RE Dismissal of 1999-C-2786 Edeiken Vs Bradbury

Tavish

unread,

Jan 16, 2003, 6:11:59 PM1/16/03

to

Many of my foes want to believe that the lawsuit which as waged against me and
failed was dismissed solely on account of jurisdiction. This is simply not true.
I have maintained the fact the court was made aware that I was never served with
a copy of the complaint made against me-- and the same being done to David
Michael. I have been gathering together all documents concerning the malicious
prosecution against me (which is now being used to smear me) and I came across
the "Request for Relief From Judgment" document which even my naysayers should
be able to get from the court clerk and it plainly states (in part):

Filed September 22, 2000
PETTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
COMES NOW, the defendant, Scott Bradbury, by and through his counsel Daylin B.
Leach, Esquire, to petition this honorable court for Relief from Judgment,
pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 237.3. In support of this petition, the defendant avers
the following:
On August 25, 2000, the Plaintiff filed a Praecipe for Default Judgment with
this court. A true and correct copy of which is hereto and marked as "Exhibit
A."
Since a complaint has never been filed or served, the defendant is unable to
attach a copy of preliminary objections he would file if the judgment was opened
pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 237.3 (a).

Respectfully submitted
Daylin B. Leach Esquire

<END>

The above document should be easily obtained from the Lehigh County Office of
Court Clerks! IOW I was NEVER allowed to defend myself against numerous perjured
false accusations as detailed in this archive:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=&selm=ja362v4amltqohp97uo053rju5erbf80qr%404ax.com
Subject: Ken McVay's "Edeiken-v-Bradbury.C1" Is Filled With Lies and Perjury...
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 13:23:54 -0600
Message-ID: <ja362v4amltqohp97...@4ax.com>

Also this document should be available too:

Andrea E. Naugle
CLERK OF COURTS OF LEHIGH COUNTY - CIVIL DIVISION
Lehigh County Courthouse
455 W. Hamilton Street
Allentown, PA 18101-1614
RE: Edeiken Vs Bradbury 1999-C-2786

Partial text of letter from Judge Reibman:

<START>

Copies of this order were mailed to all counsel of record and pro se litigants.

CC: Counsel for Plaintiff (Yale F. Edeiken): Yale F. Edeiken Esq.
Counsel for Defendant (Scott Bradbury) : Daylin B. Leach Esq.

ORDER

AND NOW, this 12th day of June, 2001, upon consideration of Defendant's
Petition for Relief from Judgment, filed on September 22, 2000,
Plaintiff's response thereto, and argument thereon on February 7, 2001,

IT IS ORDERED said petition is GRANTED, and the case is DISMISSED.

[...]

BY THE COURT:
(Signed) Edward J. Reibman, J.

<STOP>

Do not forget-- Yale did exactly the same thing to David E. Michael (so he has a
pattern of being deceptive):

http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=39BBB347...@onetel.net.uk&lr=&hl=en
Message-ID: <39BBB347...@onetel.net.uk>
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 17:13:59 +0100
From: david_michael <david_...@onetel.net.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: The other Edeiken lawsuit
NNTP-Posting-Host: async170-6.nas.onetel.net.uk
X-Trace: 10 Sep 2000 17:14:15 GMT, async170-6.nas.onetel.net.uk

[...]

Mr Edeiken has filed a lawsuit against me in Pennsylvania. No documents
were ever served on me with regard to this lawsuit. Moreover, it stated
no cause of action. As Mr Edeiken had obviously assumed that I would
chicken out, allowing the thing simply to lapse unserved, I appointed an
attorney in PA to deal with him in a very non-chickenly way.

I recently received a communication from that attorney's paralegal that
stated, inter alia:

<begin quote>
Please be advised that we have filed the Rule to Show Cause in your
case. Mr. Edeiken must now move forward with this matter and file a
complaint . . . we are awaiting the statutory allowed time period during
which Mr. Edeiken can make a response.
<end quote>

Mr Edeiken evidently thought that he could use the law to silence
certain revisionist posters here.

We are now waiting for HIM to produce his arguments and evidence and
place them before the courts where he may rest assured that they will
meet a vigorous response.

~~End Of GOOGLE Archival Excerpt~~

The fact that my opposition has to use lies and smears against me based on legal
system abuse only shows how evil they are.

I state the above as a more elaborate reply to:

From: John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,can.general,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: 3 Questions Ken McVay Refuses to Answer..
Organization: at University of Alberta
Reply-To: John....@UAlberta.CA
Message-ID: <nvbc2vobr0cujip53...@4ax.com>
References: <VCVTTZTG3763...@anonymous.poster>
<DcsU9.453$3Z6.56...@news.nnrp.ca> <3e229...@news.newsgroups.com>
<el062vknbgtldq7qp...@4ax.com> <3e237...@news.newsgroups.com>
<ang72v0jv6q4k16uf...@4ax.com>
<kk0c2v0ki4l09oujm...@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 21:17:48 MST

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In <kk0c2v0ki4l09oujm...@4ax.com> in alt.revisionism,
on 16 Jan 2003 00:57:25 GMT, Tavish
<RemoveHyphens2M...@ix.net-co-m.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Jan 2003 08:03:38 GMT,
> <ang72v0jv6q4k16uf...@4ax.com> John Morris
> <John....@UAlberta.CA> wrote:

> >In <3e237...@news.newsgroups.com> in alt.revisionism, on Tue, 14
> >Jan 2003 02:09:04 -0000, "David" <da...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:

> >> "John Morris" <John....@UAlberta.CA> wrote in message
> >> news:el062vknbgtldq7qp...@4ax.com...

> >> > In <3e229...@news.newsgroups.com> in alt.revisionism, on
> >> > Mon, 13 Jan 2003 10:20:55 -0000, "David" <da...@onetel.net.uk>
> >> > wrote:

> >> > > The thing to note about Ken McVay and his Nizkor project is
> >> > > that he usually only gives one side of the story. In this
> >> > > case McVay reposts a complaint made by Yale F Edeiken about
> >> > > Scott Bradbury in a court in Pennsylvania. The tiny point he
> >> > > forgets to mention is that Edeiken's action was ultimately
> >> > > unsuccessful -- i.e. he was crushed.

> >> > Funny how netkook David E. Michael routinely neglects to
> >> > mention that the law suit was "crushed" solely on
> >> > jurisdictional grounds, or what the lay public will sometimes
> >> > refer to as "a technicality."

<<Scott Bradbury comment: NOT TRUE and the document above proves you to be
incorrect. The fact I was never served with the complaints was also entered-- a
critical fact you and your fellows continually wish to ignore!!>>

> Funny that you won't accept the fact I was not given a chance to
> defend myself

Sure you were. No point in whining about it now.

<<Scott Bradbury comment: How can a person defend themselves when they had not
had complaints formally made against them!? Funny that Ken McVay got the
complaints which I should have received instead!!>

> against those accusations seeing how I never was furnished with a
> copy of them nor my attorney.

