Tje Case Against Bradbury
Yale F. Edeiken
On August 25, 2000, I filed a default judgment against Scott Bradbury. He
has, in reality and in law, lost the action I brought against him for his
harassment of me and my family. He has, further, legally admitted that his
actions were actionable. The only matter left for the court to decide is
how much Bradbury should pay in compensation and in punitive damages. Since
Defendant Bradbury, who failed to plead his case in court, has decided
instead to flood the internet with his lies and disturbed gibberish I have
prepared this to explain what really happened.
I know that there are a lot of questions. I will try to answer them in
this "FAQ" You are warned that law is spoken here. Note that there are
some technical statements about the law below. Unless otherwise indicated
they apply specifically to Pennsylvania law; it may be different where you
live.
WHAT HAPPENED?
I took a default judgment against Bradbury. When an action is filed in a
civil court the person who it is filed against, the defendant, must file a
written answer. If a defendant fails to do so, the court can and will rule
that all of the material in the complaint is true and that the defendant has
lost. Courts are very reluctant to enter such a judgment unless the
Defendant has been given an adequate opportunity to present his defense. In
Pennsylvania they require that the defendant be notified at least ten days
in advance that such a judgment will be taken. Further this notice cannot
be given until the defendant is already late with his response. In
Pennsylvania the defendant has twenty days after a complaint is filed to
notify the court that he will defend an action. I served the notice if
default on Bradbury on August 14, 2000, 25 days after he was served with the
complaint.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?
The court gas already sent Bradbury notice that a default judgment has been
entered against him and that he has lost the case. That notice gas already
been mailed in an envelop which I provided. This means that it has my
return address and a stamp (celebrating Chanukah) on it. Bradbury has
already sent the court's notice back to me with his usual insults scrawled
on it.
DOES THIS END THE CASE?
Not quite. There are two parts to any civil action. The first is
"liability" (whether the defendant did anything wrong) and "damages" (how
much money is owed). Sometimes trials are bifurcated to have separate
trials - with the same jury - on each issue. This default settled the
question of liability. In Pennsylvania you cannot sue for a specific sum in
a personal injury action (you may, for example, in a contract action). Thus
the court still has to determine the damages.
HOW DOES A COURT DETERMINE THE DAMAGES?
The same way it would in a trial where the defendant has not defaulted.
There will be a full hearing called an "assessment of damages hearing" and
it can be either before a judge or a jury. In this case a hearing before a
judge has already been scheduled.
CAN BRADBURY ASK TO HAVE THIS JUDGMENT OPENED?
Yes. He can file a motion to open the judgment and have his defenses filed
"nunc pro tunc." This is discretionary with the court.
WILL A COURT DO THIS?
Not likely. To convince a court to do this Bradbury must present a
"reasonable explanation" for his failure to file his answer. Stating that
he is a lying bigot who tossed the legal notices in the wastebasket does not
cut it. He must show something far more serious such as the failure of the
post office to deliver his answer or a typographical error that caused his
answer to be placed in the wrong file. In short he continual announcements
on a.r were especially stupid as they demonstrate that he deliberately
ignored the legal papers sent to him.
IS THE INCOMPETENCE OF HIS LAWYER A "REASONABLE EXPLANATION"?
Nope. Incompetence of his lawyer - or even deliberate inaction - can be
used only in a criminal matter. This is a civil case where, unlike the
state, I have no obligation to make sure his attorney can find the
courthouse without a map. The sole exception would be if he could produce
clear and convincing (i.e. beyond a reasonable doubt) evidence that I and
his attorney conspired to deprive Bradbury of his right to defend himself.
Unless he that type of evidence, his proper recourse is an action against
his attorney for legal malpractice.
WHAT IS THE LEGAL EFFECT OF THIS JUDGMENT?
Bradbury has admitted all allegations of fact in the complaint and to his
liability; he has not admitted any conclusions of law. If, for example, I
stated in the complaint that Bradbury violated the Ethnic Intimidation Act,
that would be a conclusion of law which he did not admit by failing to
answer. If, on the other hand, I stated that Bradbury intended to violate
the Ethnic Intimidation Act, it would be an allegation of fact to which he
admitted. Further he has not admitted to the jurisdiction of the court
although he has admitted to all facts which I claim establish such
jurisdiction.
DOES THIS APPLY ONLY TO THIS CASE?
Nope. It applies in all US courts (and probably those in British,
Canadian, Australian, etc. as well) under the doctrine of res judicata. The
matter is settled and Bradbury has no right to contest them in other
actions. This includes criminal actions . I am not sure if they can be
used as a confession but they can certainly be used to cross-examine him in
a criminal action.
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE FIFTH AMENDMENT?
What about it? The Fifth Amendment may apply in civil matters but only
applies if it is invoked. If Bradbury had sent a letter to the court saying
that he refuses to answer invoking the Fifth Amendment, the default would
still have been entered against him but then the admissions could not be
used in a criminal action.
DOES THIS APPLY TO ANYBODY ELSE?
Nope. Not even those, like Ellis and Michael, who are mentioned in the
complaint. Res judicata only applies to people who have had an opportunity
to contest the facts on the merits. Bradbury had that opportunity and
forfeited it; the others have not had that opportunity.
CAN BRADBURY APPEAL THIS?
No. This is an "interlocutory" order. That is, it does not end the action
for damages have yet to be determined. In Pennsylvania (and in federal
courts) no appeal of an interlocutory order is permitted without permission
of the appeals court. In practice this is granted only when there is a
significant question of law (such as a constitutional challenge to a law) or
where the appellee can certify that the appeal will end the matter.
CAN I BE SUED IF I CALL BRADBURY A FORGER BASED ON THIS DEFAULT?
No. As I told you, he has legally admitted tthe facts in the complaint.
CAN OTHERS SUE HIM BASED ON THE ADMISSION HE MADE HERE ABOUT HARASSING ME?
Certainly. And he cannot contest factual allegations if they are part of
the complaint in this case or are established at the hearing.
WHAT HAPPENS NOW?
I have petitioned the court for a hearing to assess damages and one has
been scheduled. There will be a full trial on that question of damages.
DOES THIS MEANS THERE CAN BE WITNESSES ABOUT BRADBURY'S HARASSMENT EVEN
THOUGH HE HAS ADMITTED IT?
Absolutely. The complaint asked for punitive damages because Bradbury's
actions were part of a pattern of behavior. This is an aggravating factor
that cn be taken into account when assessing punitive damages.
CAN I BE AT THE HEARING EVEN IF I DO NOT TESTIFY?
Yes. How many times do you have to be told that there is a Constitution in
this country? It provides for "public trials." You is the public.
WILL IT BE VIDEOTAPED OR TELEVISED?
No. Pennsylvania court rules prohibit it. Print reporters may come. They
are part of the public, too.
WILL TRANSCRIPTS BE AVAILABLE?
Under Pennsylvania law, transcripts may only be prepared upon Order of
court. This requires a specific Motion to the presiding judge which
includes an estimate of costs and certification of a deposit with the court
reporter or monitor. I have never heard of such a motion being denied
unless the record has been sealed.
CAN THE TRANSCRIPTS BE PUBLISHED?
Yes. They are public documents and not subject to copyright.
WILL BRADBURY BE AT THE HEARING?
Only if he opens his mail and figures out what it means.
WILL BRADBURY BE ALLOWED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE?
Theoretically, yes. In practice, no. Because of his continued violation
of court orders and his contempt of court, a motion will be presented to the
court precluding him from presenting evidence or making an argument. He
would still be allowed to cross-examine witnesses but not impeach them with
documents.
