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 Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

Blubbergut Scumbury: Stuck in the Closet

2 views

Skip to first unread message

Beaver Cleaver

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 2:38:39 PM2/11/04

From: "Ken McVay, OBC" <spam...@nizkor.org>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Blubbergut Scumbury: Stuck in the Closet
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 08:23:06 -0800
Organization: The Nizkor Project http://www.nizkor.org
Message-ID: <c0dkt...@enews2.newsguy.com>

Everybody take note of Shyster Yale F.Edeiken's cohort, Ken McVay, engaging in
childish name calling and how Ken McVay keeps propagating lies and smear which
were DISMISED! Ken McVay "runs" a Holocaust Info web page from a back room of
his residence and going by his standards of truths shown below I ask how can he
be credible in other matters and especially so when he lies about his funding!

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 08:23:06 -0800, <c0dkt...@enews2.newsguy.com> "Ken McVay,
OBC" <spam...@nizkor.org> wrote:

> REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION
>
> NOW COMES Plaintiff Yale F. Edeiken and demands that, pursuant to Rule
>4014, Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant Scott Bradbury
>admit or deny the truth of the following within thirty (30) days of service
>or, by failing to do so, admit the truth of the matters asserted:

THOSE COMPLAINTS WERE NEVER SERVED!!! THAT IS FACT!!
(I was NOT given "thirty (30) days")

Yale F. Edeiken proved via the docket he knew I had an attorney
when he issued a subpoena on him (from the Docket printout):

"July 14, 2000 PLTF'S NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE
DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY UPON DAYLIN LEACH. AFDT OF SERVICE
ATTACHED." This is on the docket of Edeiken Vs Bradbury 1999-C-2786

I was given 30 days to refute the false accusations BUT Yale did not serve the
complaints on my attorney! August 25, 2000 - 30 days = about July 27, 2000!
Why didn't Yale serve those complaints on my attorney as he was required by a
written agreement and the rules of civil procedure to do!? Also the time span
between Yale subpoenaing my attorney on July 14, 2000 to his date of (temporary)
default judgment of August 25, 2000 is about 43 days! So I ask why didn't Yale
follow the rules of civil procedure?

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

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... Even after the
defendant is represented by counsel, mail is still sent directly to the
defendant addressed to "Defendant Bradbury." ...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>

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 12th day of June, 2001, upon consideration of Defendant's
Petition for Relief from Judgment, filed on September 22, 2000,
Plaintiff's response thereto, and argument thereon on February 7, 2001,
IT IS ORDERED said petition is GRANTED, and the case is DISMISSED.

[...]

BY THE COURT:
(Signed) Edward J. Reibman, J.

<STOP>

Yeah- trotting out the same failed lawsuit against me of which the shyster never
bothered to serve the complaints which makes his: "Defendant Scott Bradbury
admit or deny the truth of the following within thirty (30) days of service
or, by failing to do so, admit the truth of the matters asserted:" RATHER
assinine!

For a FACT Yale F. Edeiken tried to abuse the legal system to give David Michael
the same "treatment": he was giving me and Yale never served complaints on
David's attorney either!

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>
Subject: The other Edeiken lawsuit

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.

Then we had the following bit of abuse, which was also e-mailed to me
quite unsolicited:

<begin quote>
Now how about a straight answer to the questions that you have been
dodging like the lying lying nazi fuck you are:
<end quote>

Well, let us look at where we are a few months later.

Mr Edeiken has filed a lawsuit against me in Pennsylvania. No documents
were ever served on me with regard to this lawsuit. Moreover, it stated
no cause of action. As Mr Edeiken had obviously assumed that I would
chicken out, allowing the thing simply to lapse unserved, I appointed an
attorney in PA to deal with him in a very non-chickenly way.

I recently received a communication from that attorney's paralegal that
stated, inter alia:

<begin quote>
Please be advised that we have filed the Rule to Show Cause in your
case. Mr. Edeiken must now move forward with this matter and file a
complaint . . . we are awaiting the statutory allowed time period during
which Mr. Edeiken can make a response.
<end quote>

Mr Edeiken evidently thought that he could use the law to silence
certain revisionist posters here. Mr Edeiken apparently assumed that we
would all cower before him like baby guinea pigs confronted by an
over-large lettuce leaf. Some have obliged him and will suffer the
consequences.

But we have news for this great legal warrior.

