The "RETURN TO STALKER" Myth Debunked V2-0 S_1030
Doc Tavish
For a fact Yale F. Edeiken had not served his "complaints" on neither my
attorney NOR myself. This was submitted to a civil court of law:
Filed September 22, 2000
PETTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
COMES NOW, the defendant, Scott Bradbury, by and through his counsel Daylin B.
Leach, Esquire, to petition this honorable court for Relief from Judgment,
pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 237.3. In support of this petition, the defendant avers
the following:
On August 25, 2000, the Plaintiff filed a Praecipe for Default Judgment with
this court. A true and correct copy of which is hereto and marked as "Exhibit
A." Since a complaint has never been filed or served, the defendant is unable
to attach a copy of preliminary objections he would file if the judgment was
opened pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 237.3 (a).
"[The] plaintiff engage[d] in a vendetta against the defendant... When attorney
Leach asked Mr. Edeiken for a copy of the complaint when he first becomes
involved in the case, he is told "Fuck You" via e-mail. In plain English, this
is not a lawsuit, it is a bizarre war waged by Mr. Edeiken on a man he has never
met. The court should not be a party to this."
Respectfully submitted Daylin B. Leach Esquire <END>
My foes steadfastly claim I personally had received the complaints and then did
a "Return To Stalker" and returned the complaints to Yale F. Edeiken unopened:
"You had NO lawyer at the time the complaints were served -- and in your
ineffable stupidity, you *bragged* about sending the complaints back unopened
after scrawling "Return to Stalker" on them. That's engraved in the court
record. I suggest you tell *them* they're lying."
From: Patrick Lee Humphrey <pat...@io.com>
Date: 15 Mar 2004 06:09:21 -0600
Message-ID: <szksmga...@fnord.io.com>
<start/quote>
>Also I was NEVER served with the lawsuit's "complaints" against me! (Neither
>myself NOR my attorney ever got copies of the complaints filed against me by
>Yale F. Edeiken the plaintiff.) How could I have possibly answered the accusations
>when I was never served with them?
You're referring to the ones you returned marked "return to stalker"?
<end/quote>
From: "Patrick Keenan" <te...@dev.null>
Message-ID: <p71Tb.8319$qU3.7...@news20.bellglobal.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 01:36:05 -0500
"He refused to address the complaint in the first place. Everything that Yale
(as attorney) sent to Bradbury in reference to the case, Bradbury returned
unopened with the statement "Return to Stalker" on it."
From: Sara Salzman <cata...@concentric.net>
Date: 28 Aug 2003 17:33:07 GMT
Message-ID: <catamont-E9F2E3...@spectator.sj.sys.us.xo.net>
"How many times are you going to lie about sending those complaints
back marked "Return to Sender" when you *bragged* about doing so right
here?"
Message-ID: <cda660adc819cd5d...@news.teranews.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 17:29:31 GMT
From: Roger <roger@ . >
<begin/quote>
>Yale never served his complaints
False. He served them to you... You thought it would be so cute to send them
back marked "Return to Sender" that not only did you, but you actively boasted
of having done so on alt.rev.
<end/quote>
Message-ID: <472c2def718f1d8d...@news.teranews.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 00:13:22 GMT
From: Roger <roger@ . >
<begin/quote>
>They were accepted as FACTUAL because I was NOT given a chance to refute the
>accusations. How could I have when neither my attorney NOR myself ever
>received a copy of the complaints? A court naturally isn't going to accept
>"uncontested" accusations as perjury!
Sounds like you're having a problem dealing with the consequences of your
stupidity -- as in, returning mail to the court unopened, with "Return to
Stalker" scribbled on it?
<end/quote>
From: Patrick Humphrey <pat...@io.com>
Date: 29 Apr 2003 12:52:04 -0500
Message-ID: <szkvfwx...@eris.io.com>
Special comment: Patrick accuses me of "returning mail to the court unopened,
with "Return to Stalker" scribbled on it" YET he doesn't explain how I wasn't
charged with contempt of court for allegedly doing what Patrick falsely accuses
in the first place!! IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!!!
