Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

Legal System Abuse by a Pathological Liar Named Yale F. Edeiken Who Lied About a May 29, 2000 E-Mail

2 views

Skip to first unread message

Reginald Higham Cornelius McTavish

unread,

May 16, 2003, 12:18:08 AM5/16/03

http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=dglr5.3384%24V67....@newshog.newsread.com&lr=&hl=en
View: Complete Thread (16 articles)
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=dglr5.3384%24V67.156844%40newshog.newsread.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fsafe%3Dimages%26ie%3DISO-8859-1%26as_umsgid%3Ddglr5.3384%2524V67.156844%40newshog.newsread.com%26lr%3D%26hl%3Den

From: "Yale F. Edeiken" <ya...@enter.net>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
References: <jn5rqs0ft4u7cjum9...@4ax.com>
<jg_brown-300...@cvg-27-166-171.cinci.rr.com>
<s8drqscsl6aija0cf...@4ax.com>
<jg_brown-300...@cvg-27-166-171.cinci.rr.com>
<39adbdf6$1...@post.usenet.com>
Subject: Re: Disciplinary Rules and a Bold Faced Pathological Liar -- Yale F.
"Tubby" Edeiken <Corrections Made Release 2>
Message-ID: <dglr5.3384$V67.1...@newshog.newsread.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 04:35:21 GMT

P.W. Blakely <pwbla...@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:39adbdf6$1...@post.usenet.com...
> **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
>
> And as usual, Brown presents zero proof of Tavish forging Criminal
> Edeiken.

He has already admitted that he has.

--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/

~~End of GOOGLE Archive~~

Why would I admit I forged an e-mail when I know I had an e-mail from my
attorney which I posted a copy of? Also if I did not have an attorney at the
time then why does Yale F. Edeiken name my attorney and then restore my
attorney's e-mail address to an e-mail he denied existed and then lied when he
claimed I admitted it was a forgery as he did above? Here is the thread of the
above post and how it progressed:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=dglr5.3384%24V67.156844%40newshog.newsread.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fsafe%3Dimages%26ie%3DISO-8859-1%26as_umsgid%3Ddglr5.3384%2524V67.156844%40newshog.newsread.com%26lr%3D%26hl%3Den

My original post which started the thread:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=selm=jn5rqs0ft4u7cjum9pfatrposi1ec4g8mf%404ax.com
Subject: Disciplinary Rules and a Bold Faced Pathological Liar -- Yale F.
"Tubby" Edeiken <Corrections Made Release 2>
Message-ID: <jn5rqs0ft4u7cjum9...@4ax.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 23:32:50 GMT

To all who have been aware of Tubby Edeiken's frivolous lawsuit
against me here is an extract from an e-mail dialog that he had with my
Allentown attorney. Tubby Edeiken and his poltroons who listen to him and
believe him deny "disciplinary rules" exist thus Tubby hasn't violated
them yet Tubby uses the term himself!
I have said before that I do have in my possession the hardcopy of
the e-mailings between my attorney and Tubby Edeiken. I'd imagine that all
of Tubby's snail mails I've FWD to my attorney will be presented to court
within a day or so showing Tubby Edeiken agreeing to not make direct
contact with me.
Now from Tubby's very own reply and in his exact words and poor
spelling I show:

From: Yale F. Edeiken <ya...@enter.net>
Message ID: <001501bfc9d5$2ddae340$d99c10cf!oemcomputer>
To: Dxxx...@aol.com
References: <e8.501626...@aol.com
Subject: Re: Edeiken v. Bradbury
Date: Mon, May 29 2000 21:20:00 -0400

[...]

> Finally as you know the disciplinary rules prohibit you from having
> any direct contact with my client as long as he has an attorney.
> Please refrain from having any contact with Mr. Bradberry.

If this confirms your representation I certainly will.

If so I expect to hear an explanation of why you advised
a client to defy a court order. As you well know that constitutes
a flagrant violation of the disciplinary rules, Furter, should you
actually be representing this creature, I expect a check for the
sanctions already imposed to be forwarded to me immediately.

-- Yale F. Edeiken

Please God in the Heavens above let Yale deny publicly the authenticity
of the above communication! I will be a very good boy too!

For the record-- my attorney now correctly spells my last name
correctly! :-)

For the record I just "return to sender" another one of Yale's violation
of the disciplinary rules he agreed to today 8/30/2000. He is not honest
and he does not stick to his written word!!

Yale F. Edeiken has denied in very recent postings that "disciplinary
rules" exist YET he agreed to abide by them and implied my own attorney
was not obeying them! (see example below) I did not make the above letter
up! I have the actual hard copy as sent to me by my Allentown attorney.
Yale will have to explain shortly why he agreed in writing to my attorney
to no longer make direct contact with me while proving false to the
agreement he made! He has since filled my snail mail box with his
"demands" and threats as well as making an obscene harassment telephone
call!

Yale will also have to answer for illegally distributing confidential
information he obtained using a subpoena to a list of e-mail recipients
which my attorney says is illegal in Pennsylvania!

There is no way on God's Green Earth Tubby will be able to escape
violating the disciplinary rules he agreed to in writing and escaping the
fact he illegally distributed confidential information obtained with a
subpoena to a list of people via e-mail.