We are now waiting for HIM to produce his arguments and evidence and
place them before the courts where he may rest assured that they will
meet a vigorous response. Not only that but, once he does so, we will
look very closely at the legality of Mr Edeiken's own actions and
statements with a view to possible counter actions.

'I think you will be as cowardly as him about showing up.' Those were Mr
Edeiken's words. Well, Pennsylvania is a long way from Lincolnshire and
I may not show up in person -- but I'll sure as hell have someone
showing up on my behalf. That is a firm promise.

So what will our great legal warrior do now?

Will he present a complaint and give us the opportunity to give him the
sound legal thrashing that he deserves?

Or will he quietly drop both his lawsuits and slink off into the
darkness of the night?

The world awaits, Yale F Edeiken.

And so does that court in Pennsylvania.

David

~~End of EXACT GOOGLE Archive~~

In regard to Yale giving people the "treatment" and his dishonesty:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=m2lomv4fd4cj890nijgplm4c1ocke3j894%404ax.com&rnum=2
Subject: 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
Message-ID: <m2lomv4fd4cj890ni...@4ax.com>
Date: 20 Sep 2003 13:23:10 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:

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

"Dirst, thre is no such document as the "Disciplinary Rules."

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=&selm=11a9hvoh7jarecmhd8g1p0fsmgklvb8mfv%404ax.com&rnum=1
Subject: For a FACT-- Yale F. Edeiken HAS Been Disciplined by The Disciplinary
Board of the Supreme Court of The State of Pennsylvania! aka Re: A Simple
Question for Mr. Bradbury
Message-ID: <11a9hvoh7jarecmhd...@4ax.com>

EXCERPT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<<Tavish comment July 15, 2003: How is it your alcohol shriveled brain
interprets: " my client as long as he has an attorney" as being a negative
response? Also why didn't you honor a written agreement you made with my
attorney when he plainly told you: "Finally as you know the disciplinary rules
prohibit you from having any direct contact with my client as long as he has an
attorney. Please refrain from having any contact with Mr. Bradberry [sic]."
Leach referred to me as "my client on May 29, 2000!! YOU CERTAINLY DID NOT HONOR
THAT AGREEMENT AND THAT IS WHY HE TOLD ME TO SEND ALL OF YOU CRAP BACK
UNOPENED.>>

> 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.

<<Tavish comment July 15, 2003: Everyone notice that Yale mentions
"disciplinary rules"?>>

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 Post~~

Yet Yale earlier in thread accused me of posting a forgery thus implying
the e-mail and my attorney didn't exist! I Xed out my attorney's e-mail address
in my first posting so if the e-mail didn't exist then how would Yale know my
attorney's e-mail address even though he got it slightly wrong as I prove here
to show what a lying fat bastard Yale is:

Xref:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=38c4hv4b615oe2si2737c5fh6e8afnol1q%404ax.com&rnum=1
Subject: Legal System Abuse by a Pathological Liar Named Yale F. Edeiken Who
Lied About a May 29, 2000 E-Mail R_0713
Message-ID: <38c4hv4b615oe2si2...@4ax.com>

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

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

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

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.

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

~~End of Excerpt~~

Everyone notice the line:
> To: Dyali...@aol.com

Why would Yale put in an e-mail address I did not post? He got two letters
reversed though BUT if that e-mail hadn't existed and I didn't have an attorney
then how would he have known?

Here is how I posted what Yale replied to:

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

[...]

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

If this confirms your representation I certainly will.

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

-- Yale F. Edeiken

Here is Shyster Edeiken at first claiming I had forged the e-mail depicted
above:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=38c4hv4b615oe2si2737c5fh6e8afnol1q%404ax.com&rnum=4
Subject: Legal System Abuse by a Pathological Liar Named Yale F. Edeiken Who
Lied About a May 29, 2000 E-Mail R_0713
Message-ID: <38c4hv4b615oe2si2...@4ax.com>
Date: 14 Jul 2003 04:20:19 GMT

EXCERPT

From: "Yale F. Edeiken" <ya...@enter.net>
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Disciplinary Rules and a Bold Faced Pathological Liar -- Yale F.
"Tubby" Edeiken <Corrections Made Release 2>
Message-ID: <dglr5.3384$V67.1...@newshog.newsread.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2000 04:35:21 GMT

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

He has already admitted that he has.

--YFE

~~End of GOOGLE Archive~~

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

[...]

Subject: Re: Attn Pat Blakely - Please Read and Send Reply if One is Made
by The Liar and Miscreant
Date: 08/29/2000
Author: Yale F. Edeiken <ya...@enter.net>

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

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

[...]

