Att: SARA for the 3rd time
Wally Cleaver
<catamont-8582EE...@news-60.giganews.com> Sara Salzman
<cata...@concentric.net> wrote:
>In article <bcir20p74ngt0ktev...@4ax.com>,
> Ken Lewis <kml...@nospam.shaww.ca> wrote:
>
>> Sara:
>>
>> Very interesting piece on KOMO-TV News (Seattle) tonight about Joelle
>> Ligon and her cyber-stalking case. (You can find her story on the
>> Internet by searching Google or Yahoo. You will also probably find her
>> phone number. Ahem.)
>>
>> You should contact KOMO for information. She was just able to get a
>> bill introduced in the Washington State legislature to make
>> cyber-stalking a criminal offense.
>>
>> No reason similar legislation couldn't be put before the legislatures
>> of Colorado and Texas.
My reply to the above lunacy:
BUT I am not the one stalking people and paying them visits and taking pictures
of their residences! Sara does such and she took part in the distribution of my
address and telephone number!
http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=4n4u10thkq0jntg82...@4ax.com&lr=&hl=en
Subject: Patrick L. Humphrey-- A Dangerous Stalker? - How To Identify Stalkers
Info UPDATED LINKS S_0202
Message-ID: <4n4u10thkq0jntg82...@4ax.com>
Date: 3 Feb 2004 03:56:50 GMT
(EXCERPTED)
WHAT IS STALKING?
STALKING - pattern of words or conduct that is intended to cause and does cause
the targeted person to fear death, assault, bodily injury, or CSC upon the
person or member of the person's family (reasonable person standard).
HARASSMENT - pattern of intentional substantial and unreason- able intrusion
which causes the targeted person to suffer mental distress (reasonable person
standard). A suspect must be provided notice that contact is unwanted.
PSYCHOLOGICAL AND BEHAVIORAL PROFILE OF STALKERS
Simple Obsession Stalkers:
Simple obsession stalkers represent 70 to 80% of all stalking cases.
Characteristics include:
1 personality disorders.
2 emotional immaturity, jealousy and extreme insecurity.
3 inability to succeed in relationships by socially-accepted means.
4 dominating and intimidating victims in order to bolster own self-esteem.
5 biggest fear is losing the victim.
6 believing their lives have no worth without the victim.
7 turning to violence in order to control every aspect of the victim's life
STALKING BEHAVIOR PATTERNS AND CYCLES
1 Attempts at intimidation often begin in the form of an unjustified, jealous
and inappropriate intrusion into the victim's life.
2 Contacts become more numerous and intrusive over time, until such conduct
becomes a persistent pattern of harassment.
TYPES OF STALKING BEHAVIOR
1 visiting or following the victim
2 harassing telephone calls, which includes obscene calls and hang-ups
3 sending threatening mail, which is a federal felony
4 trespassing
5 vandalism
WHAT IS STALKING BEHAVIOR?
Stalking has been referred to as a "building block crime" because it usually
starts with small incidents that can get more and more serious. These incidents
can include such behaviors as:
1) following
2) watching
3) spying
4) tracking someone
I have Sara Salzman documented as taking pictures of my residence and I have her
documented as taking part in the illegal distribution of subpoenaed information
not registered with the court-- namely my real identity, my address, and my
telephone number which was NOT public record and had to be subpoenaed and was
NEVER public record because the subpoena was NOT registered with the court or
else it would be on the docket printout! Sara Salzman lied when she stated in
the defense of my right to privacy being violated by said illegal distribution
with these immortal words (which proves what a hypocrite she is):
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=catamont-1605042226560001%40ts005d08.den-co.concentric.net&rnum=1
(Archived locally as: SaraPubInfoNOT)
From: cata...@concentric.net (Sara Salzman)
Subject: Re: Yale Now Admits To Distributing Subpoenaed Information to a Group
of People... Date: 2000/05/17
Message-ID: <catamont-160...@ts005d08.den-co.concentric.net>
>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...
:.
>>> You are forever archived here with your lies about your subpoena issued to
>>> get my unlisted 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!
>
>The "something" you mailed to a group of people was confidential
>information obtained using a subpoena. What you have confessed to is
>illegal activity!
Wrong again, anti-Lawyer.It's not confidential, it's PUBLIC INFORMATION.
Check. Certified. or Jumpsuit.
The choice is yours.
Sara
~~End of GOOGLE Archive~~
>
>Fascinating stuff!
The above that I posted is fascinating stuff because it proves Yale illegally
distributed subpoenaed information not registered with the court and that he
denied me my legal right to quash the subpoena and you defended such legal
system abuse with "It's not confidential, it's PUBLIC INFORMATION." which is a
lie because it was NOT registered with the court thereby it was NEVER PUBLIC
INFORMATION which yours actually is! You're in the phone book but I wasn't!
Proof Yale denied me of another one of my legal rights:
Docket details of Edeiken Vs Bradbury 1999-C-2786--
Anyone may obtain the docket for $3.00 and here is how and
partially what it shows:
Andrea Naugle -- Clerk Civil Court
Lehigh County Court House
Room 202
4555 West Hamilton Street
Allentown, Pennsylvania 18101-1614
and "Request Docket Printout for Edeiken Vs Bradbury 1999-C-2786" and you
will see for yourself among the following:
03-Nov-1999 PRAE FOR SUMMONS
17-Dec-1999 PRAE TO REISSUE WRIT OF SUMMONS
06-Jan-2000 SHRF RTN SUMMONS... DELIVERY DATE 30-Dec-1999
[...]