Now for Tubby Edeiken's current lies concerning the above e-mail excerpt:
(Let us count the lies Tubby has told!)

http://x60.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=663768955
Subject: Re: Attn Pat Blakely - Please Read and Send Reply if One is Made
by The Liar and Miscreant
Date: 08/29/2000
Author: Yale F. Edeiken <ya...@enter.net>

Gurther the arrorney who contacted me in your name was asked directly
whether he represented you in this matter. He denied such representation;
in fact, he did not even know your name referring to you as "Bradberry."
(Lie #2 exposed. My attorney said precisely: "with my client as long as
he has an attorney." More than adequately shows I am being represented!)

[...]

I had posted previously:
> 2) He made a written agreement via e-mail to my attorney dated
> May 29, 2000 under "Disciplinary Rules" to not make any more direct
> contact with me. (My attorney sent me a printout of the e-mail dialogue
> and Yale's agreement.)

Dirst, thre is no such document as the "Disciplinary Rules."
(Lie #3 exposed. Yale denies that Disciplinary Rules exist yet in his
e-mail agreement with my attorney he stated: "..as you well know that
constitutes a flagrant violation of the disciplinary rules.." and
furthermore he agreed to no longer make direct contact with me
which is Lie #4 exposed because he keeps sending me stuff in violation
to his written agreement on file!!)

He has threatened one person who exposed his lies with sexual molestation,
torture, death and mutilation.
(Lie #5 to be exposed in court. Yale will be compelled to show the post
complete with all headers which was made in the name of Sara Salzman
<cata...@concentirc.net> to which I allegedly did as he accuses above
complete with my reply as either Scott Bradbury or Doc Tavish complete
with all headers which would contain Sara's message ID in the references.
If he is unable to do so (and he will be unable to do so) then he will
have to answer for making false accusations in filing his lawsuit against
me! Very serious charge!)

----end----

Yale even has poltroons who deny "disciplinary rules" exist:

http://x60.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=663390235
Subject: Re: Attn Pat Blakely - Please Read and Send Reply if One is Made
by The Liar and Miscreant
Date: 08/28/2000
Author: John Morris <John....@UAlberta.CA>

[...]

I had stated:
>2) He made a written agreement via e-mail to my attorney dated
>May 29, 2000 under "Disciplinary Rules" to not make any more direct
>contact with me. (My attorney sent me a printout of the e-mail
>dialogue and Yale's agreement.)

There are no such rules.

(If that is so John then why did Yale make a legally binding written
agreement with my attorney and then he said himself: "..you well know that
constitutes a flagrant violation of the disciplinary rules.."? I want Yale
to publicly deny the authenticity to the above quoted e-mail at the top.
I'll FWD it to Allentown so damned quick it will make his head spin like
Reagan in the movie The Exorcist!)

~~~End of DejaCom Archival Snippet~~~

http://x60.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=663425455
Subject: Re: Attn Pat Blakely - Please Read and Send Reply if One is Made
by The Liar and Miscreant
Date: 08/28/2000
Author: Patrick L. Humphrey <pat...@eris.io.com>

[...]

>2) He made a written agreement via e-mail to my attorney dated
>May 29, 2000 under "Disciplinary Rules" to not make any more direct
>contact with me. (My attorney sent me a printout of the e-mail dialogue
>and Yale's agreement.)

Ain't no such animal as "disciplinary rules", Scottie.

~~~End of DejaCom Archival Snippet~~~

What sort of knowledge do Patrick Humphrey or John Morris have about
whether the disciplinary rules exist or not? They are Yale's poltroons and
nothing more!

COME ON YALE-- DENY IN PUBLIC THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE E-MAIL!!!
I'll HAVE IT IN ALLENTOWN IN A FLASH!!

Here is Edeiken lying about having issued a subpoena to obtain my unlisted
telephone number and unlisted address documented. (Be sure to count the
lies)
http://x21.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=608403278&fmt=text
From: "Yale F. Edeiken" <ya...@enter.net>
Subject: Re: --->Violation of USC Title 18, Chapter 13, Section 241?--
Edeiken's Legal Troubles Deepen<---
Date: 08 Apr 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <b5JH4.301$%L6.2...@monger.newsread.com>
References: <8cnap...@news2.newsguy.com>

Defendant Bradbury <sonn...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:8cnap...@news2.newsguy.com...
> I was going to take some days off for rest and relaxation but the official
> Doc Tavish hotline rang and I was advised that a Yale F. Edeiken mailing
> list recipient

That's a lie.

((Tavish comment 4/18/2000- For the record it is ONLY by an Edeiken
mailing list recipient that my personal info has been abused by death
threat telephone calls and death threats being posted with my unlisted
telephone number and unlisted address being posted.))

> Yale F. Edeiken is also on record as claiming that he never posted
> my private information. "

I never did.

> ((Tavish comment April 8, 2000-- Morris' assumption "I suspect that his
> own attorneys obtained the information" is only valid to the point that
> Edeiken has no attorneys

That's a lie. The name of my attorney is being kept confidential WITH THE
KNOWLEDGE OF THE PRESIDENT JUDGE AND CLERK becasue of your
attempts to incite criminal harassment.