<begin/quote>
>1) I won that lawsuit- the judgment against me was overturned and the lawsuit
>was dismissed in my favor. Also I was NEVER served with the lawsuit! Neither
>myself NOR my attorney ever got copies of the complaints filed against me by
>Yale F. Edeiken the plaintiff.
>
Bradbury sent the papers back marked "Return to stalker."
<end/quote>
From: Paul Kneisel <tall...@nyct-no-spam-or-fascism.org>
Message-ID: <lh2k9vgug2dtu6ksi...@4ax.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2003 21:10:05 -0400
Expanding on Patrick Lee Humphrey's stupidity:
"You had NO lawyer at the time the complaints were served....
From: Patrick Lee Humphrey <pat...@io.com>
Date: 15 Mar 2004 06:09:21 -0600
Message-ID: <szksmga...@fnord.io.com>
The above is a lie and the docket proves I did in fact have an attorney BEFORE
Yale allegedly served the complaints (notice the July 14, 2000 date!!):
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
(Available for $3.00)
Docket printout to 1999-C-2786:
November 3, 1999 PRAE FOR SUMMONS
December 17, 1999 PRAE TO REISSUE WRIT OF SUMMONS
January 6, 2000 SHRF RTN SUMMONS... DELIVERY DATE 30-Dec-1999
April 25, 2000 Y F Edeiken ESQ's NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE SUBPOENA..
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." <<Which proves I had an attorney before July 20, 2000.>>
July 20, 2000 COMPLAINT, NOTICE TO DEFEND. DAMAGES PRAYED FOR IN COUNTS I THRU
V. IN AMT IN EXCESS OF STATUTORY LIMIT FOR ARBITRATION TOGETHER WITH PUNITIVE
DAMAGES IN EXCESS OF STATUTORY LIMITS WITH INTEREST. COSTS & ATTY'S FEES. AFDT
OF SERVICE. EXHIBITS ATTACHED."
August 25, 2000: PRAE TO ENTER JDGT AGAINST DFT SCOTT BRADBURY AKA DOC TAVISH
FOR FAILURE TO RESPOND. JDGT ENTERED VS/SAID DFT IN AN AMT TO BE ASSESSED.
IMPORTANT NOTICE, AFDT OF SERVICE EXHIBIT ATTACHED. NOTICE MLD 8/25/2000 FILED @
9:28 AM."
<END>
Also Yale was obligated by a written agreement to no longer make any direct
contact with me effective May 29, 2000 so why didn't Yale serve those complaints
on my attorney on July 14, 2000?
Compare to:
Yale F. Edeiken caught lying about a May 29, 2000 e-mail to stop contacting me
as communicated between my attorney and himself (Just count all the Yale lies!!)
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=m2lomv4fd4cj890nijgplm4c1ocke3j894%404ax.com&rnum=3
Subject: Edeikook Follies #5 Yale F. Edeiken Lied About Making a Written
Agreement with My Attorney to no Longer Make Direct Contact With Me
Message-ID: <m2lomv4fd4cj890ni...@4ax.com>
Date: 20 Sep 2003 13:23:10 GMT
Excerpt
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.
<<Scott Bradbury comment July 23, 2001: My attorney referred to me as his
"client" which I would say pretty well says he's representing me! My attorney
also said: "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" but Yale kept sending US Parcel Post mailings
addressed to Defendant Scott Bradbury in large letters on the envelopes in order
to start rumors in my small town I'd imagine!>>
> 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.
<<Scott Bradbury comment July 23, 2001: Notice that Yale F. Edeiken says exactly
as shown above: "As you well know that constitutes a flagrant violation of the
disciplinary rules" yet he told me numerous times (as even shown in the top of
this example!): " A lie. I stated that there are no "Disciplinary Rules" which
you continaully claimed exist." Now everyone should see why I call
Yale F. Edeiken Esq. a pathological liar! This attorney is a disgrace to the
legal profession!>>
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 above that Yale F. Edeiken Esq. admitted the e-mail was authentic and for
a fact Yale F. Edeiken continued to bombard my parcel post box with his rants!