25-Apr-2000 Y F Edeiken ESQ's NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE SUBPOENA..
[...]
[No subpoena to Flash Net shows! This is FACT! I was not given a chance
either as required by law to object to having my unlisted address and
unlisted telephone number subpoenaed! End of Doc Tavish comment]
From the above one can discern that the subpoena Yale F. Edeiken issued on
November 30, 1999 never made it back to the court house to be entered on the
docket. Yale F. Edeiken had my identity, unlisted telephone number and address
returned to his "drop" at:
Yale F. Edeiken
918 North Bayard Street
Allentown, PA 18104
Hence the information he obtained never in FACT became public knowledge like he
wants everyone to believe! Yale F. Edeiken issued the subpoena on November 30,
1999 from Allentown, Pennsylvania to my ISP Flash Net in Dallas, Texas. With the
time consideration for United State's Postal Service trip two ways and Flash Net
processing the request a fair estimation would say Yale F. Edeiken received what
he wanted on or about December 14, 1999. Seeing how the subpoena never made it
to the docket and became "public knowledge" Yale F. Edeiken was the sole
possessor of my information on December 14, 1999.
The real rub in knowing this comes from the knowledge Yale F. Edeiken engaged in
his criminal acts and death threats against me on December 14, 1999, a full 16
days before his lawsuit was served on me!!
<STOP>
That is some real classy stuff for an attorney to engage in and he tried to
cover up that he issued subpoena and the fact he was his own attorney who had
that subpoena delivered to his own residence which was NEVER registered with the
court!!
Proof Yale lied about being his own attorney and proof he lied about subpoenaing
my identity, address, and telephone number which he abused to post death threats
with my name, address, and telephone number attached:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=b5JH4.301%24%25L6.22667%40monger.newsread.com&rnum=1
(Archived locally as: YFESubpoenaAttorneyLies and YFESubpoenaAttorneyLies2)
From: "Yale F. Edeiken" <ya...@enter.net>
Subject: Re: --->Violation of USC Title 18, Chapter 13, Section 241?-- Edeiken's
Legal Troubles Deepen<---
Date: 2000/04/08
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.
> 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.
> > 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.
> The above is adequate to go before a federal grand jury
Only if you want to be laughed at.
> Seeing how more than one person is/was involved the following applies to
> Yale F. Edeiken:
That is, of course, utter nonsense and represents another defamatory
[iblication.
The remainder of this dishonest post from the diseased mind of Scott
Bradbury (sonn...@flash.net) writing under the name of "Doc Tavish" is
deleted as the garbage that it is.
Scott Bradbury of <where I live deleted>...
--YFE
~~End of GOOGLE Archive~~
Count all of Yale's lies which he will have to answer for sooner or later just
one post he made above. Here they are enumerated:
LIE NUMBER 1 EXPOSED:
> 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.
Proof Yale distributed my address etc. via a mailing list:
http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_uauthors=ya...@enter.net&as_umsgid=385e...@news3.enter.net&lr=&hl=en
(Archived locally as: YFEe-mailListLie and YFEe-mailListLie2)
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>>))
<end>
=================================================================================
LIE NUMBER 2 EXPOSED:
> Yale F. Edeiken is also on record as claiming that he never posted
> my private information. "
I never did.
You did as "nazihunter" in December 1999 as proven beyond fault with this
archive:
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>
> > 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.
===============================================================================
LIE NUMBER 3 EXPOSED:
> ((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.
<end>
All court documents list you and you alone as you being your own attorney- so
you are a liar!
I.E.
CLERK OF COURTS OF LEHIGH COUNTY - CIVIL DIVISION
Lehigh County Courthouse
455 W. Hamilton Street
Allentown, PA 18101-1614
RE: Edeiken Vs Bradbury 1999-C-2786
Partial text of letter from Judge Reibman:
<START>
Copies of this order were mailed to all counsel of record and pro se litigants.
CC: Counsel for Plaintiff (Yale F. Edeiken): Yale F. Edeiken Esq.
Counsel for Defendant (Scott Bradbury) : Daylin B. Leach Esq.
[...]
BY THE COURT:
(Signed) Edward J. Reibman, J.
<STOP>
Who is listed as counsel for Yale F. Edeiken? Answer: Yale F. Edeiken!
How many lies does this make so far?
========================================================================
LIE NUMBER 4 EXPOSED:
(Note I already proved Yale was his own attorney just above and he lied about
being his own attorney!)
> ((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.
<end>
Yale denied doing so UNTIL I got my ISP to FWD me his subpoena which I posted
and then he changed his tune BUT the above proves he lied!
The subpoena which does not show on the docket (which means it was not
registered with the court) and it went directly to Yale's residence where he
distributed the info on it after making his death threat posts!
I.E.
"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"
{Issued November 30, 1999 and the return address was:
Yale F. Edeiken
918 North Bayard Street
Allentown, PA 18104]
-----
Yale also denied me my legal right to quash the subpoena he used to rob me of my
right to privacy and he did not turn it over to the court either for it to
become "public information" as I prove here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=8OSy5.1269%24mC.69080%40monger.newsread.com&rnum=3
(Archived locally as: QuashSubpoena)
Message-ID: <8OSy5.1269$mC.6...@monger.newsread.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 00:27:48 GMT
"Materail that is subpoenaed must be turned over... The material becomes public
information unless a court orders otherwise. Subpoenas are NOT automatically
issued and the other side has an opportnuity to ogject ("quash") any subpoena."