((Tavish comment 4/18/2000- The ONLY attorney's name on the subpoena
issued to FlashNet Communications, which was abused to deny me my
civil rights, was the name of Yale F. Edeiken))

> > And then Yale had it posted over USENET.
:
> That is, of course, a lie. I never posted it anywhere.
>
> Defendant Tavish's statement is mnore evidence of his continued
> defamation.
:
> ((Tavish comment April 8, 2000-- Notice Yale denied "posting"
> my personal information however he did NOT deny getting it from
> my ISP (Flash Net) using his power of attorney! Very vital!))

Then I do so now.

((Tavish comment 4/18/2000-- do you now wish to continue your
denial now that I have a photocopy of your subpoena in my personal
possession Yale? Please do! I want everyone to see what a liar and
disreputable lawyer you are!)) <<Tavish comment May 15, 2003: Court
documents I NOW have in my possession prove Yale F. Edeiken was his
own attorney thus he lied when he claimed he did not use HIS power
of attorney to subpoena my address etc. and he lied when he claimed
to have an unknown attorney acting on his behalf as he claimed higher
up. IOW Yale F. Edeiken=Plaintiff and Plaintiff's Attorney!!!>>

~~End of DejaCom Archival Excerpt~~

I have in my possession right at this very moment a copy of a
subpoena which states:

"Flash Net Communications, File number 99-C-2786 with a heading:
Yale F. Edeiken Vs Scott Bradbury aka sonn...@flash.net demanding:
"(1) Application for services and all other written materials including
e-mails, complaints or memoranda of internal investigation of
sonn...@flash.net" "This subpoena was issued at the request of the
following person: Yale F. Edeiken, Allentown, PA 18104 Supreme
Court ID# 40290" (For the record the subpoena was issued 11/30/1999)

How many lies did Yale tell in the one post above? I count two!

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

Yale denied using his power of attorney to otherwise obtain my unlisted
telephone number and my unlisted address BUT was shown to be a liar in the
above example. Yale further lied about having a list and e-mailing the
information he obtained using the subpoena as documented below:
(Be sure to count each and every documented lie Yale tells!)

http://x76.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=624379718
Subject: Yale F. Edeiken Can't Escape Mailing Out Via E-Mail Subpoenaed
Information (Very Illegal and Unethical Too!) aka Re: Yale F. Edeiken's
Six Inescapable Lies aka Re: fun with scottie
Date: 05/17/2000
Author: Doc Tavish <doc_t...@NOSPAMmy-deja.com>

[...]

On Tue, 16 May 2000 01:14:29 GMT, "Yale F. Edeiken" <ya...@enter.net>
<Vh1U4.3322$v%5.23...@newshog.newsread.com> wrote:

>Doc Tavish <doc_t...@NOSPAMmy-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:3920996d...@news.flash.net...

>> On Mon, 15 May 2000 23:32:01 GMT, "Yale F. Edeiken" <ya...@enter.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Doc Tavish <doc_t...@NOSPAMmy-deja.com> wrote in message
>> >news:39208100...@news.flash.net...
>>
>> Lurkers please note the "news:39208100...@news.flash.net"
>> it's very pertinent.

[...]

>> And you distributed it via your e-mailing list.
:
> Liar. I have no e-mailing list.

How do you explain what you have posted in the recent past included once
again below?

>> >> and then illegally distributed it via your own personal mailing list!
:
>> > Incorrect. There is no such mailing list.

How do you explain what you have posted in the recent past included once
again below?

>> If that is so then why did you delete the following from the post to which
>> you now reply?
:
> Because your continued frantic lies are boring.

Here once again and all compared to your claims above let us count your
lies. You claim above: "I have no e-mailing list.... There is no such
mailing list."

You did mention these key words in a previous posting you
made didn't you ol' criminal pathological liar you: "As all the recipients
of the e-mail... ...I gave the information to a list of people..." Looks
like I've caught you in even more lies doesn't it Yale? Once again from
the top criminal-- did you or did you not say the following?

From: "Yale F. Edeiken" <ya...@enter.net>
Subject: Re: Andrew spams again
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 11:26:56 -0500
NNTP-Posting-Host: atmax-9-4.enter.net
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: atmax-9-4.enter.net
Message-ID: <385e...@news3.enter.net>
X-Trace: 20 Dec 1999 11:27:29 -0500, atmax-9-4.enter.net
Organization: Enter.Net

Fergus McClelland <re...@perdrix.demon.co.uk > wrote in message
news:faxdOHnEHgDROZ...@4ax.com...
> "Yale F. Edeiken" <ya...@enter.net> wrote:
:
> >Fergus McClelland <re...@perdrix.demon.co.uk > wrote in message
> >news:J7pZOIj+KpQFqo...@4ax.com...
:
> >> I think it wrong to give Tavish's details to a list, (though I can understand the
> >> pressure that may have led him to do so)

(Edeiken speaks):
> > Save it for the next time you are running for office.

((Tavish comment May 15, 2000-- Notice Edeiken did not deny giving my
details to a list as shown above. <<Lie #1 Exposed>>))

> It seems the best mitigation for your action to me.

(Edeiken speaks now in his "current" reply):
Nope. The best defense is the complete one. That it went to people
who had been victimized by Bradbury.

In fact, McVay's nonsense is just that. As all the recipients of the
e-mail except Ken knew was that there were then motions pending including
barring Bradbury from obtaining such material from me because of his
invasions of privacy and threats.