CAN YOU CALL BRADBURY AS A WITNESS?
Yes, but why bother? He has already admitted everything that I have said
about him.
CAN BRADBURY APPEAL THE COURT'S DECISION ABOUT DAMAGES?
Eventually. His first step must be to file post-trial motions for no
appellate court will accept an appeal unless the trial court has had an
opportunity to correct its errors, if any. This also serves to define the
issues for appeal as an appellee cannot present an issue on appeal that has
not been raised at the trial court level. If Bradbury makes it this far let
us devoutly pray that he does appeal. The Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate
Procedure has a "deadbeat" rule. If Bradbury appeals he is required to post
the ENTIRE amount of the judgment against him and interest on it to be paid
if he loses the appeal.
IS THIS JUDGMENT VALID IN TEXAS?
Absolutely. The Constitution of the United Stated specifically requires
states to honor judgments reached anywhere in the U.S. where there is
jurisdiction. There is, in fact, a specific law that allows this and sets
procedures that has been enacted in Texas. This judgment can be collected
in Texas under Texas law.
CAN BRADBURY JUST DECLARE BANKRUPTCY?
Yes, but it it does him little good. Punitive damages will be awarded in
this case. Punitive damages cannot be discharged in bankruptcy.
--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 Gehrig
>
> On August 25, 2000, I filed a default judgment against Scott Bradbury. He
> has, in reality and in law, lost the action I brought against him for his
> harassment of me and my family. He has, further, legally admitted that his
> actions were actionable. The only matter left for the court to decide is
> how much Bradbury should pay in compensation and in punitive damages.
Couldn't have happened to a nicer pile of drech.
<< snip >>
> CAN BRADBURY APPEAL THE COURT'S DECISION ABOUT DAMAGES?
>
> Eventually. His first step must be to file post-trial motions for no
> appellate court will accept an appeal unless the trial court has had an
> opportunity to correct its errors, if any. This also serves to define the
> issues for appeal as an appellee cannot present an issue on appeal that has
> not been raised at the trial court level. If Bradbury makes it this far let
> us devoutly pray that he does appeal. The Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate
> Procedure has a "deadbeat" rule. If Bradbury appeals he is required to post
> the ENTIRE amount of the judgment against him and interest on it to be paid
> if he loses the appeal.
ROTFL! Hear that, Snott?
> IS THIS JUDGMENT VALID IN TEXAS?
>
> Absolutely. The Constitution of the United Stated specifically requires
> states to honor judgments reached anywhere in the U.S. where there is
> jurisdiction. There is, in fact, a specific law that allows this and sets
> procedures that has been enacted in Texas. This judgment can be collected
> in Texas under Texas law.
ROTFL! Hear that, D-d-d-donnie?
> CAN BRADBURY JUST DECLARE BANKRUPTCY?
>
> Yes, but it it does him little good. Punitive damages will be awarded in
> this case. Punitive damages cannot be discharged in bankruptcy.
In other words, buy shares in Alpo, folks, because they're about to have
a new customer for their dinner cuisine.
@%<
Kilroy
<%iQg5.5816$I67.2...@arjfubt.arjfernq.pbz>:
>
>
> Ba Nhthfg 25, 2000, V svyrq n qrsnhyg whqtzrag ntnvafg Fpbgg
> Oenqohel. Ur
>unf, va ernyvgl naq va ynj, ybfg gur npgvba V oebhtug ntnvafg uvz sbe
>uvf unenffzrag bs zr naq zl snzvyl. Ur unf, shegure, yrtnyyl nqzvggrq
>gung uvf npgvbaf jrer npgvbanoyr. Gur bayl znggre yrsg sbe gur pbheg
>gb qrpvqr vf ubj zhpu Oenqohel fubhyq cnl va pbzcrafngvba naq va
>chavgvir qnzntrf. Fvapr Qrsraqnag Oenqohel, jub snvyrq gb cyrnq uvf
>pnfr va pbheg, unf qrpvqrq vafgrnq gb sybbq gur vagrearg jvgu uvf yvrf
>naq qvfgheorq tvoorevfu V unir cercnerq guvf gb rkcynva jung ernyyl
>unccrarq.
>
> V xabj gung gurer ner n ybg bs dhrfgvbaf. V jvyy gel gb nafjre gurz
> va
>guvf "SND" Lbh ner jnearq gung ynj vf fcbxra urer. Abgr gung gurer
>ner fbzr grpuavpny fgngrzragf nobhg gur ynj orybj. Hayrff bgurejvfr
>vaqvpngrq gurl nccyl fcrpvsvpnyyl gb Craaflyinavn ynj; vg znl or
>qvssrerag jurer lbh yvir.
>
>JUNG UNCCRARQ?
>
> V gbbx n qrsnhyg whqtzrag ntnvafg Oenqohel. Jura na npgvba vf svyrq
> va n
>pvivy pbheg gur crefba jub vg vf svyrq ntnvafg, gur qrsraqnag, zhfg
>svyr n jevggra nafjre. Vs n qrsraqnag snvyf gb qb fb, gur pbheg pna
>naq jvyy ehyr gung nyy bs gur zngrevny va gur pbzcynvag vf gehr naq
>gung gur qrsraqnag unf ybfg. Pbhegf ner irel eryhpgnag gb ragre fhpu
>n whqtzrag hayrff gur Qrsraqnag unf orra tvira na nqrdhngr bccbeghavgl
>gb cerfrag uvf qrsrafr. Va Craaflyinavn gurl erdhver gung gur
>qrsraqnag or abgvsvrq ng yrnfg gra qnlf va nqinapr gung fhpu n
>whqtzrag jvyy or gnxra. Shegure guvf abgvpr pnaabg or tvira hagvy gur
>qrsraqnag vf nyernql yngr jvgu uvf erfcbafr. Va Craaflyinavn gur
>qrsraqnag unf gjragl qnlf nsgre n pbzcynvag vf svyrq gb abgvsl gur
>pbheg gung ur jvyy qrsraq na npgvba. V freirq gur abgvpr vs qrsnhyg
>ba Oenqohel ba Nhthfg 14, 2000, 25 qnlf nsgre ur jnf freirq jvgu gur
>pbzcynvag.
>
>JUNG UNCCRAF ARKG?
>
> Gur pbheg tnf nyernql frag Oenqohel abgvpr gung n qrsnhyg whqtzrag
> unf orra
>ragrerq ntnvafg uvz naq gung ur unf ybfg gur pnfr. Gung abgvpr tnf
>nyernql orra znvyrq va na rairybc juvpu V cebivqrq. Guvf zrnaf gung
>vg unf zl erghea nqqerff naq n fgnzc (pryroengvat Punahxnu) ba vg.
>Oenqohel unf nyernql frag gur pbheg'f abgvpr onpx gb zr jvgu uvf hfhny
>vafhygf fpenjyrq ba vg.
>
>QBRF GUVF RAQ GUR PNFR?
>
> Abg dhvgr. Gurer ner gjb cnegf gb nal pvivy npgvba. Gur svefg vf
>"yvnovyvgl" (jurgure gur qrsraqnag qvq nalguvat jebat) naq "qnzntrf"
>(ubj zhpu zbarl vf bjrq). Fbzrgvzrf gevnyf ner ovshepngrq gb unir
>frcnengr gevnyf - jvgu gur fnzr whel - ba rnpu vffhr. Guvf qrsnhyg
>frggyrq gur dhrfgvba bs yvnovyvgl. Va Craaflyinavn lbh pnaabg fhr sbe
>n fcrpvsvp fhz va n crefbany vawhel npgvba (lbh znl, sbe rknzcyr, va n
>pbagenpg npgvba). Guhf gur pbheg fgvyy unf gb qrgrezvar gur qnzntrf.