<END>
That subpoena was NOT "turned over" and it does NOT appear on the docket thus it
is NOT "public information" and for a FACT I was not allowed to object or quash
it!
Proof Yale F. Edeiken was e-mailing me against my will BEFORE he issued his
subpoena to rape my right to privacy:
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=Tavish%20Stop%20e-mailing%20me&safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&lr=&as_drrb=b&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=1999&as_maxd=30&as_maxm=11&as_maxy=1999&hl=en
Searched Groups for Tavish Stop e-mailing me from Jan 1, 1999 to Nov 30, 1999.
Results 1 - 10 of about 47
Sample returns:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=omf04.1622%240p4.233526%40news.flash.net&rnum=2
(Archived locally as: YaleMail_1)
More E-Mail From Yale- Edited for Brevity
... to make charges.BTW sphincter muscle- stop e-mailing me! ... time and again
to stop it but ... digsig Authentic Doc Tavish
191xllxyGtVQwy0mtCiBjivyX+knCUXYwdRtptdrtqb ...
sci.skeptic - Nov 28, 1999 by Tavish -
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=swE_3.7751%2416.888799%40news.flash.net&rnum=4
(Archived locally as: YaleMail_2)
Is Yale F. Edeiken as Deluded as Andrew Skolnick? Most Likely!
... not ask you numerous times to desist from e-mailing me? ...
sci.skeptic - Nov 23, 1999 by Tavish
Why didn't Yale allow me my legal right to due process and allow me to quash the
subpoena by e-mail? Yale did afterall state: "Materail that is subpoenaed must
be turned over... Subpoenas are NOT automatically issued and the other side has
an opportnuity to ogject ("quash") any subpoena."
Why would Yale advise me he subpoenaed info from my ISP when it was his belief I
would never find out? For a fact he did not turn the subpoena over to the court
or else it would be on the Docket printout!!
>Thanks for the tip. I'dd definitely see what can be
>done.
By all means go for it pig! I can testify I was not being harassed BEFORE Yale
did what he did and you being his accomplice (but you can't prove I was being
harassed BEFORE what you and Yale did starting December 14, 1999) AND you can't
prove I was posting your PUBLICLY AVAILABLE address in response to mine being
posted with death threats etc. before YOU and Yale had done such to me as a
response to you two starting it al! I just post this which you have seen
numerous times:
Seeing how people like to post where I live then I will post where
the people live who made such info public in the first place!
Sara Salzman
<INFO DELETED FOR THIS POSTING>
(Link active February 4, 2004. Archived locally as: infospace_Ssalzman2)
<Public Information>
I am being harassed by having my confidential information being posted along
with death threats, forged child porn ads being posted which give out my address
etc., having phoney sex offender lists posted which give out my address, having
magazine and catalog subscriptions forged in my identity etc. FOR A FACT it was
Yale F. Edeiken and Yale F. Edeiken alone who subpoenaed my confidential info
from my ISP and made the subpoenaed info public-- now let him receive justice
under the Law of Moses:
Just as has been done to me and is still being done to me and solely because
of Yale F. Edeiken exclusively I will apply the LAW he claims to observe to him:
Leviticus 24:19-20 :: New International Version (NIV)
19 If anyone injures his neighbor, whatever he has done must be done to him:
20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. As he has injured the
other, so he is to be injured.
Yale F. Edeiken
<INFO DELETED FOR THIS POSTING>
<Source: Court documents>
If Yale does not like getting back in kind what he has dished out in kind
under the Law of Moses then he should either:
1) Re-file his nut case lawsuit in the proper jurisdiction and get charged with
numerous criminal counts of perjury and legal system abuse
OR
2) Encourage his THUG allies to stop harassing me and invading my privacy!
The choice is his!
[...]
Now you get your accomplices to post where I live and when I post the above you
act like I am a bastard because I return in kind what YOU and Yale have made
possible in the first place! BTW I thought you have already stated the folowing
so why are you miffed now at getting EYE FOR AN EYE justice thrown back at you?
"You're not violating my privacy, Asshole. Your pals Blakely and Ellis
did it years ago. There is NOTHING you can post that isn't public already."
-From: Sara Salzman <cata...@concentric.net>
-Subject: Re: Bruno and Bradshit:, the perfect pair
-Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 19:34:31 -0700
-Message-ID: <catamont-A12F65...@news-60.giganews.com>
http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=catamont-A12F65...@news-60.giganews.com&lr=&hl=en
(Archived locally as: SaraAddressPost_1)
"Posting my address doesn't do a damn thing to me.."
-From: Sara Salzman <cata...@concentric.net>
-Subject: Re: Bruno and Bradshit:, the perfect pair
-Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 22:05:55 -0700
-Message-ID: <catamont-2BEEB5...@news-60.giganews.com>
http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=catamont-2BEEB5...@news-60.giganews.com&lr=&hl=en
(Archived locally as: SaraAddressPost_2)
Your address etc. is PUBLICLY AVAILABLE and you did post the above too YET my
address etc. was NOT publicly available nor did it ever become PUBLIC
INFORMATION via the Lehigh County Courthouse because the subpoena was never
legally registered with the court or else it would be on the docket and for a
fact I have continually complained about my address etc. being posted by YOU,
Yale and the rest of you vile filth! IOW you hve no moral NOR legal right to
bitch at all you evil pig!!