((Tavish comment May 15, 2000-- Notice Edeiken said precisely: "As all the
recipients of the e-mail..." Who sent the e-mail to the list? Yale F.
Edeiken <<Lie #2 Exposed>>))

(Edeiken speaks):
> >I gave the information to a list of people who, almost without exception have
> >been the vicitims of threats of violence or criminal harassment from Bradbury. If
> >you ahve a problem with that, I could care less.

((Tavish comment May 15, 2000-- Notice Edeiken said precisely: "I gave the
information to a list of people" yet he now claims: "There is no such
mailing list.." <<Lie #3 Exposed>>))

> --YFE

~~~End of Edeiken Admission to Passing Out Confidential Information~~~ The
above from my: Message-ID: <39208100...@news.flash.net>

Please compare the headers to see how Edeiken dodges disseminating
subpoenaed information via his personal mailing list! Why did you delete
your admission to distributing confidential information obtained via a
subpoena to your mailing list Yale?

[...]

> --YFE

~~~End~~~

BTW here's Ken McVay even giving evidence about how "Nazihunter" got my
unlisted telephone number and unlisted address:

From: kmc...@veritas.nizkor.org (Kenneth McVay OBC)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Andrew spams again
Date: 16 Dec 1999 18:41:58 GMT
Organization: The Nizkor Project
Lines: 82
Message-ID: <83bbpm$2jk4$1...@news.tht.net>
References: <38570B78...@btinternet.com>
X-Trace: news.tht.net 945369718 85636 216.126.72.25
(16 Dec 1999 18:41:58 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: scr...@hub.org
Cc: ya...@enter.net,david.e...@btinternet.com

[...]

To be fair, one should also ask how nazihunter got the name and
address in the first place, shouldn't one?