I guess you get what you pay for. Now, if you'd actually hired a
lawyer, he might have asked that all those writs and subpoenas and
requests for depositions be sent to him rather than marked "Return to
Sender."

<<Scott Bradbury comment: I did what was legal and proper and it was Yale who
violated a legal agreement to no longer make direct contact with me-- another
fact you choose to ignore and yes he did make an agreement too! This archive
proves my point too:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=90vqqsoqvs8chqc414bl1sk1r5i3140id7%404ax.com&rnum=3
Subject: Disciplinary Rules and a Bold Faced Pathological Liar -- Yale F.
"Tubby" Edeiken
Message-ID: <90vqqsoqvs8chqc41...@4ax.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 22:21:59 GMT

Your side always maintains I had no attorney prior to August 25, 2000 BUT if I
didn't then why did Yale F. Edeiken issue a subpoena to my attorney July 2000?
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=oghmnt40ao9l6brg2vigq5f6p7i1ci1o4s%404ax.com&rnum=9
Subject: Once Again I Prove I had an Attorney Prior to August 25, 2000..
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 23:18:20 -0500
Message-ID: <oghmnt40ao9l6brg2...@4ax.com>
<<Doc Tavish comment March 27, 2001: How could my attorney who told
Edeiken on May 29, 2000 that I was his client file when he had not
received the complaint? Edeiken did my attorney the same way he did
David's! As for me not having an attorney then why did Yale F. Edeiken
on "July 14, 2000 PLTF'S NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE
DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY UPON DAYLIN LEACH. AFDT OF SERVICE
ATTACHED." This is on the docket of Edeiken Vs Bradbury 1999-C-2786
and anyone may obtain the docket for $3.00 and here is how
Andrea Naugle -- Clerk Civil Court
Lehigh County Court House
Room 202
4555 West Hamilton Street
Allentown, Pennsylvania 18101-1614
610-782-3148
and "Request Docket Printout for Edeiken Vs Bradbury 1999-C-2786"
... END OF COMMENT>>

> Strange that Edeiken provided Ken McVay copies of them and they
> were posted to USENET long after that lawsuit was over with.

As I recall, they only went up on Nizkor after a judgment was entered
against you.

<<Scott Bradbury: Still McVay got a copy and I never did! You condone legal
system abuse and dishonesty-- therefore you are vermin in my eyes.>>

> It is only natural
> that the court would dismiss the lawsuit on any grounds seeing how
> it could not be tried!

But it wasn't *any* grounds. It was on the grounds of jurisdiction.
Not a factual refutation of the allegations against you.
Jurisdiction.

<<Scott Bradbury comment: You better re-read that Petition For Relief From
Judgment Document! There was NO way I could have refuted allegations made
against me seeing how I was never served the allegations. The document I cited
above is also a court record and it proves Yale F. Edeiken did not lose on JUST
jurisdiction which is what all of you want to believe!>>

> If I had the chance

You had the chance. You were told what was being sent to you. But
you paid nothing for legal advice and basically got nothing for legal
advice.

<<Scott Bradbury comment: I hardly think Daylin Leach worked on my behalf for
free! It was he who told me to return the documents to Yale unopened which
violated a written agreement Yale made to stop making direct contact with me.
Live with it John!>>

> then to see the accusations made against me with all the
> perjury

Perjury is an act defined in law and decided in a court of law. You
have not proved perjury.

> and manufacturing of evidence along with the Plaintiff doing a
> flub-a-dub and admitting he made death threats against me then the
> Plaintiff would have had his law license revoked and he would have
> been criminally prosecuted and YES-- it is not too late to re-open
> it either

Oh sure. Christmas is coming and a cold day in hell. You never do
anything but mouth off.

> and let my side of
> the matter be properly submitted.

Why didn't you take the opportunity when you had the chance?

<<Scott Bradbury comment: How could I when I did not know what I was accused
of!?>>

> This is positive proof concerning the great
> injustice against me:

Yeah, yeah. Positive proof. From a guy who thinks he has positive
proof that a website hosted by toronto.trends.ca is in San Antonio.

> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=&selm=ja362v4amltqohp97uo053rju5e
> rbf80qr%404ax.com Subject: Ken McVay's "Edeiken-v-Bradbury.C1" Is
> Filled With Lies and Perjury... Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 13:23:54
> -0600
> Message-ID: <ja362v4amltqohp97...@4ax.com>

The only injustice done to you was done *by* you. You let yourself
be manipulated by creeps who left you holding the bag. And now it
looks you are pals with them again. As for the lawsuit, you got off
lucky.

<<Scott Bradbury comment: Edeiken was the one who was lucky because if I was
able to counter his false accusations he would have lost his license and
probably had some time behind bars.>>

I don't feel sorry for you at all.

- --
John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>
at University of Alberta <Multi pertransibunt & augebitur scientia>

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=boh92vcvp6mjr458u34t2mo37te4167ub9%404ax.com&rnum=1
Subject: Bernstein the Jew "ADMITS" Making Death Threat Against Me aka Re: I am
going to put a bullet in Scott Bradbury's skull.
Message-ID: <boh92vcvp6mjr458u...@4ax.com>
References: <c0l62vc3btp3ga2tl...@4ax.com>
<7L6BQA9R3763...@anonymous.poster>
Date: 15 Jan 2003 02:51:05 GMT
[MUST READ!! Two of my opposition make death threats against me and when I
declare I have a legal right of self defense they turn around and accuse me
of threatening them- thus implicating themselves as the real source of the
two original death threats made against me.]

http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=SH9g7.634%247d....@newshog.newsread.com&lr=&hl=en
From: "Yale F. Edeiken" <ya...@enter.net>
Subject: Re: The Common Thread To All These Cancel Announcements...
Message-ID: <SH9g7.634$7d.2...@newshog.newsread.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 15:06:26 GMT

Defendant Bradshit <rdoc_...@my-deja.cpm, tavi...@ix.netcom,com> wrote
in message news:7lp1otkrsh37k7ioi...@4ax.com...

[...]

> Care to tell all of us why both Todd Miller and Paul Trainor distanced
> themselves from you

Because they were dealing with someone who was "mentally unstable"
(their dscription) and a "crazy man" (again, their description) who they
wanted to go away as quckly as possible.

~~End of GOOGLE Archive~~

______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

Tavish

unread,

Jan 16, 2003, 10:52:04 PM1/16/03

to

On 16 Jan 2003 23:11:59 GMT, <9ace2vsn7ugqr46bp...@4ax.com> Tavish
<RemoveHyphens2M...@ix.net-co-m.com> wrote:

I forgot to add this and it explains why Yale F. Edeiken lost his appeal against
me. One would think if Yale F. Edeiken were so sure that he had a solid case
against me and that all of his "evidence" against me were air tight that he
would have followed through on his appeal. I would follow through on an appeal
if I knew I had a legitimate case and that all of my complaints were sound and
that all of my evidence was provable!