Consider your two statements above and think about it! You evidently do mind
your info being posted or else you wouldn't be bitching now BUT it is Okay for
you to have your thugs post mine thousands of times! WHAT A HYPOCRITE YOU ARE
YOU STUPID PIG!!
You can't charge me with harassment/stalking when I have not done such to YOU as
you and Yale have caused to be done to me!
As I said- Go for it and you will lose too just as Yale lost his lawsuit against
David Michael, his lawsuit against me, and his appeal because of the lawsuit he
lost against me.
Remember this too:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=ht5ucvcf5slhll9gmfpojbsche5090ldm6%404ax.com&rnum=1
Subject: David Michael Came Very Close to Getting The "TREATMENT" Shyster Yale
F. Edeiken Gave Me! aka Re: Bradbury Misses The Point (Again)
Message-ID: <ht5ucvcf5slhll9gm...@4ax.com>
Date: 24 May 2003 07:09:57 GMT
EXCERPT
>> > 13. That this campaign of harassment and intimidation has intensified
>> > since December 1, 2000, and presently consists of a daily barrage of
>> > threats and abuse on the Internet by Defendant Bradbury and his
>> > accomplices, including threats to sue Deponent's father and threats to
>> > "visit him."
>> True. DEFENDANT BRADBURY AND HIS ACCOMPLICES
:
>Yep. So where's the lie?
<<Where is your proof that I ever claimed I was going to visit your father! That
is the lie!>>
>> > FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.
>> >
>> > <END>
>>
>> ~~End of GOOGLE Archival Excerpt~~
>> First I can't be held responsible for what other people allegedly do especially
>> people in another state and on another continent so your blaming me for what others
>> did to you proves you to be a crackpot {...}
:
>And yet, you are holding ME responsible for what Kniesel, McVay, Tandy,
>and Humphrey are doing.
I was using your standards of justice Sara and by YOUR standards you are guilty.
Also you could show no direct collaboration between Don Ellis, David Michael,
and myself other than association in usenet BUT on the other hand I have proof
that you were part of the actual dissemination of my confidential information to
the above people (Kniesel, McVay, Tandy, and Humphrey). They would not have
known at all where I live if it were not for Yale and YOU distributing
subpoenaed information which was NOT registered with the court (it does not show
on the docket with the other subpoenas!) and which I was not given my right of
due process by being allowed to "quash" or object to my right to privacy being
violated by an evil bastard...
http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=39BBB347...@onetel.net.uk&lr=&hl=en
(Archived locally as: other_Edeiken_lawsuit)
Message-ID: <39BBB347...@onetel.net.uk>
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 17:13:59 +0100
From: david_michael <david_...@onetel.net.uk>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: The other Edeiken lawsuit
EXCERPT
I wasn't going to post any more on this until the judgement. However,
Yale F Edeiken has recently been crowing mightily here regarding his
undoubted legal victory over Mr Bradbury. I think that there is a
powerful case, therefore, for taking some of the wind out of his sails.
Regular readers of this newsgroup might recall the following statements
from Yale F Edeiken in Message-ID:
<PVaG4.2086$Oc2.1...@monger.newsread.com> on 4 April 2000.
First there was this:
<begin quote>
david.michael <david....@england.com> taking a break from his usual
program of criminal harassment of others wrote in message
news:38E904B5...@england.com...'
<end quote>
An allegation of criminal harassment in a public forum.
Then we had the following prophecy:
<begin quote>
Second, you have been sued as you well know. You will soon be getting
the same treatment as Defendant Bradbury. I think you will be as
cowardly as him about showing up.
<end quote>
The 'treatment' that Mr Bradbury had to endure was a subpoena against
his ISP to get his home address, which was then circulated, culminating
in a campaign of harassment and vicious telephone calls by someone
against him.
<<Tavish Comment February 14, 2004: I am still being harassed!!!>>
~~End of GOOGLE Archival Excerpt~
I guess I will have to look up that lawyer who got ADL sued for $10.5 million
for their part in defaming a Denver, Colorado couple. You are also connected
with that org and I have documents to prove it and your smear campaign against
me is even more heinous! You shit start it and when I swing back you cry!
Here is ADL getting a much deserved drubbing in a civil court. Hats off to the
jury in Colorado!
http://www.jewishsf.com/bk000512/usadlsuit.shtml
(Link active February 14, 2004. Archived locally as: usadlsuit)
Jewish Bulletin News
Judge fines ADL $10.5 million in Colorado defamation suit
CHRIS LEPPEK
Intermountain Jewish News
DENVER -- A civil lawsuit that began with a neighbors' dispute over garden
plants and fighting dogs has ended in a judgment against the Denver-based
chapter of the Anti-Defamation League -- and what is believed to be the largest
defamation judgment ever awarded in a Colorado trial.
On April 28, a 12-member jury in U.S. District Court here sided with the
plaintiffs, William and Dorothy Quigley of Evergreen. The Quigleys had sued the
Mountain States chapter of the ADL and that chapter's director, Saul Rosenthal.