>
>UBJ QBRF N PBHEG QRGREZVAR GUR QNZNTRF?
>
> Gur fnzr jnl vg jbhyq va n gevny jurer gur qrsraqnag unf abg
> qrsnhygrq.
>Gurer jvyy or n shyy urnevat pnyyrq na "nffrffzrag bs qnzntrf urnevat"
>naq vg pna or rvgure orsber n whqtr be n whel. Va guvf pnfr n urnevat
>orsber n whqtr unf nyernql orra fpurqhyrq.
>
>PNA OENQOHEL NFX GB UNIR GUVF WHQTZRAG BCRARQ?
>
> Lrf. Ur pna svyr n zbgvba gb bcra gur whqtzrag naq unir uvf qrsrafrf
> svyrq
>"ahap ceb ghap." Guvf vf qvfpergvbanel jvgu gur pbheg.
>
>JVYY N PBHEG QB GUVF?
>
> Abg yvxryl. Gb pbaivapr n pbheg gb qb guvf Oenqohel zhfg cerfrag n
>"ernfbanoyr rkcynangvba" sbe uvf snvyher gb svyr uvf nafjre. Fgngvat
>gung ur vf n ylvat ovtbg jub gbffrq gur yrtny abgvprf va gur
>jnfgronfxrg qbrf abg phg vg. Ur zhfg fubj fbzrguvat sne zber frevbhf
>fhpu nf gur snvyher bs gur cbfg bssvpr gb qryvire uvf nafjre be n
>glcbtencuvpny reebe gung pnhfrq uvf nafjre gb or cynprq va gur jebat
>svyr. Va fubeg ur pbagvahny naabhaprzragf ba n.e jrer rfcrpvnyyl
>fghcvq nf gurl qrzbafgengr gung ur qryvorengryl vtaberq gur yrtny
>cncref frag gb uvz.
>
>VF GUR VAPBZCRGRAPR BS UVF YNJLRE N "ERNFBANOYR RKCYNANGVBA"?
>
> Abcr. Vapbzcrgrapr bs uvf ynjlre - be rira qryvorengr vanpgvba - pna
> or
>hfrq bayl va n pevzvany znggre. Guvf vf n pvivy pnfr jurer, hayvxr
>gur fgngr, V unir ab boyvtngvba gb znxr fher uvf nggbearl pna svaq gur
>pbhegubhfr jvgubhg n znc. Gur fbyr rkprcgvba jbhyq or vs ur pbhyq
>cebqhpr pyrne naq pbaivapvat (v.r. orlbaq n ernfbanoyr qbhog) rivqrapr
>gung V naq uvf nggbearl pbafcverq gb qrcevir Oenqohel bs uvf evtug gb
>qrsraq uvzfrys. Hayrff ur gung glcr bs rivqrapr, uvf cebcre erpbhefr
>vf na npgvba ntnvafg uvf nggbearl sbe yrtny znycenpgvpr.
>
>JUNG VF GUR YRTNY RSSRPG BS GUVF WHQTZRAG?
>
> Oenqohel unf nqzvggrq nyy nyyrtngvbaf bs snpg va gur pbzcynvag naq gb
> uvf
>yvnovyvgl; ur unf abg nqzvggrq nal pbapyhfvbaf bs ynj. Vs, sbe
>rknzcyr, V fgngrq va gur pbzcynvag gung Oenqohel ivbyngrq gur Rguavp
>Vagvzvqngvba Npg, gung jbhyq or n pbapyhfvba bs ynj juvpu ur qvq abg
>nqzvg ol snvyvat gb nafjre. Vs, ba gur bgure unaq, V fgngrq gung
>Oenqohel vagraqrq gb ivbyngr gur Rguavp Vagvzvqngvba Npg, vg jbhyq or
>na nyyrtngvba bs snpg gb juvpu ur nqzvggrq. Shegure ur unf abg
>nqzvggrq gb gur whevfqvpgvba bs gur pbheg nygubhtu ur unf nqzvggrq gb
>nyy snpgf juvpu V pynvz rfgnoyvfu fhpu whevfqvpgvba.
>
>QBRF GUVF NCCYL BAYL GB GUVF PNFR?
>
> Abcr. Vg nccyvrf va nyy HF pbhegf (naq cebonoyl gubfr va Oevgvfu,
>Pnanqvna, Nhfgenyvna, rgp. nf jryy) haqre gur qbpgevar bs erf
>whqvpngn. Gur znggre vf frggyrq naq Oenqohel unf ab evtug gb pbagrfg
>gurz va bgure npgvbaf. Guvf vapyhqrf pevzvany npgvbaf . V nz abg
>fher vs gurl pna or hfrq nf n pbasrffvba ohg gurl pna pregnvayl or
>hfrq gb pebff-rknzvar uvz va n pevzvany npgvba.
>
>OHG JUNG NOBHG GUR SVSGU NZRAQZRAG?
>
> Jung nobhg vg? Gur Svsgu Nzraqzrag znl nccyl va pvivy znggref ohg
> bayl
>nccyvrf vs vg vf vaibxrq. Vs Oenqohel unq frag n yrggre gb gur pbheg
>fnlvat gung ur ershfrf gb nafjre vaibxvat gur Svsgu Nzraqzrag, gur
>qrsnhyg jbhyq fgvyy unir orra ragrerq ntnvafg uvz ohg gura gur
>nqzvffvbaf pbhyq abg or hfrq va n pevzvany npgvba.
>
>QBRF GUVF NCCYL GB NALOBQL RYFR?
>
> Abcr. Abg rira gubfr, yvxr Ryyvf naq Zvpunry, jub ner zragvbarq va
> gur
>pbzcynvag. Erf whqvpngn bayl nccyvrf gb crbcyr jub unir unq na
>bccbeghavgl gb pbagrfg gur snpgf ba gur zrevgf. Oenqohel unq gung
>bccbeghavgl naq sbesrvgrq vg; gur bguref unir abg unq gung
>bccbeghavgl.
>
>PNA OENQOHEL NCCRNY GUVF?
>
> Ab. Guvf vf na "vagreybphgbel" beqre. Gung vf, vg qbrf abg raq gur
> npgvba
>sbe qnzntrf unir lrg gb or qrgrezvarq. Va Craaflyinavn (naq va
>srqreny pbhegf) ab nccrny bs na vagreybphgbel beqre vf crezvggrq
>jvgubhg crezvffvba bs gur nccrnyf pbheg. Va cenpgvpr guvf vf tenagrq
>bayl jura gurer vf n fvtavsvpnag dhrfgvba bs ynj (fhpu nf n
>pbafgvghgvbany punyyratr gb n ynj) be jurer gur nccryyrr pna pregvsl
>gung gur nccrny jvyy raq gur znggre.
>
>PNA V OR FHRQ VS V PNYY OENQOHEL N SBETRE ONFRQ BA GUVF QRSNHYG?
>
> Ab. Nf V gbyq lbh, ur unf yrtnyyl nqzvggrq ggur snpgf va gur
> pbzcynvag.
>
>PNA BGUREF FHR UVZ ONFRQ BA GUR NQZVFFVBA UR ZNQR URER NOBHG UNENFFVAT
>ZR?
>
> Pregnvayl. Naq ur pnaabg pbagrfg snpghny nyyrtngvbaf vs gurl ner
> cneg bs
>gur pbzcynvag va guvf pnfr be ner rfgnoyvfurq ng gur urnevat.
>
>JUNG UNCCRAF ABJ?