Yale backed down on his appeal and this is what I posted before regarding it:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=40qb0v8cv3as2i0ffp6bmgi6fji8imfums%404ax.com&rnum=1
Subject: Re: Bradbury: What the Legal Record Shows ...
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 11:46:48 -0600
Message-ID: <40qb0v8cv3as2i0ff...@4ax.com>

On Sun, 22 Dec 2002 10:35:20 -0500, <3rmb0v835d2hqj9fa...@4ax.com>
Paul Kneisel <tall...@nyct-nospam-or-fascism.net> wrote:

>Edeiken v. Bradbury: Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law 1/2
><http://www.anti-fascism.org/special/cyberstalking/bradbury-evb-memo.html>
>
>Bradbury claims he won the lawsuit but constantly refuses to publish the
>complete legal documents on which he bases his "proof."

<<Scott Bradbury comment January 16, 2003: I showed more "proof" higher up
in this very post and it was Yale never served me with his complaints!!>>

<Start>

September 26, 2001

Yale F. Edeiken
XXXXXXX Street
Allentown, PA 18104-3759

RE: Yale F. Edeiken, Appellant v. Scott Bradbury et al
1714 EDA 2001

Dear Mr. Edeiken:

This is to advise that the attached Order has been entered in the above-
captioned matters.

A Certified Copy of this Order together with the record will be sent to
the Prothonotary of Lehigh County in due course.

Very truly yours,

(Signed)
David A. Szewczak
Prothonotary

DAS/dag
Attachment
CC: Daylin B. Leach, Esquire
Scott Bradbury
Honorable Edward D. Reibman

<Stop>

The Attachment:

<Start>

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Eastern District Office

Yale F. Edeiken APPELLANT No. 1714 EDA 2001

V.

Scott Bradbury Et Al C.P. Civil Lehigh County
99-C-2786

ORDER

AND NOW, this 26th day of September, 2001, the within
appeal is DISMISSED....

PER CURIAM

<STOP>

[...]

Back to your lie:
>Bradbury claims he won the lawsuit but constantly refuses to publish the
>complete legal documents on which he bases his "proof."

I have posted the proof many times and have given the address of the courthouse
clerk etc. so anyone can get copies of the above and this GOOGLE link proves I
have posted the above numerous times. Your lies are getting more bizarre with
each passing day.

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Prothonotary+Szewczak+Lehigh+DISMISSED&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&filter=0

Searched Groups for Prothonotary Szewczak Lehigh DISMISSED.
Results 1 - 10 of about 64

Want to know why Yale F. Edeiken had his appeal DISMISSED? I will show that was
posted too and I also show his real agenda with his kook lawsuit he waged
against me!

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=sq4v2us0odig5nhq79f6crk7a2e7lsqh1s%404ax.com&rnum=4
Subject: Why Yale F. Edeiken LOST His Appeal...
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 17:30:59 -0600
Message-ID: <sq4v2us0odig5nhq7...@4ax.com>
Also BTW I never announced why Yale F. Edeiken Esq. lost his appeal concerning
his failed lawsuit. Care to take a guess why the appeal was DISMISSED?

ANSWER: (Everyone should be able to obtain the document too seeing how it is
public record.) Yale lost his appeal for this reason:
(From the very document dated September 26, 2001 from David A. Szewczak -
Prothonotary) "AND NOW, this 26th day of September,2001,the withing=h appeal is
DISMISSED for failure to file a brief." Document Number 1714 EDA 2001

Care to speculate why Yale F. Edeiken was gung ho for me getting an attorney to
"fight his appeal" as well as all of his minions? I know why! The bastard wanted
me to spend more money on attorney's fees and seeing how he is his own attorney
and has no fees it is obvious that his goal was to bleed me even more!

I didn't fall for the trick as this post proves Yale mentioning attorney's fees
and how I chose to answer his "appeal":

<START>

Yale didn't file a brief (as I see) for only two reasons:
1) He just wanted me to sink more money into attorney's fees as he even stated
it would cost me $5000.00 or so to counter his appeal as proven here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&rnum=1&selm=Uvie7.74%249d.11873%40newshog.newsread.com

From: "Yale F. Edeiken" <ya...@enter.net>

Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Snottie Bradshit, man without a lawyer
Message-ID: <Uvie7.74$9d.1...@newshog.newsread.com>
"Bradshit now claims that he refused to use Daylin because Leach asked
for $2,000.00 for the appeal. The average appeal in a personal injury
action required about 60-75 hours of work by an attorney. The going bottom
rate around here starts at about 5k. Either Bradshit is lying again or he
passed up an incredible bargain."

<END>

The above indicates Yale just wanted me to blow more money at $5000.00 worth to
fight a frivolous lawsuit based on manufactured evidence!

2) Yale may have chickened out if he reasoned on my attitude regarding his
appeal when I stated:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&rnum=1&selm=qcgjnt09sfbv8kgqgiov5716bui5vnu6ad%404ax.com
Subject: Re: Snottie Bradshit, man without a lawyer
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 19:41:14 -0500
Message-ID: <qcgjnt09sfbv8kgqg...@4ax.com>
On Tue, 14 Aug 2001 19:41:36 -0700, <9lccth$20e$2...@suaar1aa.prod.compuserve.com>
"PB" <patbl...@hotmaill.com> wrote:

>Yale F. Edeiken wrote in message ...
>
>> Bradshit now claims that he refused to use Daylin because Leach asked
>>for $2,000.00 for the appeal. The average appeal in a personal injury
>>action required about 60-75 hours of work by an attorney. The going bottom
>>rate around here starts at about 5k. Either Bradshit is lying again or he
>>passed up an incredible bargain.
:
>But this is not an appeal about a personal injury case in the classic sense,
>it is an appeal about jurisdiction. It would appear that your appeal has to
>do with more with Judge Reibman than it does with Tavish. If you would
>happen to be victorious, the judgment would be reinstated and sent back down
>to Reibman for further proceedings.

Either way I will win.

If he loses then he will finally shut up hopefully.
If he wins his appeal then it's back to square one and I will get to prove all
that he has done to me I.E. he was nazihunter in December 1999, he fabricated
evidence and the list is long. His appeal is based on whether my USENET postings
fall into Pennsylvania jurisdiction and that he claims the internet comes into
his residence via telephone lines, thus I am making telephone calls.

If he is stupid enough to push that argument then I have hundreds of obscene and
obnoxious telephone calls an officer of the court left on my answering machine
(e-mail) such as:

From: ya...@enter.net
To: <xx...@ix.netcom.com>, <doc_t...@my-deja.com>
Cc: <xx...@ix.netcom.com>, <doc_t...@my-deja.com>
Subject: Fw: DRUNKEN SOT ACCOSTS PEOPLE AT COUNTY COURT HOUSE
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 08:58:44 -0400
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200

Attention Defendant Bradshit

Hey you lying fuck, did you post this your gutless self or was it one
of your homosexual, lovers?