The jury awarded the Quigleys damages, mostly punitive, of $10.5 million -- a
figure that astonished defendants and plaintiffs alike in the drawn-out and
complex case.
The jury found that several public statements made in 1994 by Rosenthal on
behalf of the ADL defamed the Quigleys and resulted in actual and punitive
damages.
Rosenthal said the ADL would appeal the decision.
"We were shocked and very surprised at the result," Rosenthal said. "We're very
surprised at the way the jury saw the evidence they did. I think the overall
reaction within ADL and, from what I'm hearing, in the community, is complete
disbelief that this kind of result has taken place."
Jay Horowitz, the Quigleys' attorney, said his clients were pleased with the
outcome of the litigation.
"We did not expect a verdict of this size," Horowitz said.
The dispute began in late 1994 when the Quigleys, residents of Jefferson County
near Evergreen, were accused by their Jewish neighbors, Mitchell and Candace
Aronson, of plotting against their family for anti-Semitic reasons.
The dispute apparently began over such trivial matters as fights between their
dogs and allegations of stolen ornamental plants. It intensified into an
incident in which Candace Aronson believed that William Quigley intended to run
over her with his car.
As the dispute grew more heated, the Aronsons began listening to cordless
telephone conversations of the Quigleys, which they managed to overhear with a
police scanner and later recorded.
After consulting with the ADL, the Aronsons later told area media of overhearing
their neighbors tell crude anti-Semitic jokes and make comments that the
Aronsons took to be threats against their family.
The Quigleys denied that the threats were ever meant to be serious. Rosenthal's
comments about the Quigleys, made on behalf of the Aronsons after the Denver ADL
agreed to state their case publicly, formed the basis of the Quigleys'
defamation lawsuit.
Some of the comments, repeated over and over in numerous media accounts, shocked
members of the Colorado Jewish community. In various conversations, the Quigleys
refer to attaching images of oven doors to the Aronsons' house, of burning their
children and of wishing their Jewish neighbors had been blown up in a terrorist
attack in Israel.
Throughout the various twists and turns of the case, the Quigleys insisted that
such comments were made in jest and never constituted genuine threats.
Over the next five years, the case would become a labyrinth of criminal charges
filed and later withdrawn, civil lawsuits and counter- suits.
Other developments in various stages of the case:
*It was determined that the electronic eavesdropping used by the Aronsons was
legal at the time, although soon afterward outlawed by both federal and state
statutes. The only charges that the April 28 verdict did not support were those
related to the ADL's alleged violation of the Federal Wiretap Act.
*William Quigley pleaded no contest to a reckless driving charge after driving
his car in an allegedly menacing manner in Candace Aronson's direction.
*Jefferson County District Attorney Dave Thomas withdrew the ethnic intimidation
charges he initially filed against the Quigleys and paid them an out-of-court
settlement of $75,000.
*The Quigleys sued the Aronsons and the ADL for depriving them of their civil
rights. The Aronsons settled for a non-cash settlement, but the ADL and the
Quigleys were unable to reach an out-of-court settlement, leading to the most
recent trial.
On April 28, the jury found most of the charges leveled by the ADL, based on the
tapes, to be "not substantially true."
<end>
This is from Jewish News:
http://www.jewishaz.com/jewishnews/000519/row.shtml
(Link active February 14, 2004. Archived locally as: jewishaz_row)
May 19, 2000/14 Iyar 5760, Vol. 52, No.37
Defamation row
Hefty verdict sends message of responsibility
J.J. GOLDBERG
Special to Jewish News
Anti-Defamation League director Abe Foxman likes to tell stories about people he
meets while traveling. They ask him what he does. He says he runs an agency that
defends Jews. Their response, typically, is astonishment: "Really? Jews need
defending?"
Foxman's point is that Jews are losing their underdog image as they win
increasing acceptance in America.
This is one of those good news-bad news messages, particularly for the folks
charged with wielding the machinery of Jewish power. It's easier than ever to
throw your weight around, but harder to elicit sympathy.
That lesson came back to bite Foxman with a vengeance last month, when a federal
jury in Denver delivered an unprecedented $10.5 million verdict against the
Anti-Defamation League for, of all things, defamation.
The jury found that ADL's Mountain States chapter had defamed a non-Jewish
couple, William and Dorothy Quigley, by unjustly accusing them of anti-Semitism.
The Quigleys were caught up in a backyard feud with Jewish neighbors, Mitchell
and Candace Aronson, in the affluent Denver suburb of Evergreen. The Aronsons
produced tapes of the Quigleys' private conversations, picked off a cordless
phone by police scanner, containing what they called anti-Semitic threats. The
ADL backed them up.
The jury decided the alleged threats sounded more like private venting. Thanks
to the tapes, though, the ADL was also found guilty of violating the Quigleys'
privacy.
Altogether, the jury levied $1.5 million in compensatory damages against the ADL
- $1 million for William Quigley's suffering, $500,000 for Dorothy's - plus a
whopping $9 million in punitive damages, to teach the league a lesson.
Curiously, no fines were levied against the Aronsons, who initiated the
anti-Semitism charges and taped the conversations, nor against the Jefferson
County district attorney, who charged the Quigleys with criminal ethnic
intimidation before backing down and apologizing.
Both the Aronsons and the D.A.'s office, it seems, had long since settled with
the Quigleys - the D.A. for $75,000, the Aronsons for a handshake.
