@connect.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:38EA84...@connect.ab.ca...
> Yale F. Edeiken wrote:
> >
> > Defendant Bradbury <sonn...@flash.net> wrote in message n
> >
> > > > I'm still here you lying nazi.
> > > >
> >
> > > You need to PRACTICE your typing because you aren't much as a
> > > lawyer at least according to one independent group that I have no
> > > affiliation with:
> >
before
> > you "found" it.
> >
> > > > No such charges were ever filed.
> > >
> > > Wanna bet?
> >
> > Yes. I do. And you have been ordered by the courts to produce them
and
> > never have.
> >
> > > > In fact legal sanctions were just assessed against the criminal
> > Bradbury
> > > > for contempt ordering him to pay me a large sum in ;ega; fees.
> >
> > > Folks what we have here is another attempt by shady lawyers to line
their
> > own
> > > pockets. Yale F. Edeiken acting as his own lawyer had filed a civil
> > lawsuit
> > > against me. He now in turn expects me to pay him for suing me! Now I
ask
> > > in the most polite way: "How god damned stupid is this shyster?"
> >
> > That is, of course, a lie. You failed to show up for a deposition
> > ordred by the court.
> >
> > Certrifed check only, vriminal.
> Who exactly are you calling a vriminal?
Scott Bradbury.
> Oh, and by the way
> I'LL send you that certrifed check.
In real money, KKK? I don't think you have it.
Yale F. Edeiken
Brimstone <mr_brimsto...@excite.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:1acf2b00...@usw-ex0101-005.remarq.com...
> The Doc is still kicking Yale's ass.
Is that why he seems to ahve run away?
And is your wife still beating you?
Doc Tavish
On 4-Apr-2000, "Yale F. Edeiken" <ya...@enter.net> wrote:
> Brimstone <mr_brimsto...@excite.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:1acf2b00...@usw-ex0101-005.remarq.com...
> > The Doc is still kicking Yale's ass.
> Is that why he seems to ahve run away?
[Run away from what? I'm still here but where have
you been for two months? Fighting in court to save
your ass because you assaulted someone at the
courthouse? Doc Tavish]
> And is your wife still beating you?
Are you still beating up on female cops?
[He definitely is setting a pattern for psychotic and violent
outbursts isn't he? Doc Tavish]
Brimstone
> --YFE
sjw
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Apr 2000 08:52:19 +0100, net loon and criminal
> "david.e...@btinternet.com" <david.e...@btinternet.com>
> John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
> at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>
So Yale Edeiken is not an Alan Dershowitz or a Gerry Spence. Well,
David Michael hasn't reached the pinnacle of his ambition either.
Having gotten a degree from a third-rate school, he doesn't make even a
third-rate Goebbels and only a pale imitation of the fellow with the
funny mustache. Now he has been reduced to harrassing people on the net
while hiding behind the skirts of a psychotic and a coprophile. What an
achievement. His mum must be very proud.
Steve
> Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
>