Disciplinary Rules and a Bold Faced Pathological Liar -- Yale F. "Tubby" Edeiken <Corrections Made Release 2>
Doc Tavish
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
<End of EXACT copy of a small portion of the e-mail>
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>
> 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.")
[...]
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!))
~~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}
P.W. Blakely
And as usual, Brown presents zero proof of Tavish forging Criminal Edeiken.
--
--Pat W Blakely--
http://www.christianbiblestudy.org
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
jSPAMSTOPg_b...@my-despamstopja.cospamstopm
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
=======================================================================
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
Doc Tavish
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:
From: Yale F. Edeiken <ya...@enter.net>
Message ID: <001501bfc9d5$2ddae340$d99c10cf!oemcomputer>
To: Dxxx...@aol.com
References: <e8.501626...@aol.com
Subject: Re: Edeiken v. Bradbury
Date: Mon, May 29 2000 21:20:00 -0400
[...]
> Finally as you know the disciplinary rules prohibit you from having
> any direct contact with my client as long as he has an attorney.
> Please refrain from having any contact with Mr. Bradberry.
If this confirms your representation I certainly will.
If so I expect to hear an explanation of why you advised
a client to defy a court order. As you well know that constitutes
a flagrant violation of the disciplinary rules, Furter, should you
actually be representing this creature, I expect a check for the
sanctions already imposed to be forwarded to me immediately.
-- Yale F. Edeiken
<end>
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!
[...]
----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
jSPAMSTOPg_b...@mspamstopy-despamstopja.cospamstopm
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
Yale F. Edeiken
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/
Yale F. Edeiken
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.
> Yale F. Edeiken has denied in very recent postings that "disciplinary
> rules" exist
A kue. I denied that there was any such document as "Disciplianry
Rules" exist.
> He has since filled my snail mail box with his
> "demands" and threats as well as making an obscene harassment telephone
> call!
>
Since Defendant Bradshit has no attory of record, I have sent him the
normal filings done in all civil litigation. I sent him more today.
You still have some time to learn English before the hearing Vradshit.
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/
P.W. Blakely
When did Bradbury admit to forging your name convicted criminal? Show some
proof boy.
Doc Tavish
wrote:
>**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
>
>When did Bradbury admit to forging your name convicted criminal? Show some
>proof boy.
Tubby's denial has already been e-mailed to Allentown!
Yale F. Edeiken
> **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
>
> When did Bradbury admit to forging your name convicted criminal? Show
some
> proof boy.
Sure. Be in court when the assessment of damges hearing is held.
P.W. Blakely
Almost worth the drive up there tomorrow. If you had given me more notice, I
will love to see this in a court room.
--
--Pat W Blakely--
http://www.christianbiblestudy.org
Yale F. Edeiken <ya...@enter.net> wrote in message
news:v8mr5.3394$V67.1...@newshog.newsread.com...
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Cooter
says...
>
>
>P.W. Blakely <pwbla...@gmx.net> wrote in message
>news:39adbdf6$1...@post.usenet.com...
>> **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
>>
>> And as usual, Brown presents zero proof of Tavish forging Criminal
>Edeiken.
>
> He has already admitted that he has.
Where Tavish admit forgering you?
Please show I must have missed.
steve wolk
"P.W. Blakely" wrote:
>
> **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
>
> Almost worth the drive up there tomorrow. If you had given me more notice, I
> will love to see this in a court room.
> --
> --Pat W Blakely--
Oh, please come on up. You can represent Snott. I'm sure he'll welcome
the assistance of your fine legal mind.
MUUUUUUUUUHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Steve
steve wolk
Cootie wrote:
> In article <dglr5.3384$V67.1...@newshog.newsread.com>, ya...@enter.net
> says...
> >
> >
> >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.
>
> Where Tavish admit forgering you?
> Please show I must have missed.
What is your first language, Cootie? It's obviously not English.
Steve
Cooter
>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.
why do you refer to them in your e-mail?
>
>> 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.
you now admitting e-mail exist bradbury posted?
>
>> 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. Xxxxxx Xxxxxx replied
>in the negative. There wsa, therefore, no undertaking on my p[part.
name of bradbury's attorney deleted. why do you name the attorney
who represents bradbury? you want to have him harassed by your clan?
when you say as you say above: "I stated that I would IF
there wsa confirmation of such representation" aren't you admitting
the e-mail is real and you lied about it being forged?
>> 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.
so you are know admitting the above exist when you said before it does not
and was forged? you are now caught in a big lie. how could XXxxxxx Xxxxxx
respond if the e-mail doesn't exist like you say? get the point liar?
>
>> 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.
it proves that you do not keep your word and you the liar.
>> Yale F. Edeiken has denied in very recent postings that "disciplinary
>> rules" exist
>
> A kue. I denied that there was any such document as "Disciplianry
>Rules" exist.
bradbury never claimed it was a document that I see. can you show where
he claimed as you now say? you be caught in two lies now.
>> He has since filled my snail mail box with his
>> "demands" and threats as well as making an obscene harassment telephone
>> call!
> Since Defendant Bradshit has no attory of record,
what does e-mail say about attorney having client named bradberry?
you caught in three lies now. you are very dishonest. I hope
you get yo ass kicked in court.
Doktor Tavische
>On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 04:45:43 GMT, "Yale "Tubby" Edeiken" <ya...@enter.net> wrote:
>
>>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.
>why do you refer to them in your e-mail?
Yes now that Yale does "admit" that the e-mail exists why would he have
said himself: "..you well know that constitutes a flagrant violation of
the disciplinary rules.." if the rules do NOT in fact exist? He's a liar
and he's caught big time! LIE #1 Exposed!
>>> 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.
>you now admitting e-mail exist bradbury posted?
