Edeikook Follies #5 Yale F. Edeiken Lied About Making a Written Agreement with My Attorney to no Longer Make Direct Contact With Me R_0920
Tavish
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=365p4ucaj90gfpk3ip7kfqq5tgqp9kgl4f%404ax.com&rnum=2
Subject: A Third Simple Test Which The Apellate Judges Will Get To Take (This is
a Trial Run - This Test May Be Modified) Malicious Prosecution
Message-ID: <365p4ucaj90gfpk3i...@4ax.com>
Date: 21 Jan 2002 22:23:46 GMT
(Excerpt)
The Pennsylvania Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct plainly state
in their preamble:
"A lawyer's conduct should conform to the requirements of the law, both in
professional service to clients and in the lawyer's business and personal
affairs. A lawyer should use the law's procedures only for legitimate
purposes and not to harass or intimidate others. A lawyer should
demonstrate respect for the legal system and for those who serve it,
including judges, other lawyers and public officials."
http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/pa-code/query=*/doc/{t2}?
"Pennsylvania Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct (1999 edition)"
Yale has obviously used "the law's procedures only to harass or intimidate
others!" No wonder why he denies the Disciplinary Rules of Professional
Conduct exist-- he won't observe them!
Here is Yale denying the rules exist:
Do "Disciplinary Rules for the State of Pennsylvania" exist or do they
not? It will be answered with all objectivity in the following:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&rnum=1&selm=Xplr5.3387%24V67.157073%40newshog.newsread.com
Subject: Re: Disciplinary Rules and a Bold Faced Pathological Liar -- Yale
F. "Tubby" Edeiken <Corrections Made Release 2>
Date: 08/31/2000
Author: Yale F. Edeiken <ya...@enter.net>
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.
~~~End of Archival Snippet #1 ~~~
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&rnum=1&selm=B1Iq5.2901%24V67.112066%40newshog.newsread.com
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>
> 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."
~~~End of Archival Snippet #2 ~~~
Who is lying? Is Yale F. Edeiken Esq. an attorney in Allentown, Pennsylvania,
Supreme Court ID# 40290 telling the truth and that all the other
sources below are lying such as Cornell University? Be honest now! How
much honesty and integrity does Yale F. Edeiken Esq. have?
Here is an official Cornell University web page link:
http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/pa-code/query=*/doc/{t2}?
"Pennsylvania Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct (1999 edition)"
Here is a brief excerpt from the link above:
"Pennsylvania Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct (1999 edition)
INTRODUCTION - Preamble: A Lawyer's Responsibilities: ...A lawyer's
conduct should conform to the requirements of the law, both in
professional service to clients and in the lawyer's business and personal
affairs. A lawyer should use the law's procedures only for legitimate
purposes and not to harass or intimidate others. A lawyer should
demonstrate respect for the legal system and for those who serve it,
including judges, other lawyers and public officials."
Here is what WWW.GOOGLE.COM turns up using DISCIPLINARY RULES PENNSYLVANIA
as key words:
Labor and Employment Law Section Quarterly, Vol. 13, #1
...Rule 5.4 of the Pennsylvania Disciplinary Rules; Rule...
www.calbar.org/2sec/3lab/4qtly/v13n104.htm
Annotated Links to Legal Ethics Web Sites
...Pennsylvania Disciplinary Rules of...
www.abanet.org/cpr/links.html
Table of Contents
...Judicial Employees Appendix E Pennsylvania Rules of Judicial...
...conscientious judge. In contrast, disciplinary rules are...
www.abanet.org/ceeli/assessments/Lithuania/Lithuaniaethics4judges.htm
Professional Conduct Links
...Opinions Pennsylvania Disciplinary Rules of Professional...
www.cardozo.yu.edu/library/netpubs/ethics.html
[PaSupreme] Office of Disciplinary Counsel pet. v. Philip A. Valentino
...of Pennsylvania [ ] get Official versions OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY...
...Respondent's violation of disciplinary rules. As to the...
www.dpg-law.com/opinions/pa-suprm/9905/0975-valentino.html
The above are just a tip of the iceberg! At 12:49am csdst Sept.18,2000
GOOGLE Returned: Google results 1-10 of about 10,800 for DISCIPLINARY
RULES PENNSYLVANIA
Now in all good conscience I ask one and all-- who is lying?