I now ask a simple question- IF I HAD DONE SUCH AS THE ABOVE LIARS CLAIM THEN
WHY DIDN'T YALE F EDEIKEN PRESENT THE COMPLAINTS TO THE JUDGE ALLEGEDLY RETURNED
AS "RETURN TO STALKER" AND UNOPENED? It sure would have ruined the Petition for
Relief From Judgment and would have made my attorney a laughing stock for
submitting to the court: "Since a complaint has never been filed or served, the
defendant is unable to attach a copy of preliminary objections he would file if
the judgment was opened pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 237.3 (a)." ANSWER AS TO WHY-- IT
DIDN'T HAPPEN!! I did not receive the complaints to return them unopened!!!
YALE F EDEIKEN IS A FILTHY LIAR AS WELL AS ALL THE PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT HIM!
Here is Yale NOT substantiating all the above lies about me returning his
complaints to him unopened. I think if I did as numerous liars falsely accused
me of doing Yale would be the first one making the accusation I sent the
complaints back unopened!!
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=8dEU6.90336%24gA.2250804%40monger.newsread.com&rnum=5
(Archived locally as: YaleServedNot_1 and YaleServedNot_2)
From: "Yale F. Edeiken" <ya...@enter.net>
References: <8$-_-$%-%_$$%_-_-$@news.noc.cabal.int>
Subject: Re: REPOST: Question For Yale "Phuk Phace" Edeiken... (Also
Representation of the Spirit of Edeiken) Corrected Version
Message-ID: <8dEU6.90336$gA.22...@monger.newsread.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 06:12:20 GMT
Ivan Tavishiski [reposted because of rogue cancel]
<REMOVE-ALL-CAPS-TA...@my-deja.comREMOVE-ALL-CAPSREMOVE-ALL-
CAPS-TAVISHISKIS> wrote in message
news:8$-_-$%-%_$$%_-_-$@news.noc.cabal.int...
> If I did NOT have an attorney until after August 25, 2000
You did not. You have a copy of the docket.
<<Tavish comment October 30, 2004: I show a copy of the docket below and it
shows you issuing a subpoena on my attorney on July 14, 2000 which proves you
are lying!!!>>
>How could he do anything with the lawsuit not even knowing the accusations?
At no time did Daylin Leach request a copy of the Complaint.
<<Tavish comment October 30, 2004: That is another lie. You e-mailed my attorney
"FUCK YOU" when he tried to get your complaints against me as the Petition for
Relief From Judgment proves which I also included below.>>
A copy was served upon you as required by law. If you threw it out
<<Tavish comment October 30, 2004: IOW you are disagreeing with all the lies
your pals told above about me returning them unopened!>>
or otherwise failed to contact an attorney you thought was representing you,
<<Tavish comment October 30, 2004: My attorney was representing me and I have
the canceled checks to prove it as well as the May 29, 2000 e-mail which you
admitted exists (shown higher up in this post) in which he categorically told
you: "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.">>
that is YOUR problem.
Finally, in a verified pleading in September, you claimed that no
Complaint had been filed or served.
Why did you commit perjury?
<<Tavish comment October 30,2004: You are the perjurer Fatboy Edeiken and this
archive shows some stellar examples:
http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=0neq10177ekocu899...@4ax.com&lr=&hl=en
Subject: Sara Salzman Won't Comment on These Forgeries - I Wonder Why!.. V2.0
Message-ID: <0neq10177ekocu899...@4ax.com>
Date: 1 Feb 2004 18:21:27 GMT >>
BTW Yale F. Edeiken also lied about being his own attorney and lied about using
his power of attorney to get my address, telephone number etc. from my ISP!
My proofs:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=XC6G4.578%245e.50857%40newshog.newsread.com&rnum=7
(Archived locally as: YFE_ISPsubpoenaedNOT_1 and YFE_ISPsubpoenaedNOT_2)
From: "Yale F. Edeiken" <ya...@enter.net>
Subject: Re: John Morris Just Stepped Into Deep Doo Doo
Date: 2000/04/03
Message-ID: <XC6G4.578$5e.5...@newshog.newsread.com>
Defendant Scott Bradbury<sonn...@flash.net> dribbled in message
news:38e54ca3....@news.newsguy.com...