>
> V unir crgvgvbarq gur pbheg sbe n urnevat gb nffrff qnzntrf naq bar
> unf
>orra fpurqhyrq. Gurer jvyy or n shyy gevny ba gung dhrfgvba bs
>qnzntrf.
>
>QBRF GUVF ZRNAF GURER PNA OR JVGARFFRF NOBHG OENQOHEL'F UNENFFZRAG
>RIRA GUBHTU UR UNF NQZVGGRQ VG?
>
> Nofbyhgryl. Gur pbzcynvag nfxrq sbe chavgvir qnzntrf orpnhfr
> Oenqohel'f
>npgvbaf jrer cneg bs n cnggrea bs orunivbe. Guvf vf na ntteningvat
>snpgbe gung pa or gnxra vagb nppbhag jura nffrffvat chavgvir qnzntrf.
>
>PNA V OR NG GUR URNEVAT RIRA VS V QB ABG GRFGVSL?
>
> Lrf. Ubj znal gvzrf qb lbh unir gb or gbyq gung gurer vf n
> Pbafgvghgvba va
>guvf pbhagel? Vg cebivqrf sbe "choyvp gevnyf." Lbh vf gur choyvp.
>
>JVYY VG OR IVQRBGNCRQ BE GRYRIVFRQ?
>
> Ab. Craaflyinavn pbheg ehyrf cebuvovg vg. Cevag ercbegref znl pbzr.
> Gurl
>ner cneg bs gur choyvp, gbb.
>
>JVYY GENAFPEVCGF OR NINVYNOYR?
>
> Haqre Craaflyinavn ynj, genafpevcgf znl bayl or cercnerq hcba Beqre
> bs
>pbheg. Guvf erdhverf n fcrpvsvp Zbgvba gb gur cerfvqvat whqtr juvpu
>vapyhqrf na rfgvzngr bs pbfgf naq pregvsvpngvba bs n qrcbfvg jvgu gur
>pbheg ercbegre be zbavgbe. V unir arire urneq bs fhpu n zbgvba orvat
>qravrq hayrff gur erpbeq unf orra frnyrq.
>
>PNA GUR GENAFPEVCGF OR CHOYVFURQ?
>
> Lrf. Gurl ner choyvp qbphzragf naq abg fhowrpg gb pbclevtug.
>JVYY OENQOHEL OR NG GUR URNEVAT?
>
> Bayl vs ur bcraf uvf znvy naq svtherf bhg jung vg zrnaf.
>
>JVYY OENQOHEL OR NYYBJRQ GB CERFRAG RIVQRAPR?
>
> Gurbergvpnyyl, lrf. Va cenpgvpr, ab. Orpnhfr bs uvf pbagvahrq
> ivbyngvba
>bs pbheg beqref naq uvf pbagrzcg bs pbheg, n zbgvba jvyy or cerfragrq
>gb gur pbheg cerpyhqvat uvz sebz cerfragvat rivqrapr be znxvat na
>nethzrag. Ur jbhyq fgvyy or nyybjrq gb pebff-rknzvar jvgarffrf ohg
>abg vzcrnpu gurz jvgu qbphzragf.
>
>PNA LBH PNYY OENQOHEL NF N JVGARFF?
>
> Lrf, ohg jul obgure? Ur unf nyernql nqzvggrq rirelguvat gung V unir
> fnvq
>nobhg uvz.
>
>PNA OENQOHEL NCCRNY GUR PBHEG'F QRPVFVBA NOBHG QNZNTRF?
>
> Riraghnyyl. Uvf svefg fgrc zhfg or gb svyr cbfg-gevny zbgvbaf sbe ab
>nccryyngr pbheg jvyy npprcg na nccrny hayrff gur gevny pbheg unf unq
>na bccbeghavgl gb pbeerpg vgf reebef, vs nal. Guvf nyfb freirf gb
>qrsvar gur vffhrf sbe nccrny nf na nccryyrr pnaabg cerfrag na vffhr ba
>nccrny gung unf abg orra envfrq ng gur gevny pbheg yriry. Vs Oenqohel
>znxrf vg guvf sne yrg hf qribhgyl cenl gung ur qbrf nccrny. Gur
>Craaflyinavn Ehyrf bs Nccryyngr Cebprqher unf n "qrnqorng" ehyr. Vs
>Oenqohel nccrnyf ur vf erdhverq gb cbfg gur RAGVER nzbhag bs gur
>whqtzrag ntnvafg uvz naq vagrerfg ba vg gb or cnvq vs ur ybfrf gur
>nccrny.
>
> VF GUVF WHQTZRAG INYVQ VA GRKNF?
>
> Nofbyhgryl. Gur Pbafgvghgvba bs gur Havgrq Fgngrq fcrpvsvpnyyl
> erdhverf
>fgngrf gb ubabe whqtzragf ernpurq naljurer va gur H.F. jurer gurer vf
>whevfqvpgvba. Gurer vf, va snpg, n fcrpvsvp ynj gung nyybjf guvf naq
>frgf cebprqherf gung unf orra ranpgrq va Grknf. Guvf whqtzrag pna or
>pbyyrpgrq va Grknf haqre Grknf ynj.
>
>PNA OENQOHEL WHFG QRPYNER ONAXEHCGPL?
>
> Lrf, ohg vg vg qbrf uvz yvggyr tbbq. Chavgvir qnzntrf jvyy or
> njneqrq va
>guvf pnfr. Chavgvir qnzntrf pnaabg or qvfpunetrq va onaxehcgpl.
>
>
>
> --LSR
Is that so?
Kilroy
<%vDt5.5816$V67.2...@newshog.newsread.com>:
>
Looks like you're telling a bunch more lies Mr. Edeiken.
Why is truth alien to you?
Terry Smith
"Yale F. Edeiken" <ya...@enter.net> wrote in message
news:%vDt5.5816$V67.2...@newshog.newsread.com...
>
>
> On August 25, 2000, I filed a default judgment against Scott Bradbury.
He
> has, in reality and in law, lost the action I brought against him for his
I wonder how long it is before the bigots start refering to the " Criminal
courts" ;-0
Terry Smith
"Kilroy" <JT.K...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:8FA836865n...@209.155.56.82...
> ya...@enter.net (Yale F. Edeiken) wrote in
> <%vDt5.5816$V67.2...@newshog.newsread.com>:
>
> >
>
> Looks like you're telling a bunch more lies Mr. Edeiken.
> Why is truth alien to you?
>
You aren't having much luck in courts, are you. Perhaps there's a reason for
that.
It's not the one you `think'.
Sara Salzman
zapkitty@lemmings,hotmail.com (Chuck Stewart) wrote:
>JT.K...@excite.com (Kilroy) wrote in
><8FA836865n...@209.155.56.82>:
>
>>ya...@enter.net (Yale F. Edeiken) wrote in
>><%vDt5.5816$V67.2...@newshog.newsread.com>:
>
>
>
>>Looks like you're telling a bunch more lies Mr. Edeiken.
>>Why is truth alien to you?
>
>Welcome to sci.skeptic.
>
>Please post evidence to support your charge that Yale Edeiken is
>lying in his post concerning the Bradbury suit.
>
Well, hi, Chuck! Long time no see! Since I'm sure you remember the
"invasion of the loony-tunes" from their foray into sci.skeptic, I'm sure
the predicament of Scotty, aka Doc Tavish, will be of some interest.
By the way, Mr. "Bunch of Lies" Kilroy is most likely a sock-puppet of one
of the more virulent liars currently residing in alt.revisionism. I won't
mention his name, since I have no proof I can present. But I can assure
you that he has absolutely no evidence to support his claim.