Yale F. Edeiken Attorney at Law Allentown, Pennsylvania or Cornell
University and all the thousands of web links pointed to by Google?
HERE IS WHY YALE DENIES SUCH RULES EXIST:
www.dpg-law.com/opinions/pa-suprm/9905/0975-valentino.html
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL,
Petitioner
v.
PHILIP A. VALENTINO,
Respondent
[J-14-1999]
No. 306 Disciplinary Docket No. 3
No. 26 DB 97 Disciplinary Board
Attorney Registration No. 37959
(Philadelphia)
ARGUED: February 2, 1999
DECIDED: MAY 20, 1999
OPINION
MR. JUSTICE ZAPPALA
This disciplinary matter arises from a Petition for Discipline charging
Respondent, Philip Valentino, Jr., with a violation of Pa.R.D.E.
203(b)(1), based upon his conviction of one count of mail fraud, 18 U.S.C.
1341. The Disciplinary Board has recommended that Respondent be disbarred.
[...]
In any disciplinary case arising from a criminal conviction, the events
surrounding the criminal charge must be taken into account when
determining an appropriate measure of discipline. Office of Disciplinary
Counsel v. Eilberg, 497 Pa. 388, 441 A.2d 1193 (1982). Consideration is to
be given to any mitigating factors that are present. Id. Moreover, we
recognize that the sentence imposed by the federal court has already
provided Respondent with punishment for his misconduct. Disciplinary
sanctions, in contrast, are not designed for their punitive effects, but
rather are intended to protect the public from unfit attorneys and
maintain the integrity of the legal system. Office of Disciplinary Counsel
v. Christie, 536 Pa. 394, 639 A.2d 782 (1994).
~~~~~End of Excerpt~~~~~~
The key sentence in the above: "Disciplinary sanctions.. are not designed
for their punitive effects, but rather are intended to protect the public
from unfit attorneys and maintain the integrity of the legal system."
I ask again- Is Yale F. Edeiken Esq. an ethical attorney who brings respect to
the legal system?
In FACT here is Yale F. Edeiken himself referring to "Disciplinary Rules" in his
own e-mail to my attorney which I posted to USENET which he denied at first
existing (he accused me of forging it AND then he admitted it was true! How is
this as proof that this attorney has a very major problem with truth and ethics?
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&rnum=2&selm=Xplr5.3387%24V67.157073%40newshog.newsread.com
From: Yale F. Edeiken (ya...@enter.net)
Subject: Re: Disciplinary Rules and a Bold Faced Pathological Liar -- Yale F.
"Tubby" Edeiken <Corrections Made Release 2>
Date: 2000/08/31
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
BUT in an earlier post he accused me of forging the e-mail communique between
him and my attorney as I show here (which again proves Yale to be a pathological
liar.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&rnum=7&selm=g93t4tgug01ofk9s0pfoe3ho0kq2djmeah%404ax.com
From: Doc Tavish (doc_tavi...@my-deja.com)
Subject: Yale F. Edeiken Attorney - Allentown, PA (Supreme Court ID# 40290)
Recent Lies Documented UPGRADED R 2
Date: 2000-12-30 18:30:42 PST
EXCERPTS
>>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.
Labor and Employment Law Section Quarterly, Vol. 13, #1
...Rule 5.4 of the Pennsylvania Disciplinary Rules; Rule...
...violates ethical canons and disciplinary rules governing a...
www.calbar.org/2sec/3lab/4qtly/v13n104.htm - 23k - Cached - Similar pages
Annotated Links to Legal Ethics Web Sites
...Pennsylvania Disciplinary Rules of...
...of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel. Montana Rules of...
www.abanet.org/cpr/links.html - 45k - Cached - Similar pages
(The results above are from www.google.com using search words:
Pennsylvania Disciplinary Rules. Thousands of returns resulted!)
http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/pa-code/query=*/doc/{t2}?
"Pennsylvania Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct (1999 edition)"
(Would Cornell University lie about the existence of Pennsylvania
Disciplinary Rules? NO but Yale F. Edeiken has!)
Lie # 1 Exposed! Yale said disciplinary rules don't 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.
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? (Later on in
this post he denies the existence of such e-mail!)