Yale Edeiken distributed it to a holocaust-history.org mailing list, and
to a few, including me, outside the list. If you are going to condemn
nazihunter, as you properly are, then should you not also ask what Yale
hoped to achieve by distributing the address in the first place?

~~~End of Archival Excerpt~~~

Recent addition:
This recently transpired:

Concerning my confidential info I charged:
>> And you distributed it via your e-mailing list.
:
> Liar. I have no e-mailing list.
:
>> >> and then illegally distributed it via your own personal mailing list!
:
>> > Incorrect. There is no such mailing list.

Now Yale has said:

On Wed, 17 May 2000 03:28:14 GMT, "Yale F. Edeiken" <ya...@enter.net>
<iloU4.3589$v%5.26...@newshog.newsread.com> wrote:

>Doc Tavish <doc_t...@NOSPAMmy-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:3921f38a....@news.flash.net...
>> On Wed, 17 May 2000 00:48:50 GMT, "Yale F. Edeiken" <ya...@enter.net>
>> <S%lU4.7966$LM4.5...@monger.newsread.com> wrote:
:
>> >> Thanks for posting another death threat. It has already been
>> >> established that you got my address from Yale F. Edeiken as an "e-mail list
>> >> recipient." BTW how's the weather in Toronto and the campus life at the
>> >> university?
:
>> > Another actionable lie from Defendant....
:
>> No matter how g-d damned hard you try psycho you will NOT be able to
>> distance yourself from distributing my confidential information via YOUR
>> mailing list!
:
> I have no such "private mailing list."
>
> It is, therefore, you who are the liar.

The facts as archived at DejaCom say otherwise!

>> You are forever archived here with your lies about your subpoena issued to
>> get my ulisted telephone number and unlisted address and your lies about
>> YOUR mailing list. All admissable in court--- your recent words too!
:
> None of which mean what you state they mean. Mailing something to a
>group of people is NOT"a private mailing list."

So now I do have you on record admitting to: "Mailing something to a group
of people..."

Thanks for the final admission asswipe!

~~End of DejaCom URL <http://x76.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=624379718>~~

I now honestly ask: HOW MANY LIES DID I EXPOSE YALE aka TUBBY EDEIKEN IN?
Every thing I presented above is fully documented and cross indexed with
URLs for anyone who doubts the accuracy of the quoted archives!

Need I show more? ;-)

[Release #2 -- Prior version had some errors]

Doc Tavish

--
"For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which none of your adversaries
will be able to withstand or contradict." Son of Man {Luke 21:15 RSV}

~~End of GOOGLE Archive~~

Jeffrey G. Brown is the next in the thread and he claims I forged the e-mail:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=&selm=jg_brown-3008002131010001%40cvg-27-166-171.cinci.rr.com
Subject: Re: Disciplinary Rules and a Bold Faced Pathological Liar -- Yale F.
"Tubby" Edeiken <Corrections Made Release 2>
Message-ID: <jg_brown-300...@cvg-27-166-171.cinci.rr.com>
References: <jn5rqs0ft4u7cjum9...@4ax.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 01:28:00 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.27.166.171

In article <jn5rqs0ft4u7cjum9...@4ax.com>, Poor Ol' Gutless
Scottie "BOOGERMAN" Bradbury (sonn...@flash.net) wrote:

>I now honestly ask: HOW MANY LIES DID I EXPOSE YALE aka TUBBY EDEIKEN IN?

None. You're well-known for forging emails, Cockroach Boy. Your claims are
worthless.

JGB

~~End of GOOGLE Archive~~

Me replying to Jeffrey G. Brown's false accusation I forged the e-mail:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=&selm=s8drqscsl6aija0cfbtarkipbl8eng3gpo%404ax.com
Subject: Re: Disciplinary Rules and a Bold Faced Pathological Liar -- Yale F.
"Tubby" Edeiken <Corrections Made Release 2>
Message-ID: <s8drqscsl6aija0cf...@4ax.com>
References: <jn5rqs0ft4u7cjum9...@4ax.com>
<jg_brown-300...@cvg-27-166-171.cinci.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 01:41:33 GMT

On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 01:28:00 GMT,
jSPAMSTOPg_b...@my-deSPAMSTOPja.coSPAMSTOPm wrote:

>In article <jn5rqs0ft4u7cjum9...@4ax.com>, Poor Ol' Gutless
>Scottie "BOOGERMAN" Bradbury (sonn...@flash.net) wrote:

Still name call and childish attacks is all Jeffrey can do when facts are
presented!

>>I now honestly ask: HOW MANY LIES DID I EXPOSE YALE aka TUBBY EDEIKEN IN?
:
>None. You're well-known for forging emails, Cockroach Boy. Your claims are
>worthless.

I'll bet that you won't see your pal Yale going on public record claiming
the following was forged:

[...]

> Finally as you know the disciplinary rules prohibit you from having
> any direct contact with my client as long as he has an attorney.
> Please refrain from having any contact with Mr. Bradberry.

If this confirms your representation I certainly will.

-- Yale F. Edeiken

<end>

Still another stooge in denial.

I hope Tubby makes a denial! I hope he accuses me of forging the above and
he'll see how god damned fast his denial makes it to Allentown! I love to
expose Tubby's lies, his unprofessionalism, his unethical and sleazy ways!

Now will Jeffrey count the lies Tubby told as shown here and based on the
above e-mail communique? No! Jeffrey is about as honest as Tubby!
For the record and for the record only here are Tubby's lies exposed again
for all to see and for all time!

Now for Tubby Edeiken's current lies concerning the above e-mail excerpt:
(Let us count the lies Tubby has told!)

> For the record Pat I wonder if Yale would deny in public:
> 1) I have an attorney in Allentown representing me.

Absolutely. You have no attorney of record in the action against you.
(Lie #1 exposed. Yale acknowledged in the above e-mail that I was being
represented after my attorney referred to me as his "client.")
<<Tavish comment May 15, 2003: If I didn't have an attorney named Daylin Leach
prior to YOUR temporary judgment against me on August 25, 2000 then why did you
issue a subpoena on him concerning your kook lawsuit in July 2000? I have the