At first, the sock-puppets claimed there was no court case.
Then they claimed there was no judgement.
Then they started ranting that a judgement in PA would not be honored in
Texas. Apparently, they never heard of "full faith and credit."
Regards,
Sara
--
"I am patient with stupidity, but not with those who are proud of it."
Edith Sitwell
david...@my-deja.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Andy
<zapkitty@lemmings>; <hotmail.com (Chuck Stewart)> wrote in message
news:JRLt5.18157$wS1.9...@nntp2.onemain.com...
> ><%vDt5.5816$V67.2...@newshog.newsread.com>:
>
>
>
> >Looks like you're telling a bunch more lies Mr. Edeiken.
> >Why is truth alien to you?
>
>
> Please post evidence to support your charge that Yale Edeiken is
> lying in his post concerning the Bradbury suit.
heheh, someone must have forgotten to tell Ellis ("kilroy") that sci.skeptic
are a lot harder to bullshit ;-)
Andy
John C. Randolph
"Yale F. Edeiken" wrote:
>
> On August 25, 2000, I filed a default judgment against Scott Bradbury. He
> has, in reality and in law, lost the action I brought against him for his
> harassment of me and my family.
Who is Scott Bradbury, and what did you sue him for?
I haven't seen much in the way of explanation over here on sci.skeptic.
-jcr
P.W. Blakely
Sara never lets facts get in the way of an argument.
--
--Pat W Blakely--
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com
Buck Turgidson
Kilroy wrote:
> ln...@ragre.arg (Lnyr S. Rqrvxra) jebgr va
> <%iQg5.5816$I67.2...@arjfubt.arjfernq.pbz>:
> >
> >
> > Ba Nhthfg 25, 2000, V svyrq n qrsnhyg whqtzrag ntnvafg Fpbgg
> > Oenqohel. Ur
> >unf, va ernyvgl naq va ynj, ybfg gur npgvba V oebhtug ntnvafg uvz sbe
> >uvf unenffzrag bs zr naq zl snzvyl. Ur unf, shegure, yrtnyyl nqzvggrq
> >gung uvf npgvbaf jrer npgvbanoyr.
<snip more garbleized stuff>
> Is that so?
Apparently Donnie Ellis is wondering if the deep end is as far off as he
can go.
-- --Dep
"Always tell the truth. It's the § "Truth is just...truth. You can't
easiest thing to remember." § have opinions about truth."
--David Mamet --Peter
Schickele
Like short-haired women? Snotty comments? Penguins?
http://members.aol.com/deppitybob/shlu/PAGEONE.html
Buck Turgidson
"John C. Randolph" wrote:
Look at the first posting of this thread. Yale posted what had occurred as well
as a FAQ of what it means. Essentially, Scott Bradbury ("Snottie Bradshit")
engaged in a campaign of lies, defamation, and harassment against Yale Edeiken,
including violent threats, forgeries, and ethnic intimidation. Yale sued him;
Bradshit never showed up. Therefore, Bradshit not only lost, he legally admitted
his culpability. That's the shortest summary I can think of.
Philip Mathews
doc_t...@NOSPAMscottsmail.com
wrote:
> On 07 Sep 2000 15:26:20 GMT, cata...@concentric.net (Sara Salzman)
wrote:
>
> >In article <JRLt5.18157$wS1.9...@nntp2.onemain.com>,
> >zapkitty@lemmings,hotmail.com (Chuck Stewart) wrote:
> >
> >>JT.K...@excite.com (Kilroy) wrote in
> >><8FA836865n...@209.155.56.82>:
> >>
> >>>ya...@enter.net (Yale F. Edeiken) wrote in
> >>><%vDt5.5816$V67.2...@newshog.newsread.com>:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Looks like you're telling a bunch more lies Mr. Edeiken.
> >>>Why is truth alien to you?
>
> >>Welcome to sci.skeptic.
> >>
> >>Please post evidence to support your charge that Yale Edeiken is
> >>lying in his post concerning the Bradbury suit.
>
> >Well, hi, Chuck! Long time no see!
>
Sue?
I believe that's what Yale did, Defendant Bradbury. And he won!
--
Philip Mathews
John C. Randolph
Buck Turgidson wrote:
>
> "John C. Randolph" wrote:
>
> > "Yale F. Edeiken" wrote:
> > >
> > > On August 25, 2000, I filed a default judgment against Scott Bradbury. He
> > > has, in reality and in law, lost the action I brought against him for his
> > > harassment of me and my family.
> >
> > Who is Scott Bradbury, and what did you sue him for?
> >
> > I haven't seen much in the way of explanation over here on sci.skeptic.
> >
> > -jcr
>
> Look at the first posting of this thread. Yale posted what had occurred as well
> as a FAQ of what it means. Essentially, Scott Bradbury ("Snottie Bradshit")
> engaged in a campaign of lies, defamation, and harassment against Yale Edeiken,
> including violent threats, forgeries, and ethnic intimidation. Yale sued him;
> Bradshit never showed up. Therefore, Bradshit not only lost, he legally admitted
> his culpability. That's the shortest summary I can think of.
Yeah, I got that much, but I'm still not clear on what Bradbury's beef
with Edeiken was. Is this a case of a holocaust denier getting his
comeuppance, or what?
-jcr
P.W. Blakely
news:%vDt5.5816$V67.2...@newshog.newsread.com...
>
>
Woah, you filed suit last year. Something is missing here.
I would love to hear how much harm Edeiken is going to claim that Bradbury
caused him.
>
> CAN BRADBURY ASK TO HAVE THIS JUDGMENT OPENED?
>
> Yes. He can file a motion to open the judgment and have his defenses
filed
> "nunc pro tunc." This is discretionary with the court.
In other words, Bradbury can challenge this.
>
> WILL A COURT DO THIS?
>
> Not likely. To convince a court to do this Bradbury must present a
> "reasonable explanation" for his failure to file his answer. Stating that
> he is a lying bigot who tossed the legal notices in the wastebasket does
not
> cut it. He must show something far more serious such as the failure of
the
> post office to deliver his answer or a typographical error that caused his
> answer to be placed in the wrong file. In short he continual
announcements
> on a.r were especially stupid as they demonstrate that he deliberately
> ignored the legal papers sent to him.
In other words, he still can.
>
> IS THE INCOMPETENCE OF HIS LAWYER A "REASONABLE EXPLANATION"?
>
> Nope. Incompetence of his lawyer - or even deliberate inaction - can be
> used only in a criminal matter. This is a civil case where, unlike the
> state, I have no obligation to make sure his attorney can find the
> courthouse without a map. The sole exception would be if he could produce
> clear and convincing (i.e. beyond a reasonable doubt) evidence that I and
> his attorney conspired to deprive Bradbury of his right to defend himself.
> Unless he that type of evidence, his proper recourse is an action against
> his attorney for legal malpractice.
Which means he can use this as a reason. And speaking of malpracitce,
Edeiken has been sued twice for that.
>
> WHAT IS THE LEGAL EFFECT OF THIS JUDGMENT?
>
> Bradbury has admitted all allegations of fact in the complaint and to his
> liability; he has not admitted any conclusions of law. If, for example, I
> stated in the complaint that Bradbury violated the Ethnic Intimidation
Act,
> that would be a conclusion of law which he did not admit by failing to
> answer. If, on the other hand, I stated that Bradbury intended to violate
> the Ethnic Intimidation Act, it would be an allegation of fact to which he
> admitted. Further he has not admitted to the jurisdiction of the court
> although he has admitted to all facts which I claim establish such
> jurisdiction.