>>> From: Yale F. Edeiken <ya...@enter.net>
>>> Message ID: <001501bfc9d5$2ddae340$d99c10cf!oemcomputer>
>>> To: xxx...@aol.com <(just deleted my attorney's e-mail address)
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! If I don't have an attorney why would
Tubby be posting his e-mail address!?! More deception exposed!
>>> 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.
If the e-mail did NOT exist then why is Yale saying now: "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." (Also if I
don't have an attorney why would Yale be posting his name which I "X" out
in the text above? Yale lies big time!) [If the attorney I mentioned was
not representing me then why would he refer to me as his "client"?]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is what Yale posted originally:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&rnum=1&selm=Xplr5.3387%24V67.157073%40newshog.newsread.com
From: Yale F. Edeiken (ya...@enter.net)
Subject: Re: Disciplinary Rules and a Bold Faced Pathological Liar -- Yale F.
"Tubby" Edeiken <Corrections Made Release 2>
Date: 2000/08/31
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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lie # 2 Exposed! Yale denied existence of e-mail but now shows that he did
read it and he made comment on it! {Yale has also violated a written
agreement he made with my attorney about his agreeing to no longer making
direct contact with me in the e-mail being discussed.)
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)?
Why did Tubby lie about the e-mail being forged. If it was forged that
meant he never received and therefore 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:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using <http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search> the adjacent archive may
be retrieved by inserting the included MESSAGE ID into the field: "Message ID -
Find the message with message ID" and then activating the "Google Search"
button. USE this Message ID:
jg_brown-300...@cvg-27-166-171.cinci.rr.com
(When you retrieve the archive activate the "View complete thread (13 articles)"
to scroll through all the articles to see that Yale F. Edeiken had in fact
accused me of forging the e-mail between him and my attorney. He shows quite
plainly the e-mail exists in this post!)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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!
Lie # 3 Exposed! Yale initially implied I forged the e-mail!
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.
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? {Yale said
at the beginning of this post: "I stated that there are no "Disciplinary
Rules" which you continaully claimed exist." YET in his reply above he
mentions what he claims doesn't exist with: "As you well know that
constitutes a flagrant violation of the disciplinary rules..." Looks like
Edeiken can't keep his story straight!)
Continuation of Lies # 1 and # 2!
>>> Please God in the Heavens above let Yale deny publicly the authenticity
>>> of the above communication! I will be a very good boy too!
:
>> Why should I deny it. It proves you have been lying.
(Notice that Yale has called me a liar from the beginning concerning an
e-mail communication between my attorney and him and how he denied such
e-mail existed and Yale even suggested that I forged it BUT now he admits
it exists and at the same time calls me the liar!? Does the term
pathological liar ring a bell?)
~~End of GOOGLE Archive~~
Is there any doubt that Yale F. Edeiken Esq. is a liar and that I have provided
many documented and easily verifiable archives to prove that attorney Edeiken is
a liar without conscience?
ADDENDUM
(More examples of using the legal system to harass and intimidate):
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&rnum=1&selm=0rmr5.2062%24dD4.115394%40monger.newsread.com
From: Yale F. Edeiken (ya...@enter.net)
Subject: Re: Give it up Edeiken, Tavish ain't playing your childish game.
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Date: 2000/08/31
P.W. Blakely <pwbla...@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:39ad...@post.usenet.com...
> **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
> Why can't you say
Why should I.
You nade the accusation, Now prove it.
Present a certifed copy of a conviction for either a felony or a
misdeanor.
Now it's late and I have to get a out a thick packet of interrogatories
for Vradshit to answer. I would like to get it out early tomorrow in hope
that it will ruin his Labor Dat weekend.
--YFE
~~End of GOOGLE Archive~~
Is the above not using the legal system to harass a person and cause grief with
malicious intent? YES INDEEDY IT IS!!
For an extended list of Yale's perjurious accusations and my exposing them as
lies see this archive:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=&selm=3bmv4vc9u4kh2qs4v84aek0qsbfhb5eul8%404ax.com
Subject: Test this, David Michael aka Ken McVay's "Edeiken-v-Bradbury.C1" Is
Filled With Lies and Perjury...
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 12:42:37 -0600
Message-ID: <3bmv4vc9u4kh2qs4v...@4ax.com>
Need I say more?
Tavish
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~~
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 above-- 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!
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - FAST UNLIMITED DOWNLOAD - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>