----- Original Message -----

~~End of GOOGLE Archival Excerpt~~

Yale's whole agenda was to bleed me but it backfired on him. I want that bastard
to try again and I will nail that shyster to the wall! Ethical attorneys don't
act nuts like that bastard does and he, himself, confessed this about his mental
state concerning why two law firms run by Todd Miller and Paul Trainor have
distanced themselves from him:

http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=SH9g7.634%247d....@newshog.newsread.com&lr=&hl=en
From: "Yale F. Edeiken" <ya...@enter.net>
Subject: Re: The Common Thread To All These Cancel Announcements...
Message-ID: <SH9g7.634$7d.2...@newshog.newsread.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 15:06:26 GMT

Defendant Bradshit <rdoc_...@my-deja.cpm, tavi...@ix.netcom,com> wrote
in message news:7lp1otkrsh37k7ioi...@4ax.com...

[...]

> Care to tell all of us why both Todd Miller and Paul Trainor distanced
> themselves from you

Because they were dealing with someone who was "mentally unstable"
(their dscription) and a "crazy man" (again, their description) who they
wanted to go away as quckly as possible.

~~End of GOOGLE Archive~~

Need I say more? Those were his words and I didn't have the lunatic loser at gun
point either. Anyone can click the link above and see I did not invent that
post. Nuts like Edeiken should not be able to practice law and I still wonder
whose goat he caught someone screwing so they would look the other way and
ignore his bizarre and unethical ways.

Attention lurkers-- here is why Yale sued me and another person (for the
archives):

WHY EDEIKEN SUED ME:

http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&selm=an_548137104
http://x23.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=548137104

From: "Yale F. Edeiken" <ya...@enter.net>

Subject: Re: Gord McFee, Another Phony
Date: 1999/11/13
Message-ID: <382d...@news3.enter.net>

Defendant Tavish <sonn...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:GK2X3.5759$OQ.8...@news.flash.net...
> --

But the information you posted is not "available on the net."

And you posted it with an invitation to "reach out and touch someone"
aas well as suggestions that fraudulent complaints be sent to the
Allentown Police Department and that I be harassed with late night
telephone calls.

In short, your psoting have made you a defendant in a lawsuit.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

--YFE

~~End of DejaCom Archive~~

Notice that I am being sued because Edeiken thinks I posted his address!
His own words above! It doesn't matter whether or not it was an anonymous
post in his mentally disturbed mind-- he decided to single me out much to
his own shame.

Here is the mentally disturbed bastard whining and wailing about the
anonymous post and notice that he couldn't even get his facts straight
about what it said!

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=386e2ae2%40news3.enter.net&rnum=1

From: "Yale F. Edeiken" <ya...@enter.net>

Subject: Re: A Demonstration of Tavish's Lies
Date: 2000/01/01
Message-ID: <386e...@news3.enter.net>

[...]

I had said to one of Edeiken's defenders:
> I find it very prejudicial that you can't see how Yale has harassed,libeled,
> and defamed me and plus by his very own actions he has placed my very own
> safety in jeopardy. There is NO denying the fact- if it were not for Yale F.
> Edeiken my personal information would not have been posted to USENET.
> Care to deny this?

Yale F. Edeiken replies:
This paragraph is defamatory in nature.

And note how Defendant Tavish glosses over his posting of my address
and telephone number with the instruction "Reach out and touch someone." A
campaign of harrassment which began on June 1, 1998, following a signed
threat to do exactly that and has continued consistantly ever since.

~~End of GOOGLE Archival Excerpt~~

Here is the post in which Yale F. Edeiken claims:
"And note how Defendant Tavish glosses over his posting of my address and
telephone number with the instruction "Reach out and touch someone." A
campaign of harrassment which began on June 1, 1998, following a signed
threat to do exactly that and has continued consistantly ever since."

Here is the post as it was preserved "forever in granite" at DejaCom
archives. Does anyone see what Yale "saw"?

http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=358612544&fmt=text
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=199806012316.QAA16385%40sirius.infonex.com&output=gplain
From: da_mai...@alias.cyberpass.net (none)
Subject: Yales Address and Phone Number
Date: 01 Jun 1998 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <1998060123...@sirius.infonex.com>
X-No_Archive: : yes
Organization: Still thinking
Mail-To-News-Contact: postm...@nym.alias.net
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism

Yale F Edeiken
1590 XXXXX
Allentown,PA 18102

610-XXX-XXXX

~~~End of Exact DejaCom Archive~~~

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Does anyone see in the above post dated as June 1, 1998 what Yale F. Edeiken
claims? Where is the "reach out and touch someone"? Does anyone see in the
headers that it originated from me? It was an anonymous posting! That is, in his
own words, why Yale F. Edeiken sued me! I got sued and had to pay legal fees to
have his nutcase lawsuit against me dismissed! That is FACT!!

Here is why Shyster Edeiken sued another person and again in his own words!

First thing-- notice how the shyster lied through his teeth about ever
threatening a lawsuit against David Michael.

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=hdqG4.2351%24Oc2.143581%40monger.newsread.com&output=gplain

From: "Yale F. Edeiken" <ya...@enter.net>

Subject: Re: Paul Kneisel: tell us the truth!
Date: 2000/04/04
Message-ID: <hdqG4.2351$Oc2.1...@monger.newsread.com>

> Yale F. Edeiken wrote:
>
> > david.e.michael, a/k/a Lord Haw Haw best known for his criminal
> > > Now, what about that lawsuit you threatened me with. Where is it?
> > Thank you for proving, once more, that you are a liar. You were
> > never threatened with any lawsuit.
> Yes I was. Where is it?

Produce the threat you lying prick.

~~~End of DejaCom Archival Excerpt~~~

Here is Yale F. Edeiken having a schizoid event and he contradicts himself yet
calls David Michael a liar and notice Edeiken refers to legal system abuse to
intimidate people as "treatment."

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=PVaG4.2086%24Oc2.129226%40monger.newsread.com&output=gplain

From: "Yale F. Edeiken" <ya...@enter.net>

Subject: Re: Defendant Bradbury's Lapse in Judgment
Date: 2000/04/04
Message-ID: <PVaG4.2086$Oc2.1...@monger.newsread.com>

david.michael <david....@england.com> taking a break from his usual
program of criminal harassment of others wrote in message
news:38E904B5...@england.com...

[...]

> 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 GOOGLE Archival Excerpt~~

First Shyster Edeiken states: "I never threatened to sue
you, as you well know." AND then he contradicts himself with:
"Second, you have been sued as you well know." If Shyster's first
statement is true then how could David have known as the second
passage states based on Yale's claim he never threatened to sue?

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=383ffece%40news3.enter.net&output=gplain
http://x22.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=554668600&fmt=text

From: "Yale F. Edeiken" <ya...@enter.net>

Subject: Lo0rd Haw-Haw --= a lying Cocksucker Exposed
Date: 1999/11/27
Message-ID: <383f...@news3.enter.net>#

David E Michael <david.e...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:383F560E...@btinternet.com...