>
> DOES THIS APPLY ONLY TO THIS CASE?
>
> Nope. It applies in all US courts (and probably those in British,
> Canadian, Australian, etc. as well) under the doctrine of res judicata.
The
> matter is settled and Bradbury has no right to contest them in other
> actions. This includes criminal actions . I am not sure if they can be
> used as a confession but they can certainly be used to cross-examine him
in
> a criminal action.
Actually, he has plenty of recourse.
>
> BUT WHAT ABOUT THE FIFTH AMENDMENT?
>
> What about it? The Fifth Amendment may apply in civil matters but only
> applies if it is invoked. If Bradbury had sent a letter to the court
saying
> that he refuses to answer invoking the Fifth Amendment, the default would
> still have been entered against him but then the admissions could not be
> used in a criminal action.
>
> DOES THIS APPLY TO ANYBODY ELSE?
>
> Nope. Not even those, like Ellis and Michael, who are mentioned in the
> complaint. Res judicata only applies to people who have had an
opportunity
> to contest the facts on the merits. Bradbury had that opportunity and
> forfeited it; the others have not had that opportunity.
>
> CAN BRADBURY APPEAL THIS?
>
> No. This is an "interlocutory" order. That is, it does not end the
action
> for damages have yet to be determined. In Pennsylvania (and in federal
> courts) no appeal of an interlocutory order is permitted without
permission
> of the appeals court. In practice this is granted only when there is a
> significant question of law (such as a constitutional challenge to a law)
or
> where the appellee can certify that the appeal will end the matter.
In other words, he can appeal it. It does not mean the appeals will elect to
hear it, but he can appeal it.
http://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol27/27-29/1138.html
>
> CAN I BE SUED IF I CALL BRADBURY A FORGER BASED ON THIS DEFAULT?
>
> No. As I told you, he has legally admitted tthe facts in the complaint.
Yes he can. It does not mean that Bradbury will win or a court will hear the
case, but can sue you.
Not completely true. It is up to the Federal bankruptcy judge to determine
this. It depends on the circumstances.
zapkitty@lemmings
<39B7DC41...@idiom.com>:
A while back the neo-nutzies tried to flood sci.skeptic with their
"we're skeptical of the Holocaust" routine.
During repeated forays they dragged a lot of stuff in with them
including the hate campaign against Edeiken.
A variety of threats and attempts at harassment and intimidation
were discussed.
It was sad-funny to watch the nutzis deny the campaign on one hand
and yet try to instill fear in their critics with it on the other
hand.
So I thought it was nice of Edeiken to let us know how that turned
out.
>-jcr
--
Chuck Stewart
"Anime-style catgirls: Threat? Menace? Or just studying algebra?"
Trevor McWilliams
P.W. Blakely
that was taken to court.
--
--Pat W Blakely--
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com
John C. Randolph <j...@idiom.com> wrote in message
news:39B7F62A...@idiom.com...
Buck Turgidson
"John C. Randolph" wrote:
For reasons known only to Bradshit, he decided that Yale was his mortal enemy. That
means he assailed the man more often, and with more viciousness, than anyone on the
web. It is not so much the case of a denier getting his comeuppance as it is of a
rabid, vile, hostile, vituperative antisemite getting his coimeuppance. If Bradshit
had stuck with his stupid, generalized taunts and bullshit, it would not have come to
this. Instead, he escalated it into personal harassment and defamation, to the point
of contacting Yale personally. He has gotten what he deserves.
P.W. Blakely
How often is "lots of lawyers" get sued for malpractice? Show me some
statistics.
Point 2:
Actually Revisionist and Nazis are at the opposite ends of the spectrum on
each other.
Nazi's boast of the fact that Hitler killed 6 million Jews. (just like the
Holocaust Hustlers do)
Revisionist dispute the fact the Hitler killed 6 million Jews. You figure
the Jews would be happy to find out that 6 million of their own did not die
from Hitler during World War II. http://www.ihr.org and www.codoh.com
www.air-photo.com will give you factual information about what really
happened.
I hope this helps.
--
--Pat W Blakely--
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com
John C. Randolph <j...@idiom.com> wrote in message
news:39B816F0...@idiom.com...
>
>
> "P.W. Blakely" wrote:
> >
> > Scott Bradbury is a revisionist whom that Criminal Edeiken could not
defeat
> > on usenet, so he has tried to harass him in the Pennsylvania law system.
>
> "revisionist"? You mean crypto-nazi, don't you?
>
> > To learn about criminal Yale Edeiken, just go to www.clr.org/pa.html
which
> > list him as a documented unethical lawyer and also links to his criminal
> > conviction in Pennsylvania.
> >
> > Yale F. Edeiken also has been sued twice for malpractice.
>
> Did he lose? Lots of lawyers get sued for malpractice, since every
litigant
> who ever loses a case wants someone besides himself to blame.
>
> > I hope this helps.
>
> It kind of fills me in on what you're all about.
>
> > --Pat W Blakely--
> > http://www.jesus-is-lord.com
>
> I just checked out your website. You know, it might do you some good
> to actually become a Christian one of these days.
>
> -jcr
>
>
Trevor McWilliams
news:cAUt5.13173$p8.3...@news-west.usenetserver.com...
> Andy goes "tilt" yet again. Another statement that made no sense to the
> question being posed.> Andy <awesREMOVETH...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:8p8vpu$ckah9$1...@ID-36532.news.cis.dfn.de...
> >
> > "P.W. Blakely" <pwbla...@gmx.net> wrote in message
> > news:llTt5.5760$p8.2...@news-west.usenetserver.com...
> > > The Edeiken vs. Bradbury case is nothing more than a usenet pissing
> > contest
> > > that was taken to court.
> >
> >
> > Andy
What part don't you understand?
Jeffrey G. Brown
Blackhead" <pwbla...@gmx.net> wrote:
>Scott Bradbury is a revisionist whom that Criminal Edeiken could not defeat
>on usenet, so he has tried to harass him in the Pennsylvania law system.
Scott Bradbury is no revisionist. He's a liar and coward who undertook a
campaign of harassment and threats against Mr. Edeiken. Mr. Edeiken sued
Bradbury for damages, and won the case.
>To learn about criminal Yale Edeiken, just go to www.clr.org/pa.html which
>list him as a documented unethical lawyer and also links to his criminal
>conviction in Pennsylvania.
A conviction which was overturned on appeal. Pathtic never mentions that,
of course.
>Yale F. Edeiken also has been sued twice for malpractice.
And how did each case end, Pathetic?
JGB
=======================================================================
Jeffrey G. Brown jg_b...@my-deja.com
For centuries, philosophers and theologians have debated what it means
to be human. Perhaps the answer has eluded us because it is so simple.
To be human is to choose. - "The Outer Limits: Feasibility Study", 1997
Buster Cherry
west.usenetserver.com>:
>And I present Sara Salzman, who is certified 100% fact-free.
>
>Sara never lets facts get in the way of an argument.
Sara is a nasty tempered person. Why is she always on the war
path?
Buster Cherry
>
>
> On August 25, 2000,
Does your father know you suck on dicks?
Buster Cherry
>The Edeiken vs. Bradbury case is nothing more than a usenet pissing
>contest that was taken to court.
Bradbury pisses and Yale drinks it. :<)
Stephen R Gould
news:llTt5.5760$p8.2...@news-west.usenetserver.com...
contest
> that was taken to court.
>
to ignore all the papers the court sent him. Easy enough to defend a mere
pissing contest in court - but documented harassment ? So Bradbury did the
legal equivalent of putting his head under a blanket hoping that the suit
would go away. But it didn't. I hope you were instrumental in giving him
advice on how to conduct his case - I'm sure he'll be duly grateful after
the damages hearing.