[...]
> Also you have never answered this question and it is rather complex--
> My personal information is unlisted and is NOT in public domain.
It is now.
> An unscrupulous individual obtained it by using his position as an
> attorney to obtain such under false pretenses.
That's a lie. Support it or retract it.
<<Tavish comment October 30: 2004: I support my claim with:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=b5JH4.301%24%25L6.22667%40monger.newsread.com&rnum=1
(Archived locally as: YFESubpoenaAttorneyLies and YFESubpoenaAttorneyLies2)
From: "Yale F. Edeiken" <ya...@enter.net>
Subject: Re: --->Violation of USC Title 18, Chapter 13, Section 241?-- Edeiken's
Legal Troubles Deepen<---
Date: 2000/04/08
Message-ID: <b5JH4.301$%L6.2...@monger.newsread.com>
References: <8cnap...@news2.newsguy.com>
Defendant Bradbury <sonn...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:8cnap...@news2.newsguy.com...
> 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.
<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] <(Which is Yale's home address!!!)
-----------------
Tale also lied about being his own attorney!!
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...
> ((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 of GOOGLE Archival Excerpt~~
AND
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=9bzx5.168%240d.11399%40monger.newsread.com&rnum=9
(YFE_AttorneyLies3 and YFE_AttorneyLies4)
From: "Yale F. Edeiken" <ya...@enter.net>
Message-ID: <9bzx5.168$0d.1...@monger.newsread.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 01:20:05 GMT
Doc Tavish <doc_t...@NOSPAMscottsmail.com> wrote in message
news:o71dss8i5dk9rn47u...@4ax.com...
[...]
> According to the office of
> Andrea Naugle -- Clerk Civil Court
> Lehigh County Court House
>
> (Addressed to Yale F. Edeiken):
>
> The clerk exposed you in a lie that you have been telling! You say
> you have an attorney BUT she says that you are the only attorney!!
And, as you well know, there is an attorney whose identity is being
protected because of the pattern of criminal harassment by you and your
accomplices.
~~End of GOOGLE Archival Excerpt~~
Proof Yale F. Edeiken lied twice about being his own attorney:
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.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[...]
BY THE COURT:
(Signed) Edward J. Reibman, J.
<STOP>
Need I say more?
Tavish
~~Shyster Yale F. Edeiken has been black listed by a watch group~~
Citizens for Legal Responsibility
Concerning unethical attorneys and judges in the State of Pennsylvania:
http://www.clr.org/pa.html (Archived locally as: clr-org_pa)
Judicial/Attorney Misconduct in Pennsylvania
Following are some of the attorneys or judges who have been reported to have
been disciplined by the State of Pennsylvania for unethical conduct, who may be
a resident of the State of Pennsylvania but was disciplined in another
jurisdiction, transferred to inactive status, sued for malpractice,
incarcerated, whom we understand have been charged with unethical conduct, have
engaged in conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice, or to
bring the courts and the legal business into disrepute, etc.
[...]
Yale F. Edeiken --Attorney at Law - Supreme Court ID# 40290 (Allentown, PA)
<END>
---Famous Last Words Series-- Yale F. Edeiken & Sara D. Salzman:
http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=3870...@news3.enter.net&lr=&hl=en
Archived locally as: YaleSuedTwice
From: "Yale F. Edeiken" <ya...@enter.net>
Subject: KOOK WEBSITE
Date: 2000/01/02
Message-ID: <3870...@news3.enter.net>
"I have never been charged with any unethical activity relating to the
practice of law..."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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>
Subject: Re: PSYCHOSARA SALZMAN'S HOLIDAY SURPRISE ----
Message-ID: <catamont-564BD5...@netnews.attbi.com>
"Yale Edeiken has nothing to do with whether you're an impotent slug,
Mr. Bradbury... PROVE your idiotic assertion that he has been "censured"
by the state supreme court... Sara"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is laughing at you big time Yale F. Edeiken and Sara Salzman!