docket printout and BTW my attorney referred to me as HIS client in his May 29,
2000 e-mail to you! I had paid him the advance money too so he would represent
me!!>>

[...]

[...]

----end----

Back into your hole you shall go rat till you pop up again from your sewer
dwelling!

Doc Tavish
--
"For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which none of your adversaries
will be able to withstand or contradict." Son of Man {Luke 21:15 RSV}

>JGB

~~End of GOOGLE Archive~~

If the e-mail was forged then why does Yale admit to communicating with my
attorney who had e-mailed him!?

Here is Jeffrey G. Brown's reply to the post above which should make it obvious
the e-mail was not forged BUT here is the continual denial Yale F. Edeiken is a
lying shyster bastard who is unethical and who doesn't keep a written agreement
such as to no longer make ANY contact with me! (That is why I hired Daylin
Leach!!)

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=&selm=jg_brown-3008002157580001%40cvg-27-166-171.cinci.rr.com
Subject: Re: Disciplinary Rules and a Bold Faced Pathological Liar -- Yale F.
"Tubby" Edeiken <Corrections Made Release 2>
Message-ID: <jg_brown-300...@cvg-27-166-171.cinci.rr.com>
References: <jn5rqs0ft4u7cjum9...@4ax.com>
<jg_brown-300...@cvg-27-166-171.cinci.rr.com>
<s8drqscsl6aija0cf...@4ax.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 01:54:57 GMT

In article <s8drqscsl6aija0cf...@4ax.com>, Poor Ol' Gutless
Scottie "BOOGERMAN" Bradbury (sonn...@flash.net) wrote:

>On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 01:28:00 GMT,
>jSPAMSTOPg_b...@my-deSPAMSTOPja.coSPAMSTOPm wrote:
>
>>In article <jn5rqs0ft4u7cjum9...@4ax.com>, Poor Ol' Gutless
>>Scottie "BOOGERMAN" Bradbury (sonn...@flash.net) wrote:
>
>Still name call and childish attacks is all Jeffrey can do when facts are
>presented!
:
>>>I now honestly ask: HOW MANY LIES DID I EXPOSE YALE aka TUBBY EDEIKEN IN?
:
>>None. You're well-known for forging emails, Cockroach Boy. Your claims are
>>worthless.
:
>I'll bet that you won't see your pal Yale going on public record claiming
>the following was forged:

Mr. Edeiken doesn't have to say a thing. You're a forger. Your claims are
worthless.

JGB

~~End of GOOGLE Archive~~

Here is "Pat Blakely" (next in the thread) replying to Jeffrey G. Brown:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=&selm=39adbdf6%241%40post.usenet.com
From: "P.W. Blakely" <pwbla...@gmx.net>
References: <jn5rqs0ft4u7cjum9...@4ax.com>
<jg_brown-300...@cvg-27-166-171.cinci.rr.com>
<s8drqscsl6aija0cf...@4ax.com>
<jg_brown-300...@cvg-27-166-171.cinci.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Disciplinary Rules and a Bold Faced Pathological Liar -- Yale F.
"Tubby" Edeiken <Corrections Made Release 2>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 22:25:03 -0400
Message-ID: <39adbdf6$1...@post.usenet.com>

**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

And as usual, Brown presents zero proof of Tavish forging Criminal Edeiken.

--
--Pat W Blakely--

~~End of GOOGLE Archive~~

Here is Yale replying to "Pat Blakely" as was quoted at the very top and we come
around full circle as I repeat Yale's lie that I admitted to forging the e-mail
between my attorney and himself:

He has already admitted that he has.

--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/

~~End of GOOGLE Archive~~

Funny thing about Yale being a pathological liar. He claimed I forged the e-mail
and he and his minions claimed I had no attorney YET if the ep-mail was forged
as Yale claims I admitted to doing then why did he put in my attorney's e-mail
address which I had XXXed out!? See how easy it is to catch that lying bastard
in lies?

Here he is and remember everyone-- he claimed the e-mail was a forgery by me and
that it did not exist nd he and his minions claimed I had no attorney prior to
his judgment against me!

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=Xplr5.3387%24V67.157073%40newshog.newsread.com&rnum=2
From: "Yale F. Edeiken" <ya...@enter.net>
References: <jn5rqs0ft4u7cjum9...@4ax.com>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
<<Tavish comment May 15, 2003: Everyone take notice of that Message ID. It is my
post Yale replied to and I had deleted my attorney's (who Yale had claimed
didn't exist and that the e-mail was forged) e-mail address BUT Yale restored it
in his reply. If the e-mail was forged and I didn't have an attorney then why
would Yale add back the e-mail address though he erred slightly? Yale is an evil
and malicious liar who won't keep his word and I have it in writing too!>>

Subject: Re: Disciplinary Rules and a Bold Faced Pathological Liar -- Yale F.
"Tubby" Edeiken <Corrections Made Release 2>
Message-ID: <Xplr5.3387$V67.1...@newshog.newsread.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 04:45:43 GMT

Doc Tavish <doc_t...@NOSPAMscottsmail.com> wrote in message
news:jn5rqs0ft4u7cjum9...@4ax.com...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> To all who have been aware of Tubby Edeiken's frivolous lawsuit
> against me here is an extract from an e-mail dialog that he had with my
> Allentown attorney. Tubby Edeiken and his poltroons who listen to him and
> believe him deny "disciplinary rules" exist

A lie. I stated that there are no "Disciplinary Rules" which you
continaully claimed exist.

> I have said before that I do have in my possession the hardcopy of
> the e-mailings between my attorney and Tubby Edeiken. I'd imagine that all
> of Tubby's snail mails I've FWD to my attorney will be presented to court
> within a day or so showing Tubby Edeiken agreeing to not make direct
> contact with me.

Read it again, Bradshit. It says nothing of the kind.

> From: Yale F. Edeiken <ya...@enter.net>
> Message ID: <001501bfc9d5$2ddae340$d99c10cf!oemcomputer>
> To: Dyali...@aol.com
> References: <e8.501626...@aol.com
> Subject: Re: Edeiken v. Bradbury
> Date: Mon, May 29 2000 21:20:00 -0400
>
> [...]
>
> > Finally as you know the disciplinary rules prohibit you from having
> > any direct contact with my client as long as he has an attorney.