[...]

> Mr Edeiken, sir, you have threatened to sue me.

You are a lying cocksucker Lord Haw-Haw. I never made any such
"threat."

> You have not followed through.

You are a lying cocksycker, Lord Haw-Haw.

WHERE IS YOUR PROOF THAT I HAVE NOT FILED A LAWSUIT
AGAINST YOU.

[...]

> I have publicly claimed that you have lied in a public forum. I have
> publicly opined that you are consequently not a fit and proper person
> to practise law in Pennsylvania. You have threatened to sue me.

Liar. I never made any such threat.

Lord Haw-Haw keeps claiming that I did not sue him. He has yet to
come up with a single shred of evidence to back his claim. It is an
admission ion his part that his charges are fabrications made in reckless
disregard of the truth.

Just more proof that he is a lying cocksucker.

--YFE

~~~End of DejaCom Archive~~~

++++++++++++++++SPECIAL COMMENT++++++++++++++++++++

In regard to the above--
> I have publicly claimed that you have lied in a public forum. I have
> publicly opined that you are consequently not a fit and proper person
> to practise law in Pennsylvania. You have threatened to sue me.

Liar. I never made any such threat.

<<Yale Lied! He threatened a lawsuit it is evidenced here>>:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=384176f6%40news3.enter.net&output=gplain
http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&selm=an_554666508

From: "Yale F. Edeiken" <ya...@enter.net>

Subject: Re: For Moshe Schorr and Friends?-- non-Jews and Heretics <<
Date: 1999/11/28
Message-ID: <3841...@news3.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~~~

Shyster Edeiken stated "I never threatened to sue you, as you well know." on
2000/04/04 YET he did threaten on 1999/11/28 "Which is now the subject of a
lawsuit" merely because David Michael made a very honest observation about
Shyster's fitness as an attorney with these words: "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 true! Shyster Edeiken is a pathological
liar and it drove him bonkers when we pointed them out like all the examples
above!

Shyster Edeiken's kook lawsuit against me was the same type delusional crap.

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&rnum=1&selm=386e2ae2%40news3.enter.net

From: "Yale F. Edeiken" <ya...@enter.net>

Subject: Re: A Demonstration of Tavish's Lies
Date: 2000/01/01
Message-ID: <386e...@news3.enter.net>

Defendant Tavish <sonn...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:84jnh...@news2.newsguy.com...

> You really can't see that Yale is the one who has waged a campaign of
> harassment and defamation from day one can you? I will say again:
> "You had better start reading some of Yale's older posts!" The DejaCom
> archives are filled with his accusing me of standing in front of synagogues
> and yelling obscenities etc.

That ios not only untrue but the criminals's usual excuse.

~~End of GOOGLE Archival Excerpt~~

Here is proof that Yale F. Edeiken got caught lying again:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&rnum=1&selm=5fo0mh%246ua%40news.enter.net
From: ya...@enter.net (Yale F. Edeiken)
Subject: Re: How to be an Anti-Semitc "Tavish"
Date: 1997/03/07
Message-ID: <5fo0mh$6...@news.enter.net>#

[...]

Why don't you go back to that which you do best: standing in front of
synagogues and yelling obscenities at those exercising their First Amendment
right to worship as they please.

--YFE

~~End of GOOGLE Archival Snippet~~

The archives are filled with posts where we beat Yale like a drum and point out
his lies. He can't accept that he has lapses of reality and then he gets violent
and sues people. Why he is still allowed to practice law is a mystery to many
people.

Here is what a local newspaper reported concerning one of the shyster's fits of
rage at his own county courthouse and his e-mail to me wailing about it being
defamatory that it was posted.

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=3921e1e6.182032557%40news.newsguy.com&rnum=1
From: doc_t...@NOSPAMmy-deja.com (Doc Tavish)
Subject: CITY ATTORNEY FOUND GUILTY IN ELEVATOR CONFRONTATION
Date: 2000/05/17
Message-ID: <3921e1e6....@news.newsguy.com>

http://www.mcall.com/cgi-bin/slwebsto.cgi?DBLIST=mc90&DOCNUM=39046

Date: Wednesday, September 19, 1990
Page: B02
Edition: FIFTH
Section: LOCAL/REGION

Column:

Corrections:

Memo:

CITY ATTORNEY FOUND GUILTY IN ELEVATOR CONFRONTATION
by KRISTIN CASLER, The Morning Call

Allentown attorney Yale F. Edeiken was found guilty and fined $600 plus
costs for a confrontation with a Lehigh County deputy sheriff and another
man in a courthouse elevator.

During the June 12 incident, Edeiken struck Deputy Brenda Hartman with his
briefcase and allegedly threatened the man by saying he had a gun,
according to District Justice Diane Jepsen, who heard the case. Edeiken
later was found to have a permit for and was carrying a .357 Magnum.

Jepsen ordered Edeiken, whose office is at 39 N. 5th St., to pay the fine
after a hearing Monday on charges of harassment and disorderly conduct
filed by Hartman. Jepsen said Edeiken no longer has a permit for his gun.

According to the complaint, Hartman was in the courthouse side elevator,
which usually is reserved for prisoner transport, with Joanne Keller.
Keller, who was not handcuffed, had just been sentenced and Hartman was
taking her to pay fines and costs before her release.

Also on the elevator were Edeiken, David Raymond, public defender Earl
Supplee and county courier Bill Bichel.

Edeiken told Jepsen that Raymond, a convicted felon who had burglarized
him, pushed his way onto the elevator.

But Jepsen said other witnesses testified that Raymond already was on the
elevator when Edeiken boarded and started a shoving match. Witnesses
varied on what was said.

Witnesses said Edeiken called Hartman a whore, but Edeiken said he was
referring to Keller.

Raymond is a friend of Keller, and Keller once resided at a house owned by
Edeiken. Edeiken was at the courthouse as a character witness for Keller
at her sentencing.

Edeiken swung his briefcase at Raymond, striking him and Hartman,
according to testimony.

Hartman opened the elevator doors on the third floor and ordered Edeiken
to get out. He refused, and as Raymond attempted to exit, Edeiken told
Raymond he had a gun and moved as if he was going to draw it. No weapon
was seen.

Raymond and Supplee then went downstairs for help, and Hartman took
Edeiken and Keller to the bullpen where prisoners are held pending their
proceedings, Jepsen said. Hartman told them to stay until she got help.
When she returned, Edeiken was gone.

---end---

Proof Edeiken has a violent history.

FAIR USE INTENDED

~~End of GOOGLE Archive~~

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=6nnnjts00vnb4kfovfuekvejvq8k7pau4j%404ax.com&rnum=5
Subject: How Can I Retract What an Allentown Newspaper Reported and has Been
"Admitted as Fact?" IT'S THEIR WORDS NOT MINE!!!!
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 20:53:26 -0500