ADL officials say they tried to settle too, but were rebuffed.
The Aronsons first approached the ADL in October 1994, complaining of
anti-Semitic harassment. They had moved to Evergreen that summer and been
befriended by the Quigleys. But the friendship soured fast, going from
complaints about dogs to shouting matches over who trod on whose lawn.
In October things turned ugly when Candace Aronson claimed William Quigley tried
to run her over. Soon after, Mitchell Aronson picked up the Quigleys' cordless
phone on his police scanner, and overheard Dorothy Quigley complaining to a
friend about Aronson's wife in language he considered anti-Semitic.
In late October the Aronsons brought their fears to ADL regional director Saul
Rosenthal. They also went to District Attorney David Thomas, claiming they were
victims of ethnic intimidation, a felony in Colorado.
In consultation with prosecutors, sheriff's deputies and ADL lawyers, the
Aronsons proceeded to tape another 100 hours of phone calls. Nobody - not the
Aronsons, not the ADL, not the sheriff's deputies nor the prosecutors - realized
a new federal wiretap law had just taken effect, outlawing such surveillance.
In December the Aronsons filed a federal civil suit against the Quigleys. Three
days later, Thomas filed criminal charges. In between the Aronsons appeared at a
press conference with ADL's Rosenthal. He accused the Quigleys of waging "a
vicious anti-Semitic campaign."
Then the case began to collapse. When the district attorney learned the tapes
were illegal, he dropped his intimidation charges. In a public apology, he
admitted the tapes showed no evidence of "anti-Semitic conduct or harassment."
Soon after, the Quigleys sued everyone involved for ruining their reputations.
A native New Yorker, Quigley had been chief financial officer at Paramount
Pictures and president of Vestron Pictures, producing such movies as "Dirty
Dancing" and John Huston's "The Dead." He moved to Denver in 1993 to head up
United Artists' theater chain.
After the ADL called him an anti-Semite, Quigley alleged, he found himself
shunned by his mostly Jewish friends and colleagues.
ADL officials insist they did nothing wrong. They're asking the judge to set
aside the jury's verdict.
Privately, some ADL officials say they were hung out to dry when the Quigleys
settled with everyone but them. Their accusations of anti-Semitism simply
followed the district attorney's lead. They didn't listen to the tapes first,
but neither did the D.A.
A few ADL staffers suggest they've been singled out because the league's deep
pockets make it an irresistible target.
ADL officials don't say so, but there's something unsettling about the relish
with which the jury punished the ADL, awarding triple the damages the Quigleys
had asked. The judgment carries echoes of past crusades against the ADL, which
often seemed less about correcting wrongdoing and more about cutting ADL - and
the Jews - down to size.
In the end, though, the ADL rebroadcast an accusation of anti-Semitism before
investigating. That's foolish. More disturbing, it attacked private citizens for
opinions voiced at home among friends. That's chilling.
The case's most important lesson, though, is precisely the lesson the jury
intended. The accusation of anti-Semitism is an awesome weapon, because of the
public revulsion it generates. The power to lodge that accusation carries grave
responsibilities.
In a world where Jews are as powerful as their enemies, the Jewish community is
accountable for its actions. We're all on notice.
J.J. Goldberg is a free-lance writer in New York.
<end>
---------------------------------------------------------------
Other key evidence you are a malicious defamer of people are your smears against
my former attorney and your lying smear against David Irving! AL ON FILE!!
You have a long history of defaming people and you are a liar without a
conscience and I can link you with the "Denver-based chapter of the
Anti-Defamation League." KEEP RUNNING YOUR MOUTH YOU STUPID PIG!!
>Sara
Tavish
---Famous Last Words Series-- Sara Salzman:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=catamont-564BD5.09581216092003%40netnews.attbi.com&rnum=2
(Archived locally as: SaraLibels2)
From: Sara Salzman <cata...@concentric.net>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.legal,misc.legal,soc.culture.usa
Followup-To: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: PSYCHOSARA SALZMAN'S HOLIDAY SURPRISE ----
Message-ID: <catamont-564BD5...@netnews.attbi.com>
[...]
1. Yale Edeiken has nothing to do with whether you're an impotent slug,
Mr. Bradbury.
2. List the "numerous" times Mr. Edeiken has lost ANY malpractice suit.
3. PROVE your idiotic assertion that he has been "censured" by the state
supreme court.
[...]
Sara
~~End of GOOGLE Archive~~
As for you misguided statements of:
2. List the "numerous" times Mr. Edeiken has lost ANY malpractice suit.
3. PROVE your idiotic assertion that he has been "censured" by the state
supreme court.
Answered with:
"I ahve never been charged with any unethical activity relating to the
practice of law. I have been sued twice for malpractice.."
-From: "Yale F. Edeiken" <ya...@enter.net>
-Subject: KOOK WEBSITE
-Date: 2000/01/02
-Message-ID: <3870...@news3.enter.net>
http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=3870...@news3.enter.net&lr=&hl=en
Archived locally as: YaleSuedTwice
The lie Yale told: "I ahve never been charged with any unethical activity
relating to the practice of law." and you told: "PROVE your idiotic assertion
that he has been "censured" by the state supreme court."is slam dunked with
quite resoundingly with:
--Criminal Yale F. Edeiken's deplorable record:
http://padisciplinaryboard.org/attdiscdcd.php?id=40290
(Link active October 29, 2003. Archived locally as: shyster_censured)
Attorney ID - 40290
Edeiken, Yale F.