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)
As for Yale F.Edeiken's lying statement: "I have never been charged with any
unethical activity relating to the practice of law..."; he was not only charged
three times but he received from the Disciplinary Board of the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court the following:
1) "Private Reprimand" in 1993
2) "Informal Admonition" in 1995
3) "PUBLIC CENSURE" in 1998
(RE: PUBLIFC CENSURE in 1998: 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 Pennsylvania 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 "discipline him" 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!!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yale F. Edeiken was also charged AND convicted for assaulting a deputy sheriff
in the courthouse! All fully documented in this archive:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=s2hq10drpp50ik59v9litpvrdjr1203099%404ax.com&rnum=1
Subject: Edeikook Follies #6 Yale F. Edeiken Goes on a Rampage at His County
Courthouse Message-ID: <s2hq10drpp50ik59v...@4ax.com>
Special Note: Yale F. Edeiken Esq. of Allentown, Pennsylvania- Supreme Court
ID# 40290 has falsely asserted he was associated with the two law firms
mentioned below-- Todd Miller & Associates and Trainor Law Offices. Both law
firms told me first hand that Yale F. Edeiken was never an attorney at their
firms!! That is fact!
(Archived locally as: YaleTheNut)
http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=SH9g7.634%247d....@newshog.newsread.com&lr=&hl=en
From: "Yale F. Edeiken" <ya...@enter.net>
Subject: Re: The Common Thread To All These Cancel Announcements...
Message-ID: <SH9g7.634$7d.2...@newshog.newsread.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 15:06:26 GMT
Defendant Bradshit <rdoc_...@my-deja.cpm, tavi...@ix.netcom,com> wrote
in message news:7lp1otkrsh37k7ioi...@4ax.com...
[...]
> Care to tell all of us why both Todd Miller and Paul Trainor distanced
> themselves from you
Because they were dealing with someone who was "mentally unstable"
(their dscription) and a "crazy man" (again, their description) who they
wanted to go away as quckly as possible.
~~End of GOOGLE Archive~~
Compare what Yale said on August 20, 2001 concerning two law firms attitudes
toward his presence with his own words: "they were dealing with someone who was
"mentally unstable" (their dscription) and a "crazy man" (again, their
description) who they wanted to go away as quckly as possible" to this which was
posted July 4, 2000: "Tubby has no respect from the legal community and as a
whole they wish he'd just waddle away."
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=20000704143439.5399.qmail%40nym.alias.net&rnum=4
From: SoloP...@nym.alias.net
Subject: Yale _Tubby_ Edeiken
Date: 2000/07/04
Message-ID: <200007041434...@nym.alias.net>
Roger
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Doc Tavish wrote
in message <gh6rn0pirv5dlpps3...@4ax.com>:
>If the "Holocaust Researchers" can't get anything right about the events of the
>past five years then why should the liars be trusted with historical events
>which took place 60 some odd years ago?
Argument from a false premise.
>If they would submit to a civil court of
>law manufactured evidence such as Yale F. Edeiken did against me- then why
>should those who hold such fabrications as fact be trusted on anything else!?
*Two* false premises here: nothing in the lawsuit was manufactured,
nor are any of the people involved in that lawsuit responsible for any
of the historical facts of the Holocaust.
>They are liars and they should never be trusted!
>
> ~~The "RETURN TO STALKER" Myth Debunked~~
>For a fact Yale F. Edeiken had not served his "complaints" on neither my
>attorney NOR myself. This was submitted to a civil court of law:
For a fact, he did -- as prove by your boasts right here that you were
returning them.
<snip mindless repetition of something that was no part of any
decision by the court>
>My foes steadfastly claim I personally had received the complaints and then did
>a "Return To Stalker" and returned the complaints to Yale F. Edeiken unopened:
Do you now deny that you did so, fatboy?