Message-ID: <6nnnjts00vnb4kfov...@4ax.com>
(Excerpted)

Return-Path: <ya...@enter.net>
Received: from mail1.enter.net (sourcenat1.bigmailbox.com [209.132.220.250]) by
mailrecv11.bigmailbox.com (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f5SH6MI09103 for
<doc_t...@my-deja.com> ; Thu, 28 Jun 2001 10:06:23 -0700
Received: from oemcomputer (mat-4-8.enter.net [207.16.155.156]) by
mail1.enter.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with SMTP id f5SH6LY27630 for
<doc_t...@my-deja.com> ; Thu, 28 Jun 2001 13:06:21 -0400
From: ya...@enter.net
Message-ID: <001601c0fff6$31c67020$9c9b10cf@oemcomputer>
To: <doc_t...@my-deja.com>
Subject: Fw: Allentown Attorney Goes Amuck in County Courthouse and Goes on a
Spree of Violence
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 13:17:21 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This publication contains defamatory material.

An immediate retraction is demanded.

<<Doc Tavish comment June 28, 2001: Take it up with The Morning Call- they
reported your shoving match and resultant conviction. I am only showing the link
to their archive which has (excerpt) as text...>>

~~End of GOOGLE Archive~~

Today is January 16, 2003 and I make the invitation to Yale F. Edeiken and all
of the people who supported his legal system abuse against me with its perjury
and him making death threats using subpoenaed information--- IF YOU THINK YOU
HAVE SUCH A SOLID CASE AGAINST ME THEN REFILE IT IN MY COUNTY WITH YOUR SAME
COMPLAINTS AND SEE HOW GOD DAMNED QUICK YOU ARE CHARGED WITH NUMEROUS CRIMINAL
CHARGES!! IF YOU DON'T-- THEN YOU PROVE THAT YOU DID NOT REALLY HAVE A CASE
AGAINST ME!! ZALSO LET PETER OUTERBRIDGE AKA PAUL KNEISEL SUE ME FOR CALLING HIM
A COMMUNIST AND CLAIMING HE'S PETER OUTERBRIDGE AND YOU CAN GET KEN MCVAY TO SUE
TOO AND WE WILL FIND OUT WHAT HE REALLY DID WITH THAT $50,000+ AND PERHAPS THE
IRS AND CCRA MAY BE INTERESTED AS WELL!!

I will be glad to counter each of your perjurious lies with what this archive
shows:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=&selm=ja362v4amltqohp97uo053rju5erbf80qr%404ax.com
Subject: Ken McVay's "Edeiken-v-Bradbury.C1" Is Filled With Lies and Perjury...
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 13:23:54 -0600
Message-ID: <ja362v4amltqohp97...@4ax.com>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=3e2357ab_3%40news2.uncensored-news.com&rnum=1
Subject: Communist Paul Kneisel Advocates a Revolution Against Capital and State
Message-ID: <3e235...@news2.uncensored-news.com>
Date: 14 Jan 2003 00:20:02 GMT

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=3e235877_3%40news2.uncensored-news.com&rnum=1
Subject: Did Ken McVay pay tax on those $50,000+ donations he denies receiving?
Message-ID: <3e235...@news2.uncensored-news.com>
Date: 14 Jan 2003 00:23:26 GMT

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=s71b2vk0o1r8r7dnk8n3ijlldct647par9%404ax.com&rnum=1
Subject: NIZKOR Director Ken McVay in Bed With Communists and His Animosity
Against Anti-Communists Documented ...
Message-ID: <s71b2vk0o1r8r7dnk...@4ax.com>
Date: 15 Jan 2003 15:57:20 GMT
(Very brief excerpt)
The League of Human Rights of B'nai Brith (Ken McVay's Nizkor sponsor) got a
court ruling which declares this about anti-communism:

http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/decisions/docs/league-e.htm
T.D. 15/92 Decision rendered December 16, 1992
CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
R.S.C., 1985, c. H-6 (as amended)
HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL
[...]

B. THE COMPLAINTS
These complaints are brought by ... The League for Human Rights B'Nai Brith
Canada ... (1) Themes Which Promote Hatred: ...
(g) Anti-Communist Ideology .... <END>

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=boh92vcvp6mjr458u34t2mo37te4167ub9%404ax.com&rnum=1
Subject: Bernstein the Jew "ADMITS" Making Death Threat Against Me aka Re: I am
going to put a bullet in Scott Bradbury's skull.
Message-ID: <boh92vcvp6mjr458u...@4ax.com>
References: <c0l62vc3btp3ga2tl...@4ax.com>
<7L6BQA9R3763...@anonymous.poster>
Date: 15 Jan 2003 02:51:05 GMT
[MUST READ!! Two of my opposition make death threats against me and when I
declare I have a legal right of self defense they turn around and accuse me
of threatening them- thus implicating themselves as the real source of the
two original death threats made against me.]

______________________________________________________________________

Black Knight

unread,

Jan 17, 2003, 5:47:32 AM1/17/03

to

Tavish <RemoveHyphens2M...@ix.net-co-m.com> wrote in message news:<9ace2vsn7ugqr46bp...@4ax.com>...

> Many of my foes want to believe that the lawsuit which as waged against me and
> failed was dismissed solely on account of jurisdiction. This is simply not true.
>

According to your own post, the defect in the plaintiff's case was
purely procedural.(failure of service).

That means the merits of the complaint were not the reason for
dismissal.
The court never decided whether Yale's case was based on solid
evidence.

That is the point, anyway, whether it be lack of jurisdiction or
failure of service.

Bruno

Tavish

unread,

Jan 17, 2003, 11:35:19 AM1/17/03

to

On 17 Jan 2003 02:47:32 -0800, <594c8e48.03011...@posting.google.com>
kni...@indystart.com (Black Knight) wrote:

Thanks for admitting it finally. Your pals have maintained the lawsuit was
dismissed on jurisdiction and jurisdiction alone. I am gathering all my
documents together and I have found numerous documents which prove legal system
abuse was waged against me. I am going to also contact the Court Clerk to see
when and if those complaints against me were ever filed with the court too!

I also found letters between Edeiken and my attorney with my attorney requesting
the complaints. My attorney was not going to register as my attorney of record
UNTIL he saw the complaints (which he never did).

>Bruno

Patrick Humphrey

unread,

Jan 17, 2003, 11:42:28 AM1/17/03

to

On 17 Jan 2003 16:35:19 GMT, Tavish
<RemoveHyphens2M...@ix.net-co-m.com> wrote:

>><deletia>

Maybe that's because you were too busy getting mail from the court and then
sending it back unopened, as you bragged about on numerous occasions?

Stupid is as you do, Blubberbury.

--PLH, was C.M. Kornbluth right, or what?

Tavish

unread,

Jan 17, 2003, 1:16:25 PM1/17/03

to

Get this through you head Patrick once and for all-- I did NOT sen d back ANY
papers the court sent me unopened! I sent back Edeiken's rants which he stated
snail mailing me when his posting and e-mails weren't enough! I have not one but
two different letters showing where Yale agreed to stop making ANY contact with
me! That is fact.

>Stupid is as you do, Blubberbury.

I am glad that you and your fellows keep calling me such derogatory names and
all based on Yale F. Edeiken subpoenaing my medical record from Hermann Hospital
and then lying about it. I have copies of that medical record and his post and