> > Please refrain from having any contact with Mr. Bradberry.
:
> If this confirms your representation I certainly will.

You will note that I make no such promise. I stated that I would IF
there wsa confirmation of such representation. Daylin Leach replied in the
negative. There wsa, therefore, no undertaking on my p[part.

> If so I expect to hear an explanation of why you advised
> a client to defy a court order. As you well know that constitutes
> a flagrant violation of the disciplinary rules, Furter, should you
> actually be representing this creature, I expect a check for the
> sanctions already imposed to be forwarded to me immediately.

Note that there was no response to this.

> Please God in the Heavens above let Yale deny publicly the authenticity
> of the above communication! I will be a very good boy too!

Why should I deny it. It proves you have been lying.

[...]

~~End of GOOGLE Archival Excerpt~~

Notice now Yale admits the e-mail exists YET he implied previously that I forged
it and then he names the attorney I paid an advancement to in May 2000 and
restores (in error) his e-mail address I deleted as I prove here:

References: <jn5rqs0ft4u7cjum9...@4ax.com>

http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=jn5rqs0ft4u7cjum9...@4ax.com&lr=&hl=en
Subject: Disciplinary Rules and a Bold Faced Pathological Liar -- Yale F.
"Tubby" Edeiken <Corrections Made Release 2>
Message-ID: <jn5rqs0ft4u7cjum9...@4ax.com>

[...]

Now from Tubby's very own reply and in his exact words and poor
spelling I show:

[...]

~~End of GOOGLE Archival Excerpt~~

For the record (and to expose another Edeikenite lie) I did have an attorney
prior to Yale's judgment against me.

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=oghmnt40ao9l6brg2vigq5f6p7i1ci1o4s%404ax.com&rnum=2
Subject: Once Again I Prove I had an Attorney Prior to August 25, 2000 aka Re:
Bradbury Fakes It Again, was Re: NAZIHUNTER THREATS REVISITED aka Re: I Read the
Article on Sara
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 23:18:20 -0500
Message-ID: <oghmnt40ao9l6brg2...@4ax.com>
References: <o9Kd7.3900$5d4.1...@monger.newsread.com>
<20010813022144...@mb-fm.aol.com>
<Sc3e7.4068$5d4.1...@monger.newsread.com>
<9lciee$g0m$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net> <f9t5OxK6dOJ0dc...@4ax.com>
<Csme7.4225$5d4.1...@monger.newsread.com>

On Wed, 15 Aug 2001 03:59:30 GMT, <Csme7.4225$5d4.1...@monger.newsread.com>
"Yale F. Edeiken" <ya...@enter.net> wrote:

>
>Paul Kneisel <tall...@nyct.net> wrote in message
>news:f9t5OxK6dOJ0dc...@4ax.com...
>>
>> If I recall, a court determined that Bradbury himself was "Nazihunter." If
>> the court did not set damages it was because the court determined it had
>> no jurisdiction, not that its conclusions were wrong.
:
> No. What happened was that he was served with "Request for Admission."
>Failure to answer constitutes an admission of the truth of the statements.
>Bradshit never responded,

<<Tavish comment May 15, 2003: Neither I nor my attorney was ever served with
the trumped up fabricated accusations as proven in this link:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=&selm=aomv4vofhbl2q46bqk2lvf3k7q0umn1l4l%404ax.com
Subject: RE Dismissal of 1999-C-2786 Edeiken Vs Bradbury R_0216
Message-ID: <aomv4vofhbl2q46bq...@4ax.com> END of comment>>

You were required by your written agreement and by the disciplinary rules to
send
all materials to the attorney who contacted you telling you I was his client BUT
you didn't and it is on record too that your told my attorney "FUCK YOU" each
time he tried to get a copy of your complaints. Don't try to say I did not have
an attorney prior to August 25, 2000 because the docket shows you issuing a
subpoena to him re: 1999-C-2786 in July!

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&rnum=1&selm=6345ctceth31duniv70l4hafon88sdu3gq%404ax.com
From: NIZKOR WATCH (doc_t...@my-deja.comDELETE2MAIL-NO_SPAM)
Subject: Re: Did I or Did I Not Have An Attorney Prior to August 25, 2000? YES I
Did! - Also Motions To Compel Answers To Discovery
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Date: 2001-03-28 17:32:03 PST

[...]

From: Sara (cata...@concentric.net)
(EXCERPT)

In article <dnmabtgedpcv2hbfa...@4ax.com>,
DELETE2MAI...@my-deja.com wrote:

[...]

> The ONLY reason Yale got that default judgment on August 25, 2000 was
> because he did NOT follow the written agreement he made with my attorney,
> which is on file, in which Yale F. Edeiken agreed to cease and desist
> from making ANY direct contact with me and that was on May 29, 2000 almost
> three months before Yale got his judgement against me.

Except you didn't HAVE an attorney. See below.

<<Doc Tavish Comment March 27, 2001: Yes I did have an attorney because
why would he have referred to me as his client in the May 29, 2000 e-mail
which Yale first denied and then later admitted existed?>>

> ~~~~~~~~~Proof of the May 29, 2000 Agreement~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> See this post:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=May+29,+2000&hl=&rnum=3&seld=945856619&ic=1
> From: Doc Tavish (doc_tavi...@my-deja.com)
> Subject: Yale F. Edeiken Attorney - Allentown, PA (Supreme Court ID#
> 40290) Recent Lies Documented UPGRADED R 2
> Date: 2000-12-30 18:30:42 PST
>
> >>> I have said before that I do have in my possession the hardcopy of
> >>> the e-mailings between my attorney and Tubby Edeiken. I'd imagine
> >>> that all of Tubby's snail mails I've FWD to my attorney will be presented
> >>> to court within a day or so showing Tubby Edeiken agreeing to not
> >>> make direct contact with me.
:
> >> Read it again, Bradshit. It says nothing of the kind.

<<Doc Tavish comment March 27, 2001: If the e-mail had not existed then
why would Yale say read it again?>>

> >>> From: Yale F. Edeiken <ya...@enter.net>
> >>> Message ID: <001501bfc9d5$2ddae340$d99c10cf!oemcomputer>
> >>> To: xxx...@aol.com <(just deleted my attorney's e-mail address)
> >>> References: <e8.501626...@aol.com
> >>> Subject: Re: Edeiken v. Bradbury