SRG
P.W. Blakely
wannabes. But will you make a public statement that Edeiken personally told
you that the case was totally overturned on appeal?
John C. Randolph
"P.W. Blakely" wrote:
>
> Point 1:
>
> How often is "lots of lawyers" get sued for malpractice? Show me some
> statistics.
>
> Point 2:
>
> Actually Revisionist and Nazis are at the opposite ends of the spectrum on
> each other.
>
> Nazi's boast of the fact that Hitler killed 6 million Jews. (just like the
> Holocaust Hustlers do)
>
> Revisionist dispute the fact the Hitler killed 6 million Jews. You figure
> the Jews would be happy to find out that 6 million of their own did not die
> from Hitler during World War II. http://www.ihr.org and www.codoh.com
> www.air-photo.com will give you factual information about what really
> happened.
>
> I hope this helps.
Sure it helps. It makes it crystal clear where you're coming from, you
Nazi puke.
-jcr
Buck Turgidson
Buster Cherry wrote:
Hi, Snottie. New nym, I see.
P.W. Blakely
you as a person.
You find that a lot of nazis and skinheads are indeed, homosexual.
--
--Pat W Blakely--
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com
John C. Randolph <j...@idiom.com> wrote in message
news:39B84255...@idiom.com...
Sara Salzman
Didn't take long, did it?
Terry Smith
> Criminal Yale F. Edeiken <ya...@enter.net> wrote in message
Is that your real name. or are there two people as thick as Bradbury in
Texas?
Terry Smith
> Actually Edeiken never said that, only you and other little Edeiken
> wannabes. But will you make a public statement that Edeiken personally
told
I see you are familiar with the law in regard to defamation actions. That
you have never denied being a homosexual paedophile doesn't mean that you
are a serial rapist, but we have yet to see proof to the contrary.
That you are a sad sack of shit is an opinion. That a lot of people around
the World share that opinion is fact.
Terry Smith
> Scott Bradbury is a revisionist whom that Criminal Edeiken could not
defeat
Scott, you dim shit - When you change your 'nym, change your macros. I
apologise if you are merely some other loser with jiont custody of the
brain-stem.
Susan Cohen
"John C. Randolph" wrote:
> Is this a case of a holocaust denier getting his
> comeuppance, or what?
For someone "who hasn't seen much," you sure
grasped it quickly enough! Bravo!
Susan
Yale F. Edeiken
Doc Tavish <doc_t...@NOSPAMscottsmail.com> wrote in message
news:8qofrs00uo7vt3md3...@4ax.com...
> On 07 Sep 2000 15:26:20 GMT, cata...@concentric.net (Sara Salzman) wrote:
>
> >In article <JRLt5.18157$wS1.9...@nntp2.onemain.com>,
> >zapkitty@lemmings,hotmail.com (Chuck Stewart) wrote:
> >
> >>JT.K...@excite.com (Kilroy) wrote in
> >><8FA836865n...@209.155.56.82>:
> >>
> >>><%vDt5.5816$V67.2...@newshog.newsread.com>:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Why is truth alien to you?
>
> >>Welcome to sci.skeptic.
> >>
> >>Please post evidence to support your charge that Yale Edeiken is
> >>lying in his post concerning the Bradbury suit.
>
> >Well, hi, Chuck! Long time no see!
>
> SUE SUE SUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEY
And there, for all to see, is what the deniers of the Holocaust
substiture for facts and logic.
The remainder of this delusional and dishonest post from the diseased mind
of Scott Bradbury (doc_t...@my-deja.com) writing under the name of "Doc
Tavish" is deleted as the garbage that it is.
Scott Bradbury of Bellville, Texas, is well-know for his tortured
perversion of Christianity which he espouses and for spamming his barely
coherent ravings to dozens of unrelated newsgroups. He is a notorious liar
and anti-Semite whose activities are characterized by utter dishonesty and
include such criminal activities as forging the posts of others and issuing
death threats. He has threatened one person who exposed his lies with
sexual molestation, torture, death and mutilation. There is, of course, not
a word of truth in the venom he spews so freely.
For a refutation of this and his other lies about the Talmud and Judaism
consult:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Cyprus/8815/
--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/
Yale F. Edeiken
> And I present Sara Salzman, who is certified 100% fact-free.
>
> Sara never lets facts get in the way of an argument.
So speaks the man who claimed, first, that no court order had been
entered against Bradshit and later claiemd that no judgment had been entered
against him.
When will he face his own manifest dishonesty?
Buster Cherry
>
>
> On August 25, 2000, I filed a default judgment against Scott
Please answer whether this is a rumor or if it is true please.
Do you engage in homosexual acts or not. A simple YES or NO
will do.
Yale F. Edeiken
>
>
> "Yale F. Edeiken" wrote:
> >
> > On August 25, 2000, I filed a default judgment against Scott Bradbury.
He
> > has, in reality and in law, lost the action I brought against him for
his
> > harassment of me and my family.
>
> Who is Scott Bradbury, and what did you sue him for?
>
> I haven't seen much in the way of explanation over here on sci.skeptic.
I prefer not to ctosspost but sci.skeptic was partially involved.
Some time agao one of the deniers became tired of gerring his butt
kicked because of his dishonesty, bigotry, and ignorance and looked for
greener pastures. He chose sci.skeptic and dragged a few of his accomplices
along with him., As a result sci.sleptic was treated to a spate of his
seni-coherent and illogical rants and his penchant for defaming anybody who
disagreed with him. One of his techniquesat the time wsa to forge e-mails
from people making strange secual advances to him and send them to ISPs. He
did this to me, to Jeffrey Brown, and to Andrew Skolnick of sci.sceptc. He
also aslo several people of threateneing him with "homosexual rape." These
forgeries were crossposted to sci.skeptic and were part of lawsuit.
I checked sci.skeptic and found that many of the people posting there at
the time are still active in that forum. I thought that they might like to
know of the outcome. That being done, I will coonfine all replies to
alt.revisionism where they belong.
Yale F. Edeiken
>
>
> Buck Turgidson wrote:
> >
> > "John C. Randolph" wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > On August 25, 2000, I filed a default judgment against Scott
Bradbury. He
> > > > has, in reality and in law, lost the action I brought against him
for his
> > > > harassment of me and my family.
> > >
> > > Who is Scott Bradbury, and what did you sue him for?
> > >
> > > I haven't seen much in the way of explanation over here on
sci.skeptic.
> > >
> >
> > Look at the first posting of this thread. Yale posted what had occurred
as well
> > as a FAQ of what it means. Essentially, Scott Bradbury ("Snottie
Bradshit")
> > engaged in a campaign of lies, defamation, and harassment against Yale
Edeiken,
> > including violent threats, forgeries, and ethnic intimidation. Yale sued
him;
> > Bradshit never showed up. Therefore, Bradshit not only lost, he legally
admitted
> > his culpability. That's the shortest summary I can think of.
>
> Yeah, I got that much, but I'm still not clear on what Bradbury's beef
> comeuppance, or what?
As dar as I know his "beef" was with anyone who disagreed with him. He
tried the same tactics on several people. In fact, the cmplaint filed in
the action listed threatws of violence against six different people.
He peobably focused upon me because he was terminated from one ISP
because of his harassing emails to me. One of those consisted of the word
"kike" repeated several hundred times. In April 1998 he began a sustained
campaign of harassment which included posting my address and telephone
number with incitements such as "reach out and touch someone" and "call him
late at night" attached. In fact, he tried the same tactic against Heffrey
Brown at the same time, offering a reward for anyone who would provide
perosnal information on Brown.