they will be presented to the proper people next week. I am tired of being
defamed and I am going to put a stop to it and I am going to hold those who keep
doing it responsible!

>--PLH, was C.M. Kornbluth right, or what?

Tavish

unread,

Jan 17, 2003, 1:27:07 PM1/17/03

to

On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 10:42:28 -0600, <slrnb2gcqd....@fnord.io.com>

Patrick Humphrey <pat...@io.com> wrote:

Show proof where I ever posted that I sent mail from the court back unopened!
You always accuse but you never offer proof!

>Stupid is as you do, Blubberbury.

Thanks for aiding my case!

>--PLH, was C.M. Kornbluth right, or what?

Patrick Humphrey

unread,

Jan 17, 2003, 2:50:08 PM1/17/03

to

On 17 Jan 2003 18:16:25 GMT, Tavish

>>>><deletia>

You'd best hope Google agrees with you, in that case.

>>Stupid is as you do, Blubberbury.

> I am glad that you and your fellows keep calling me such derogatory names
> and all based on Yale F. Edeiken subpoenaing my medical record from Hermann
> Hospital and then lying about it. I have copies of that medical record and
> his post and they will be presented to the proper people next week. I am
> tired of being defamed and I am going to put a stop to it and I am going to
> hold those who keep doing it responsible!

You can't be defamed, numbnuts. You've already done it to yourself, far
better than anyone else could hope to have done. (I'm sure the "proper
people" will be duly impressed by your 1997 suicide. :-)

--PLH, much ado about nothing

KingTUT

unread,

Jan 17, 2003, 5:33:55 PM1/17/03

to

<snip>

Could someone do a short summary on what this is all about?

/KT

Charles Don Hall

unread,

Jan 17, 2003, 6:34:05 PM1/17/03

to

comhem...@yahoo.se (KingTUT) wrote in news:dddf9753.0301171433.10627966
@posting.google.com:

><snip>
>
> Could someone do a short summary on what this is all about?

Basically Bradbury was making death threats, harrassing people at work, etc,
and he was doing it from an easily-traceable Internet account.

So he wound up getting sued, and he got a default judgement filed against
him because he didn't respond to any of the documents he was sent. (We're
still not sure why. He claims that his lawyer told him to scribble gibberish
on the documents and send them back, but I can't imagine a lawyer giving
that sort of advice.)

Anyway, after the judgement was handed down, Bradbury managed to get it
overturned on the grounds that it was filed in the wrong jurisdiction.

But as a result of all this, Bradbury learned his lesson and stopped
harrassing people, and the consensus is that it's not worth the trouble of
re-filing the case in another jurisdiction. Basically Bradbury's off the
hook for now, provided he minds his manners.

Here's a link to a bunch of legal documents. The original complaint is in
the "C1" file:

http://nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/ftp.py?people//b/bradbury.scott

> /KT

--
======================================
Charles Don Hall, Licensed Philosopher
======================================

Ken McVay

unread,

Jan 17, 2003, 6:39:47 PM1/17/03

to

In article <dddf9753.03011...@posting.google.com>,

KingTUT <comhem...@yahoo.se> wrote:
><snip>
>
>Could someone do a short summary on what this is all about?

Certainly. Scott Bradbury is an asshole, and someone pointed that out
to a Court:

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bradbury.scott/Edeiken-v-Bradbury-A1.01
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bradbury.scott/Edeiken-v-Bradbury-A1.02
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bradbury.scott/Edeiken-v-Bradbury-A2.01
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bradbury.scott/Edeiken-v-Bradbury-RA.01
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/b/bradbury.scott/Edeiken-v-Bradbury-C1

The Request for Admission is the most telling, since it represents a
finding of fact before an American court, and because that finding of
fact stands to this day.

--
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0465021522/thenizkorproject:
Lying About Hitler, by Dr. Richard Evans
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393020444/thenizkorproject
The Holocaust on Trial, by D.D. Guttenplan

Tavish

unread,

Jan 17, 2003, 7:12:51 PM1/17/03

to

On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 17:34:05 -0600, <Xns9306BC597...@216.254.95.101>
cdhall_public_remove_this@and_this_pobox.com (Charles Don Hall) wrote:

>comhem...@yahoo.se (KingTUT) wrote in news:dddf9753.0301171433.10627966
>@posting.google.com:
>
>><snip>
>>
>> Could someone do a short summary on what this is all about?
>
>Basically Bradbury was making death threats, harrassing people at work, etc,
>and he was doing it from an easily-traceable Internet account.

That is not true and it is libelous. You are basing your accusations on a
lawsuit which was filled with perjury. I made no death threats against Edeiken--
he made them against me!

>So he wound up getting sued, and he got a default judgement filed against
>him because he didn't respond to any of the documents he was sent. (We're
>still not sure why. He claims that his lawyer told him to scribble gibberish
>on the documents and send them back, but I can't imagine a lawyer giving
>that sort of advice.)
>
>Anyway, after the judgement was handed down, Bradbury managed to get it
>overturned on the grounds that it was filed in the wrong jurisdiction.

Filed September 22, 2000

PETTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
COMES NOW, the defendant, Scott Bradbury, by and through his counsel Daylin B.
Leach, Esquire, to petition this honorable court for Relief from Judgment,
pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 237.3. In support of this petition, the defendant avers
the following:
On August 25, 2000, the Plaintiff filed a Praecipe for Default Judgment with
this court. A true and correct copy of which is hereto and marked as "Exhibit
A."
Since a complaint has never been filed or served, the defendant is unable to
attach a copy of preliminary objections he would file if the judgment was opened
pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 237.3 (a).

Respectfully submitted
Daylin B. Leach Esquire

>But as a result of all this, Bradbury learned his lesson and stopped
>harrassing people, and the consensus is that it's not worth the trouble of
>re-filing the case in another jurisdiction.

That is B.S.! The former Plaintiff knows his perjury will nail him should he try
to sue me in my county. Don't ignore this:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=&selm=ja362v4amltqohp97uo053rju5erbf80qr%404ax.com
Subject: Ken McVay's "Edeiken-v-Bradbury.C1" Is Filled With Lies and Perjury...
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 13:23:54 -0600
Message-ID: <ja362v4amltqohp97...@4ax.com>

>Basically Bradbury's off the hook for now, provided he minds his manners.

You're full of it.

>Here's a link to a bunch of legal documents. The original complaint is in
>the "C1" file:
>
>http://nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/ftp.py?people//b/bradbury.scott

Thoroughly debunked with:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=&selm=ja362v4amltqohp97uo053rju5erbf80qr%404ax.com
Subject: Ken McVay's "Edeiken-v-Bradbury.C1" Is Filled With Lies and Perjury...
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 13:23:54 -0600
Message-ID: <ja362v4amltqohp97...@4ax.com>

>> /KT

Tavish

unread,

Jan 17, 2003, 7:13:29 PM1/17/03

to

Patrick Humphrey

unread,

Jan 17, 2003, 9:36:51 PM1/17/03

to

On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 18:13:29 -0600, Tavish <tavi...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 23:39:47 GMT, <7v0W9.721$ci2.70...@news.nnrp.ca>
> kmc...@vex.net (Ken McVay) wrote:

Bluster all you want, Tubby...all your screaming won't change the fact that
the findings in the Request for Admission are engraved in the court records
for all time, and there's sod all a demented kook like you can do about it.

Life is good.

--PLH, and Bradbury's paying the price for his obnoxious stupidity

Tavish

unread,

Jan 17, 2003, 10:01:52 PM1/17/03

to

On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 20:36:51 -0600, <slrnb2hfmn....@eris.io.com> Patrick
Humphrey <pat...@io.com> wrote:

>Bluster all you want, Tubby

Why do you call me what numerous people in Pa call Yale Edeiken?
You call me Tubby based on a lie but people in Pa call Yale Tubby--
well because they say he is!

Tavish

unread,

Jan 17, 2003, 10:02:54 PM1/17/03

to

On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 20:36:51 -0600, <slrnb2hfmn....@eris.io.com> Patrick
Humphrey <pat...@io.com> wrote:

>all your screaming won't change the fact that
>the findings in the Request for Admission are engraved in the court records
>for all time

As well as are my statements to the court which you want to ignore.

Patrick Humphrey

unread,

Jan 17, 2003, 10:13:57 PM1/17/03

to

On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 21:01:52 -0600, Tavish
<RemoveHyphens2M...@ix.net-co-m.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 20:36:51 -0600, <slrnb2hfmn....@eris.io.com>
> Patrick Humphrey <pat...@io.com> wrote:

>>Bluster all you want, Tubby

> Why do you call me what numerous people in Pa call Yale Edeiken?

Why do you assume anyone but your fellow kooks call him that?

> You call me Tubby based on a lie but people in Pa call Yale Tubby--
> well because they say he is!

...and of course, THEY don't lie. Right.

You're a fat, malodorous freak slowly going insane, Bradbury. Leave the human
race out of your pity party.

--PLH, the court's findings remain as stated fact, and there's nothing
Bradbury can do to change it

unread,

Jan 18, 2003, 1:32:54 PM1/18/03

to

On Sat, 18 Jan 2003 11:35:20 -0600, Tavish <tavi...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Jan 2003 00:22:18 -0600, <slrnb2hsth....@eris.io.com>
> Patrick Humphrey <pat...@io.com> wrote:

>>No one's been claiming you're guilty, numbnuts -- just pointing out that the
>>allegations against you are permanently ensconced in the court record, about
>>which you can do nothing.

> So you are admitting then that I am not guilty of all of those false
> accusations! Thanks for the final admission! I am filing it away!

...where it'll be lost in the several thousand other "admissions" you've
obsessively collected, no doubt.
Meanwhile, what you're still too brain-damaged to understand is that the
allegations about you were admitted by the court as *factual* -- and that
finding isn't affected at all by the case later being overturned on a
jurisdictional issue. Those allegations are deemed factual by the court, and
that's the end of the story. You're too stupid to understand that.

--PLH, so rant all you want, Moby Fat -- you've already harpooned yourself

KingTUT

unread,

Jan 18, 2003, 1:41:40 PM1/18/03

to

<snip>

Thanks for the summary, all.

/KT

Pru

unread,

Jan 18, 2003, 7:38:23 PM1/18/03

to

On Sat, 18 Jan 2003 11:35:20 -0600, Tavish <RemoveHyphens2Mail-ta-v-i-
sh...@ix.net-co-m.com> <p04j2vo8p59hc98qc...@4ax.com>
wrote:

>On Sat, 18 Jan 2003 00:22:18 -0600,
<slrnb2hsth....@eris.io.com> Patrick
>Humphrey <pat...@io.com> wrote:
>
>>No one's been claiming you're guilty, numbnuts -- just pointing out
that the
>>allegations against you are permanently ensconced in the court
record, about
>>which you can do nothing.
>
>So you are admitting then that I am not guilty of all of those false
>accusations! Thanks for the final admission! I am filing it away!
>

He admitted nothing of the sort. We see how the Nazis run things when
they're not spamming. They just invent things like confessions.

Pru Ng-Shears
Sy Brrrr Anti Racist Action

>http://groups.google.com/groups?

hl=&selm=ja362v4amltqohp97uo053rju5erbf80qr%404ax.com
>Subject: Ken McVay's "Edeiken-v-Bradbury.C1" Is Filled With Lies and
Perjury...
>Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 13:23:54 -0600
>Message-ID: <ja362v4amltqohp97...@4ax.com>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header
is unverified.

Paul Kneisel

unread,

Jan 18, 2003, 10:26:44 PM1/18/03

to

On 19 Jan 2003 00:38:23 -0000, "Pru" <pru-ng...@yahoo.com>
<57HC1XBV3764...@anonymous.poster> wrote:

unread,

Jan 20, 2003, 1:00:56 AM1/20/03

to

In article <594c8e48.03011...@posting.google.com>,

Black Knight <kni...@indystart.com> wrote:
>"Pru" <pru-ng...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:<57HC1XBV3764...@anonymous.poster>...
>> On Sat, 18 Jan 2003 11:35:20 -0600, Tavish <RemoveHyphens2Mail-ta-v-i-
>> sh...@ix.net-co-m.com> <p04j2vo8p59hc98qc...@4ax.com>
>> wrote:

>> >On Sat, 18 Jan 2003 00:22:18 -0600, <slrnb2hsth....@eris.io.com>
>> >Patrick Humphrey <pat...@io.com> wrote:

>> >>No one's been claiming you're guilty, numbnuts -- just pointing out that
>> >>the allegations against you are permanently ensconced in the court
>> >>record, about which you can do nothing.

>> >So you are admitting then that I am not guilty of all of those false
>> >accusations! Thanks for the final admission! I am filing it away!

>> He admitted nothing of the sort. We see how the Nazis run things when
>> they're not spamming. They just invent things like confessions.

>This whole discussion appears to me to be a red herring.Patrick is not
>in a position to "admit" Scott did anything, since he was not there to
>see it and has no evidence of his own.

That's right, but don't expect Scott to be able to figure even that much out.

>Patrick is not a judge. Even if he took out a full-page ad in the
>Houston or Dallas newspapers saying Scott is guilty, it would mean
>nothing.

...which is why I haven't done so. (Evidently, common sense is beyond Scott's
grasp all too often.)

>If Scott cannot distinguish between competent authority and those
>whose opinions have no legal effect, he is completely at sea.
>NOBODY can be that stupid.

If anyone can, Scott's the likely suspect. :-)

--PLH, he might make a name for himself yet