> >>> Date: Mon, May 29 2000 21:20:00 -0400
> >>> [...] My attorney did in fact say:
> >>> > Finally as you know the disciplinary rules prohibit you from having
> >>> > any direct contact with my client as long as he has an attorney.
> >>> > Please refrain from having any contact with Mr. Bradberry.
:
> Yale did in fact reply:
> >>> If this confirms your representation I certainly will.

To which Daylin Leach responded in the negative.

<<Daylin Leach did NOT reply in the negative! He had already said:
"Finally as you know the disciplinary rules prohibit you from having
any direct contact with my client as long as he has an attorney." How is
that replying in the negative? He referred to me using "my client" which
proves you to be a liar! Remember Yale later admitted in this post that
the e-mail existed! Care to stay in denial pig? Here is what you deleted:
From the very post (above) which you gutted:

>>> Please God in the Heavens above let Yale deny publicly the authenticity
>>> of the above communication! I will be a very good boy too!
:
>> Why should I deny it. It proves you have been lying.

(Notice that Yale has called me a liar from the beginning concerning an
e-mail communication between my attorney and him and how he denied such
e-mail existed and Yale even suggested that I forged it BUT now he admits
it exists and at the same time calls me the liar!? Does the term
pathological liar ring a bell?)... End of Doc Tavish Comment>>

Therefore, there was no agreement, since Mr. Leach did NOT bother to
file an appearance until AUGUST 28, 2000.

<<Doc Tavish comment March 27, 2001: How could my attorney file an
appearance- he didn't even have a copy of the complaint and when he tried
to get a copy Yale responded with "Fuck You" which has been admitted to
court! Care to deny that Yale does not furnish his "victims" with copies
of complaints? He did the same thing to David Michael too! Care to deny
it?

[...]

Face it, Mr. Bradbury, your so-called attorney didn't EXIST as your
attorney until he FILED HIS APPEARANCE in August. It is not Mr.
Edeiken's responsibility to pretend you have an attorney when the person
you claim is your attorney never bothered to file.

<<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"

I did have an attorney as established on July 14, 2000! Why would Yale be
wanting to subpoena my attorney in Edeiken Vs Bradbury if I didn't have an
attorney!? Once again my enemies lie! End of Doc Tavish Comment>>

In fact, on FEBRUARY 7th, 2001, YOUR ATTORNEY TOLD JUDGE REIBMAN THAT
YOU HAD NO REPRESENTATION PRIOR TO AUGUST 28, in other words, you were
NOT represented when the default judgement was handed down.

<<Doc Tavish comment March 27, 2001: Once again you lie because the docket
shows the above intent to serve a subpoena and also Edeiken acknowledged
on May 29, 2000 that I had an attorney!>>

It's in writing, Mr. Bradbury. Perhaps a remedial reading course might
be of some help to you.

<<You acting like a pig doesn't win arguments bitch! How many lies have I
caught you in lately? MANY! You need to take a remedial course concerning
telling the truth and dealing with FACTS>>

~~End of GOOGLE Archival Excerpt~~

Everyone count all of the lies told by Edeiken and his Accomplices! There are
many!

Here are archives of the perjury and legal system abuse by shyster Edeiken:

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=&selm=aomv4vofhbl2q46bqk2lvf3k7q0umn1l4l%404ax.com
Subject: RE Dismissal of 1999-C-2786 Edeiken Vs Bradbury R_0216
Message-ID: <aomv4vofhbl2q46bq...@4ax.com>
The complaints which neither I NOR my attorney were ever served with were
filled with numerous libels and outright perjury with "evidence" against me
being manufactured by the plaintiff (who was also his own attorney):
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=&selm=3bmv4vc9u4kh2qs4v84aek0qsbfhb5eul8%404ax.com
Subject: Test this, David Michael aka Ken McVay's "Edeiken-v-Bradbury.C1" Is
Filled With Lies and Perjury...
Message-ID: <3bmv4vc9u4kh2qs4v...@4ax.com>
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=d0ic0v81gdhrd1djqe4k4k2mnvq4c4sdi5%404ax.com&rnum=4
Subject: "Criminally Perjured Sworn Testimony" at the Web Site of Peter
Outerbridge aka Paul Kneisel (He Supports Lies So He Can Use Them To Smear Me)
Message-ID: <d0ic0v81gdhrd1djq...@4ax.com>
The plaintiff illegally distributed my unlisted telephone number and address
which he had used to make death threats against me. The subpoenaed information
did NOT become "public knowledge" because it was NEVER turned over to the
court-- rather instead the plaintiff posted my newly acquired address etc. to
USENET with the invitation I get beaten with baseball bats!
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=gsk76vcng7f0cugmimalglbno6bmgmslhk%404ax.com&rnum=2
Subject: Yale F. Edeiken Admits Sending Death Threats Over The Internet is a
Federal Crime (Which He Has Done!)
Message-ID: <gsk76vcng7f0cugmi...@4ax.com>
For a fact-- Yale F. Edeiken is:
1) Not a member of his local or state bar association
2) Not in the phone book under attorneys
3) Not associated with any law office though he tried to convince people he was
and those two law offices denied having him as an associate and both claimed he
used them as drops which explains why people can see the "C/O" in Edeiken's
"legal" documents.

As an added bonus:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=rhi7cvsotqaj3t6btide56jdi44odj5oip%404ax.com&rnum=1
Subject: Edeikook Follies #6 Yale F. Edeiken Goes on a Rampage at His County
Courthouse
Message-ID: <rhi7cvsotqaj3t6bt...@4ax.com>

Need I say more other than Yale F. Edeiken still has not been brought to
justice! Neu=ither his local District Attorney NOR the Disciplinary Board of the
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania NOR Penn State Attorney General will do one thing
which proves if you are a favored ethnicity you can screw over anyone and abuse
the legal system for your own personal vendettas!

Tavish

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

0 new messages