>I now ask a simple question- IF I HAD DONE SUCH AS THE ABOVE LIARS CLAIM THEN
>WHY DIDN'T YALE F EDEIKEN PRESENT THE COMPLAINTS TO THE JUDGE ALLEGEDLY RETURNED
>AS "RETURN TO STALKER" AND UNOPENED?
Because there was no need -- your claim that you were never served was
*not* accepted by the court, so there is nothing to refute about it.
>It sure would have ruined the Petition for
>Relief From Judgment and would have made my attorney a laughing stock for
>submitting to the court: "Since a complaint has never been filed or served, the
>defendant is unable to attach a copy of preliminary objections he would file if
>the judgment was opened pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 237.3 (a)." ANSWER AS TO WHY-- IT
>DIDN'T HAPPEN!! I did not receive the complaints to return them unopened!!!
>YALE F EDEIKEN IS A FILTHY LIAR AS WELL AS ALL THE PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT HIM!
The morbidly obese Shame of Belleville tries to revise zir own
history. Too bad it is documented by Google, for example here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=mv7tpskj431umvp83rvipdjkn3ijp2kbe1%404ax.com&output=gplain
<quote>
From: Doc Tavish <doc_t...@NOSPAMmy-deja.com>
Subject: Re: This is a classic.
Message-ID: <mv7tpskj431umvp83...@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 10:07:38 CDT
<snip to>
Yale keeps snail mailing me his harassment and I just sent back two
more yesterday to him. This time I marked the envelopes "Return To
Stalker" and the gal at the post office died laughing when I handed
them to her to send back. Yale always addresses his harassment to:
"Defendant Scott Bradbury" I guess in the hope of harassing me BUT the
sweet gals in the 77418 post office already have been told of kook
Yale and his tricks. I told Jeannie yesterday that I'm going to the
office supply on the square and having a nice big rubber stamp made
which says: "RETURN TO STALKER" and start stamping Yale's snail mail
with it in red ink. If Yale wishes to waste money on postage sending
shit I won't bother to open or read then I'll let his post office see
all the RETURN TO STALKER mailings he gets! :-)
</quote>
Care to deny it?
And here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=q3t0qsojr18drtnnn2b2ijv6tim7sligdp%404ax.com&output=gplain
<quote>
From: Doc Tavish <doc_t...@NOSPAMscottsmail.com>
Subject: Re: Dishonest Tremaine needs to pay up.
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 19:16:56 -0500
Message-ID: <q3t0qsojr18drtnnn...@4ax.com>
<snip to>
BTW Ol' Tubby keeps filling my parcel box with his demands etc. I have
not any idea what he's trying to bust my balls for now because I never
open the envelopes. I now mark them "RETURN TO STALKER" and send them
back.
</quote>
Care to deny it?
And let's not forget here:
<quote>
From: Doc Tavish <doc_t...@NOSPAMscottsmail.com>
Subject: Jeffrey G. Brown Makes Implied Threat aka Re: Sara Salzman
the lying pathetic coward.
Message-ID: <kv6eqso8d7nvc593d...@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 20:25:18 CDT
On Sat, 26 Aug 2000 00:17:14 GMT,
jNOSPAMgNOSPA...@my-deja.coNOSPAMm wrote:
>In article <ff1eqsktab1ih2425...@4ax.com>,
>doc_t...@NOSPAMscottsmail.com wrote:
>
>>BTW sow-- I have done what my attorney told me to do-- send
>>back Tubby's mail unopened! I now write on the envelopes: "Return To Stalker."
>And you're going to regret having done so, Cockroach Boy.
Are you now making an implied threat in public forum Jeffrey?
>More free advice: (1) Check between the sofa cushions for loose change.
>(2) Look for work.
You're still miffed because I won't let you fellate me.
</quote>
Note that this one even claims that your attorney told you to return
them. Of course, a quick look at the date shows that you did not
*have* an attorney of record on that date...
>Proof that the Nizkorite "Holocaust Researchers" fabricate evidence:
Of course, what you've reposted was accepted by the court as fact,
meaning that your whining that the evidence was fabricated is yet
another lie from the morbidly obese Shame of Belleville, KY.
Where's my $10k, fatboy?