^^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Attorney Inquiry
Attorney ID Case County District
40290 122 DB 95 Lehigh II Public Censure Administered 10/20/98
^^^^^^^^^
<STOP>
A PDF file is available which gives a report on the above
122 DB 95 against Shyster Yale Fatso Edeiken:
http://padisciplinaryboard.org/attopinion.php?case=122DB95
^^^^^^^
http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/disciplinaryboard/dboardopinions/122DB95.RPT.pdf
(Link active October 28, 2003. Archived locally as: "Edeiken_Gets_His" and
122DB95.RPT)
The Disciplinary Board was content to give Yale F. Edeiken a "private reprimand"
but he continued to act like the psychotic nut case he is and defied them and
refused to appear at his hearing more than once! He was then "forced" to appear
and the "private reprimand" had escalated to "PUBLIC CENSURE" by the highest
court of that bastard's state! Furthermore the Disciplinary Board closed with:
"It is further ORDERED that respondent [Yale F. Edeiken] shall pay costs to the
Disciplinary Board pursuant to Rule 208(g), PaR.D.E." IOW Yale had to pay the
Disciplinary Board to "kick his shyster ass" AFTER the Disciplinary Board of the
Supreme Court of the State of Pennsylvania had to serve numerous notices upon
him and compel him to attend his disciplinary hearing!! Yale also had to pay for
all costs of the investigation too! It's all detailed in that PDF file!!
<<<In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.Sec. 107. - Limitations on exclusive
rights: Fair use [The fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by
reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that
section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching
(including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not
an infringement of copyright. [I]n any particular case is a fair use the factors
to be considered shall include - (1) whether such use is of a commercial
nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes.. ((this material is distributed
without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes
only. - FAIR USE INTENDED))>>>
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
Ken Lewis
<wally_cleaver@mayfield01net> wrote:
>On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 02:10:17 -0700,
><catamont-8582EE...@news-60.giganews.com> Sara Salzman
><cata...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
>>In article <bcir20p74ngt0ktev...@4ax.com>,
>> Ken Lewis <kml...@nospam.shaww.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> Sara:
>>>
>>> Very interesting piece on KOMO-TV News (Seattle) tonight about Joelle
>>> Ligon and her cyber-stalking case. (You can find her story on the
>>> Internet by searching Google or Yahoo. You will also probably find her
>>> phone number. Ahem.)
>>>
>>> You should contact KOMO for information. She was just able to get a
>>> bill introduced in the Washington State legislature to make
>>> cyber-stalking a criminal offense.
>>>
>>> No reason similar legislation couldn't be put before the legislatures
>>> of Colorado and Texas.
>
>My reply to the above lunacy:
[snip in effort to save bandwidth]
And my reply, for the second time is that what you have been doing is
considered cyber-stalking. Live with your actions, Bradshit.
Sara Salzman
Hash: SHA1
In article <u8hs20p23a7luml9d...@4ax.com>,
Wally Cleaver <wally_cleaver@mayfield01net> wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 02:10:17 -0700,
> <catamont-8582EE...@news-60.giganews.com> Sara Salzman
> <cata...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
> >In article <bcir20p74ngt0ktev...@4ax.com>,
> > Ken Lewis <kml...@nospam.shaww.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> Sara:
> >>
> >> Very interesting piece on KOMO-TV News (Seattle) tonight about
> >> Joelle Ligon and her cyber-stalking case. (You can find her
> >> story on the Internet by searching Google or Yahoo. You will
> >> also probably find her phone number. Ahem.)
> >>
> >> You should contact KOMO for information. She was just able to
> >> get a bill introduced in the Washington State legislature to
> >> make
> >> cyber-stalking a criminal offense.
> >>
> >> No reason similar legislation couldn't be put before the
> >> legislatures of Colorado and Texas.
>
> My reply to the above lunacy:
>
> BUT I am not the one stalking people and paying them visits and
> taking pictures
> of their residences!
I never paid you a visit.
You have no proff that I took pictures of your house.
Sara does such and she took part in the distribution of
> my
> address and telephone number!
And once again, I did not "take part" in your fantasies.
>
[lunatic ravings snipped]
Sara
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.3 - not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com
iQA/AwUBQC6P2idySwjCuT94EQInWwCgnjnxmyuB1O73WbaROgSxkakPloAAn0Tk
OF1+zuaZhhIYkGr791opovnm
=v89W
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
-My name is not "Fatbury Scumbag" you stupid lying Jew bastard. Name call
is all a pathetic loser like you has! You have yet to prove me wrong
you dirty filthy lying Jew bastard!
-I don't rely on personal attacks as my means of posting and
the bulk of my posts prove so! You can't discern the difference.
BTW my name is not Fatboy you stupid kike.
--Scott Bradbury, who completely misses the irony of the above
Pat Blakely
news:catamont-73BF0F...@news-60.giganews.com...>
>
> I never paid you a visit.
> You have no proff that I took pictures of your house.
What is a proff?
Always glad to see Psycho Sara too stupid to spell simple words correctly.
And Psycho is the one claiming to be such an expert on spelling. Hypocrite.