Like any school-yard bully he had no stomach for a fight when someone
stood up to him. He then began a sustained campaign of personal viligication
in whgich he has tried to fraudulently portray himself as the victim.
Hope this explains some of the background.
John C. Randolph
"P.W. Blakely" wrote:
>
> Childish name calling only exposes the total weakness of your argument, and
> you as a person.
Sorry, holocaust deniers aren't entitled to civility. When you take it
upon
yourself to insult the millions of murdered innocents, one of the things
you're going to have to cope with is the disgust of the community.
So, with that being said: FUCK OFF AND DIE.
> You find that a lot of nazis and skinheads are indeed, homosexual.
Of course they are. So what?
-jcr
John C. Randolph
Oh, I wasn't complaining about the crossposting, I just wanted to get
the scorecard. I think I have a pretty complete picture at this point.
-jcr
Andy
> Andy goes "tilt" yet again. Another statement that made no sense to the
> question being posed.
>
If only Donnie knew what TILT really is. He should do, I've got him to do it
several times.
Andy
-
> --Pat W Blakely--
> http://www.jesus-is-lord.com
>
> Andy <awesREMOVETH...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:8p8vpu$ckah9$1...@ID-36532.news.cis.dfn.de...
> >
> > "P.W. Blakely" <pwbla...@gmx.net> wrote in message
> > news:llTt5.5760$p8.2...@news-west.usenetserver.com...
> > > The Edeiken vs. Bradbury case is nothing more than a usenet pissing
> > contest
> > > that was taken to court.
> >
Andy
"Terry Smith" <po...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:39b86088$0$26523$7f31...@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au...
He is believed to be Don Ellis, who is indeed a second fuckwit in Texas.
Andy
Fred Cherry
fw_c...@my-deja.com (Buster Cherry) writes:
She can't stand faggot liars like you.
Your very name (Buster Cherry) is a typical example of faggot misogyny. In
the newsgroup alt.politics.homosexuality, a heterophobic faggot named Wart
Stewart, in the thread "DEATH TO NAMBLA" is berating (and rightly so) a
heterosexual man for using the word "cunt." But when a faggot named Trevor
McWilliams uses the very same word, Stewart is strangely silent.
jo...@world.std.com (Fred Cherry)
Grand Duke of Yugoslobia
Duke of Vulgaria
Grand Muff-Diver of Jerusalem
& Elector of Homophobia
P¤W¤Blakely
occasions proclaimed that the anal intercourse is no more dangerous than
blow jobs or opposite sex intercourse.
Of course, Wart does not talk about "RevOink" much does he?
He still burns in hell for the last 2.4 years and will continue to burn in
hell forever.
--
--Pat W Blakely--
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com
Fred Cherry <jo...@world.std.com> wrote in message
news:G0MC2...@world.std.com...
Marcus Winberg
"P¤W¤Blakely" <patbl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Hmwu5.31291$uh7.3...@news-west.usenetserver.com...
> Wart Stewart is a very diseased minded homosexualist. He has on many
> occasions proclaimed that the anal intercourse is no more dangerous than
> blow jobs or opposite sex intercourse.
>
> Of course, Wart does not talk about "RevOink" much does he?
>
> He still burns in hell for the last 2.4 years and will continue to burn in
> hell forever.
And if he does, then you'll join him when your miserable existence ends.
Now, I asked you a set of questions. I see no answers. Are you a coward or
what?
Stand for your beliefs, at least.
--
-
Marcus
------------------------------------------
xhy...@remove-to-reply.tninet.se
Hey, check out my articles at:
http://www.themestream.com/articles/152561.html
P¤W¤Blakely
doing now.
--
--Pat W Blakely--
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com
Marcus Winberg <xhy...@tninet.se> wrote in message
news:8pe5rf$8mv$1...@zingo.tninet.se...
David Gehrig
He's asking you for a date.
@%<
Marcus Winberg
> Nope, I will be heaven, laughing down at RevOink burning in hell as God is
> doing now.
Spoken like someone who defames a dead teenager. You've just committed a
sin, you know. If God did exist, then it is up to him to judge your
worthiness for heaven, not you. Do you now presume to know the Will of the
Lord?!
As always, you are an intellectual and moral coward. You still refuse to
answer my very simple questions about the rules of your faith.
The silence speaks more than any response, and I now can, and the rest of
the newsgroup would agree with me, that you refuse to honor the rules and
laws in a book that you yourself says is the word of God. Therefore, we
conclude that you have fallen from your faith, and if God exists then you
will surely be heading for that hot place.
Or, you could have your road to damascus and answer my really simple
questions...?
I'll repeat them, once again, for your benefit!
--------
1. Do you keep slaves?
2. Do you kill children who speak against their parents?
3. Do you mix garments?
4. Do you wear glasses?
5. Do you work on fridays?
6. Why aren't you offering blemishless sacrifices to God?
7. Do you eat pork?
8. Do you shave?
------------
Well?
zapkitty@lemmings
<catamont-070...@ts018d30.den-co.concentric.net>:
>In article <JRLt5.18157$wS1.9...@nntp2.onemain.com>,
>zapkitty@lemmings,hotmail.com (Chuck Stewart) wrote:
>>Welcome to sci.skeptic.
>>Please post evidence to support your charge that Yale Edeiken
>>is lying in his post concerning the Bradbury suit.
>Well, hi, Chuck! Long time no see!
Howdy!
>Since I'm sure you remember
>the "invasion of the loony-tunes" from their foray into
>sci.skeptic, I'm sure the predicament of Scotty, aka Doc Tavish,
>will be of some interest.
Yep.
I waited till now to post on the subject to see if any of them was
willing to back up the claim that Edeiken lied about the case.
So far... nothing.
>By the way, Mr. "Bunch of Lies" Kilroy is most likely a
>sock-puppet of one of the more virulent liars currently residing
>in alt.revisionism. I won't mention his name, since I have no
>proof I can present. But I can assure you that he has absolutely
>no evidence to support his claim.
So far he has offered none.
>At first, the sock-puppets claimed there was no court case.
>Then they claimed there was no judgement.
>Then they started ranting that a judgement in PA would not be
>honored in Texas. Apparently, they never heard of "full faith
>and credit."
Their ignorance of the way government and law works has been made
quite apparent in the past :)
>Regards,
>Sara
--
Chuck Stewart
"Anime-style catgirls: Threat? Menace? Or just studying algebra?"
P.W. Blakely
To learn about criminal Yale Edeiken, just go to www.clr.org/pa.html which
list him as a documented unethical lawyer and also links to his criminal
conviction in Pennsylvania.
Yale F. Edeiken also has been sued twice for malpractice.
I hope this helps.
--
--Pat W Blakely--
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com
John C. Randolph <j...@idiom.com> wrote in message
news:39B7DC41...@idiom.com...
>
>
> "Yale F. Edeiken" wrote:
> >
> > On August 25, 2000, I filed a default judgment against Scott Bradbury.
He
> > has, in reality and in law, lost the action I brought against him for
his
> > harassment of me and my family.
>
> Who is Scott Bradbury, and what did you sue him for?
>
> I haven't seen much in the way of explanation over here on sci.skeptic.
>
> -jcr
>
>
Blair P. Houghton
>So Bradbury did the
>legal equivalent of putting his head under a blanket hoping that the suit
>would go away.
Then Bradbury is a piker as well as a loser.
At least Earl Curley had the initiative to drink himself
to death before facing his court date.
--Blair
"What's Edeiken going to do
with the extra $1.95/mo..."