Yes-- if the e-mail doesn't exist and never transpired why would Yale be
telling me to read it again? Isn't he "admitting" now that it exists?
>>> From: Yale F. Edeiken <ya...@enter.net>
>>> Message ID: <001501bfc9d5$2ddae340$d99c10cf!oemcomputer>
>>> To: xxx...@aol.com
Why would Tubby put my attorney's e-mail address back in after I deleted
it which I did again above if he didn't want him harassed. How ethical is
this? I guess that's another Tubby admission my attorney does exist as
well that this e-mailing exists!
>>> 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.
>> You will note that I make no such promise. I stated that I would IF
>>there wsa confirmation of such representation. Xxxxxx Xxxxxx replied
>>in the negative. There wsa, therefore, no undertaking on my p[part.
What was Yale's motive in naming my attorney? There is absolutely not one
reason he would name him other than to have him subjected to harassment.
I'll bet my attorney will really clean Tubby's clock if he gets nut case
calls and he finds out what Tubby did! How ethical is it for Tubby to do
such? How ethical is it for Tubby to distribute subpoenaed information to
his mailing list (my address and telephone number)?
>name of bradbury's attorney deleted. why do you name the attorney
>who represents bradbury? you want to have him harassed by your clan?
>when you say as you say above: "I stated that I would IF
>there wsa confirmation of such representation" aren't you admitting
>the e-mail is real and you lied about it being forged?
Why did Tubby lie about the e-mail being forged. If it was forged that
meant he never received and therefor read it yet he does say above:
"I stated that I would IF there wsa confirmation of such
representation.."-- seems to me he's authenticating the e-mail as being
real despite accusing me (thus telling more lies) that I forged it as the
liar's own words CONVICT him here:
Jeffrey G. Brown had falsely accused: "Mr. Edeiken doesn't have to say a
thing. You're a forger. Your claims are worthless."
Message-ID: <jg_brown-300...@cvg-27-166-171.cinci.rr.com>
Pat Blakely said: "And as usual, Brown presents zero proof of Tavish
forging Criminal Edeiken."
Yale F. Edeiken replied: "He has already admitted that he has."
Message-ID: <dglr5.3384$V67.1...@newshog.newsread.com>
I say to Yale's reply: "You're caught in another lie! Why would I admit
that I forged an e-mail that I have a hard copy of from my attorney?"
Pat Blakely had asked: "When did Bradbury admit to forging your name
convicted criminal? Show some proof boy."
Yale F. Edeiken replied: "Sure. Be in court when the assessment of
damges hearing is held."
Message-ID: <v8mr5.3394$V67.1...@newshog.newsread.com>
Again above Tubby Edeiken lied when he implied that I forged the e-mail he
now has shown through his own bunglings that he actually received! How
many lies is Tubby now caught in?! Tubby is a pathological liar!
Continuation of Tubby's reply to my attorney:
>>> 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.
>so you are know admitting the above exist when you said before it does not
>and was forged? you are now caught in a big lie. how could XXxxxxx Xxxxxx
>respond if the e-mail doesn't exist like you say? get the point liar?
I wonder how Tubby COULD get a response to the above if it was just a
forgery I invented to post! See how easy it is to expose this slob lying
criminal bastard? How many lies is this now Tubby aka Yale F. Edeiken Esq.
attorney Allentown, PA Supreme Court ID# 40290 has told so far?
>>> 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.
>it proves that you do not keep your word and you the liar.
>>> Yale F. Edeiken has denied in very recent postings that "disciplinary
>>> rules" exist
>> A kue. I denied that there was any such document as "Disciplianry
>>Rules" exist.
You said above: "I stated that there are no "Disciplinary Rules" which you
continaully claimed exist." Still another lie you're caught in you sleazy
shyster because you've established the above e-mail exists and in it you
said yourself: "As you well know that constitutes a flagrant violation of
the disciplinary rules.." Truth is just not in your way is it Tubby!?
>bradbury never claimed it was a document that I see. can you show where
>he claimed as you now say? you be caught in two lies now.
>>> He has since filled my snail mail box with his
>>> "demands" and threats as well as making an obscene harassment telephone
>>> call!
>> Since Defendant Bradshit has no attory of record,
What does it say of an attorney who would speak to someone in public in
the manner you do? In the e-mail that you have now established the
existence of you read these words my attorney wrote to you: "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." To which you replied in a written
agreement: "If this confirms your representation I certainly will."
Since making the above written agreement on May 29, 2000
Yale F. Edeiken Esq. attorney Allentown, PA Supreme Court ID# 40290
has flooded my snail mail box with over 30 pieces of mail and he has made
one obscene harassment call to my residence which has been call traced and
is now with one District Attorney and various law enforcement authorities
telling me: "for as long as I live I will make your life a living hell..
go stick your head in the toilet and flush it because that's what your
life is worth for now on.." I ask-- what sort of an attorney behaves in
such a deplorable manner?
Anyone wanting to hear the bum's obscene call to me may download the
RealAudio file in this news group:
<alt.binaries.sounds.realaudio> under the title of
"Criminal Lawyer Commits Criminal Act and Makes an Ass of Himself"
This same file is in the possession of authorities in Pennsylvania now!
>what does e-mail say about attorney having client named bradberry?
>you caught in three lies now. you are very dishonest. I hope
>you get yo ass kicked in court.
Yale will get his clock cleaned in court soon! He must be removed from the
legal profession if the profession is to retain professionalism, honesty,
and integrity!
I ask any attorney reading this-- Would you want Yale F. Edeiken
as your lehgal partner?
Doc Tavish
Here is the e-mail Yale now "admits" exists uncut:
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
steve wolk
Cootie, it looks like you done been drinkin' too much o' them thar
squeezin's. Your speech is slurred.
Steve