Now go smoke another carton of cigarettes and speed up the process of your
demise.
--
Pat
Wally Cleaver
<_BwXb.9402$jx3.1...@twister.southeast.rr.com> "Pat Blakely"
<patbl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Sara Salzman" <cata...@concentric.net> wrote in message
>news:catamont-73BF0F...@news-60.giganews.com...>
>>
>> I never paid you a visit.
>> You have no proff that I took pictures of your house.
You openly admitted doing it in public forum you lying fat stupid pig!
My "proff" as you put it:
<start/quote>
>Bullshit, Blubberbury. I have never taken a picture of anything in your
>town.
So just who took the pictures of my residence when you and the two obese women
came to town? See how easy it is to catch you in lies?
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=catamont-DAFB8E.16062025012004%40news-60.giganews.com&rnum=1
(Archived locally as: SaraTakesPix)
From: Sara Salzman <cata...@concentric.net>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: PsychoSara and Humphrey were so scared of Tavish
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 16:06:20 -0700
Message-ID: <catamont-DAFB8E...@news-60.giganews.com>
> b) failed to show up at his doorstep.
Lie. In fact, we took pictures of his doorstep..
~~End of GOOGLE Archival Excerpt~~
>I will testify to that under oath in a court of law, if necessary.
Your word would be as honest as Sara and Yale's in a court of law.
<end/quote>
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=14d520lturd1s1otpctu50s2moh4nrsia5%404ax.com&rnum=1
Subject: Re: One more question for Humphrey
Message-ID: <14d520lturd1s1otp...@4ax.com>
Date: 5 Feb 2004 21:35:53 GMT
ALL ON FILE WITH MY LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT!!
Want to admit you lied as usual you fat slob pig!?
>What is a proff?
That pig is squealing again and she can't keep her lies straight!
>Always glad to see Psycho Sara too stupid to spell simple words correctly.
>And Psycho is the one claiming to be such an expert on spelling. Hypocrite.
Amazing isn't and I love how she claims she is being stalked and harassed when
she is doing it and taking part in other people's harassing me!
I really hope that god damned fat slob officially files charges against me and
that means she has to appear in person for my trial in front of a jury of my
peers and boy oh boy I would slam dunk her fat ass so quick it would make
Edeiken blush! She can't claim I am harassing her when I have the goods on her
that she and her pimp (Yale) started it!
BTW here is the contact info for her DA if you want to pass it on:
Sara Salzman's District Attorney:
http://www.co.arapahoe.co.us/CA/DistrictAttorney.asp
James Peters - District Attorney
District Attorney's Office
Administration II Building
7305 S. Potomac St., Ste. 100
Centennial, CO 80112
720-874-XXXX
>Now go smoke another carton of cigarettes and speed up the process of your
>demise.
I wish she would die!
Tavish
Wally Cleaver
<catamont-73BF0F...@news-60.giganews.com> Sara Salzman
<cata...@concentric.net> wrote:
>I never paid you a visit.
>You have no proff that I took pictures of your house.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=catamont-DAFB8E.16062025012004%40news-60.giganews.com&rnum=1
(Archived locally as: SaraTakesPix)
From: Sara Salzman <cata...@concentric.net>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: PsychoSara and Humphrey were so scared of Tavish
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 16:06:20 -0700
Message-ID: <catamont-DAFB8E...@news-60.giganews.com>
> b) failed to show up at his doorstep.
Lie. In fact, we took pictures of his doorstep..
~~End of GOOGLE Archival Excerpt~~
Whose doorstep did you take pictures of Sara?
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=catamont-65E34A.06495903022004%40news-60.giganews.com&rnum=1
(Archived locally as: SaraTakesPix2)
From: Sara Salzman <cata...@concentric.net>
Subject: Re: When will Humphrey have the guts to face Tavish in person?
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 06:49:59 -0700
Message-ID: <catamont-65E34A...@news-60.giganews.com>
> >So we stopped for lunch, drove by his house
>
> To take pictures!
There's no law in the US against taking pictures, Mr. Bradbury.
~~End of GOOGLE Archival Excerpt~~
Everyone compare the above to what Sara posted today which was:
"I never paid you a visit. You have no proff that I took pictures of your
house."
Keep lying and each time you're caught then your credibility just goes down more
and more you fat stupid pig!
Tavish
Sara Salzman
Hash: SHA1
In article <vqdt20pdhvron7d8h...@4ax.com>,
Wally Cleaver <wally_cleaver@mayfield01net> wrote:
So you call me a liar, then call my statement "Proof."
Make up your mind, Delusional One.
Where is the proof that I took photos? WORDS in Usenet are NOT proof.
They are not sworn statements, and they will not hold up in a court
of law.
You have NO proof whatsoever that I ever took photos of your
residence. And in fact, the ONLY pictures of your residence were
posted on a web site owned by DON ELLIS.
Live with it, Idiot.
Sara
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.3 - not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com
iQA/AwUBQC7RKydySwjCuT94EQKu4gCg4/C1+dBfKfoI2BTUM6/nR7NeZuEAn2Mh
RLFoycfhb6nWpSZDUv1CE/fg
=WtMJ
Pat Blakely
> WORDS in Usenet are NOT proof.
> They are not sworn statements, and they will not hold up in a court
> of law.
Yes as the DA in Arkansas told you before you went psycho on him also.
You finally listened.
--
Pat