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

~~End of GOOGLE Archival Excerpt~~

Back to Ken McVay using lies from a legal system abuser to defame people:

The fact that you keep strutting out a failed lawsuit against me filed by a
bastard who is a pariah of his own legal community shows what a loser and a
little pernicious little shit you are McVay!

--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!! GO
LOOK!!

BTW Yale F. Edeiken had already received one "Private Reprimand" in 1993 and
Yale had received an "Informal Admonition" in 1995! Then the bastard got "PUBLIC
CENSURE" in 1998!!! Looks like Yale F. Edeiken is real shining example of the
legal profession doesn't it? Why that shyster still has his law license is a
mystery to me! His assaulting a Deputy Sheriff should have done him in- in 1990!

I.E.

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 V2.1 S_0102
Message-ID: <s2hq10drpp50ik59v...@4ax.com>
Date: 1 Feb 2004 19:02:18 GMT

Yale is also a perjurer who also makes criminal death threats using subpoenaed
information:

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

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>

Yale F. Edeiken is a perjurer, a convicted criminal, and a nut case and his
failed lawsuit against me is testament to it and the fact you keep posting it
proves you're running on empty Ken McVay. Here is liar Yale F. Edeiken admitting
that he is a nutcase!

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~~

Need I say more?

Tavish

----NIZKOR.ORG Director Ken McVay's Numerous Lies Regarding His Funding----
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=g89720p41v7g4qtt1qbrd96bpv5joj9kao%404ax.com&rnum=1
Subject: The Nizkor Project Director is Lying About Funds He Has NOT Reported to
CCRA!! SAAF Report for 2002 Is Further Proof! V2.0 S_0206
Message-ID: <g89720p41v7g4qtt1...@4ax.com>
Date: 6 Feb 2004 14:57:46 GMT
AKA "Did NIZKOR.ORG Director Ken McVay Pay Tax On Those $50k+ Donations He
Denies Receiving From the San Antonio Area Foundation - Nizkor Fund"

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=rhao2v4fbuij94mcmi6sicj73sa4eifsns%404ax.com&rnum=1
Subject: Nizkor LHR Fund; Just Another Self Serving FUND Like the Nizkor
Endowment and Trust Funds?
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 10:56:49 -0600
Message-ID: <rhao2v4fbuij94mcm...@4ax.com>

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=3e060868_1%40news2.uncensored-news.com&rnum=1
Subject: Is NIZKOR Running a Self Serving Endowment Fund Scam?
Message-ID: <3e060...@news2.uncensored-news.com>
Date: 22 Dec 2002 18:46:15 GMT

http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=2q9j20dkcgt28fup6...@4ax.com&lr=&hl=en
Subject: ZHID GROUP $60 MILLION TAX FRAUD (& McVAY/NIZKOR & BB ISSUING BOGUS TAX
RECEIPTS!!) V1.0 S_0210
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 21:53:49 -0600
Message-ID: <2q9j20dkcgt28fup6...@4ax.com>
aka HASIDIC GROUP CHARGED WITH $60 MILLION FRAUD (And Other Issuing of Bogus Tax
Receipts by Nizkor/B'nai Brith)
aka NIZKOR.ORG and B'nai Brith's Apparent Funding Kick Backs and Tax Scam

B'nai Brith also funded communist David Lethbridge:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=4186tvsr4d3oiodp2nibbuvuj91rakvimb%404ax.com&rnum=1
Subject: UPDATED! B'nai Brith Allies Itself With Communist David Lethbridge
Against Capitalism, and Christianity V2.0 R_1207
Message-ID: <4186tvsr4d3oiodp2...@4ax.com>
Date: 7 Dec 2003 12:48:39 GMT

=============================PLUS====================================
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=p0afnvchj52pcuh6c0dk78f9bs7ngfetac%404ax.com&rnum=1
Subject: NIZKOR.ORG Allies Itself With Communist David Lethbridge Against
America, Capitalism, and Christianity R_0928
Message-ID: <p0afnvchj52pcuh6c...@4ax.com>
Date: 29 Sep 2003 03:38:54 GMT

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=67qc8v8192tumoaivq4joitsquts3t5bs8%404ax.com&rnum=7
Subject: NIZKOR.ORG Director Ken McVay Caught Lying About San Antonio
Connection! (Those Two U.S. Servers!) V2.0
Date: 30 Mar 2003 03:49:12 GMT
Message-ID: <67qc8v8192tumoaiv...@4ax.com>

_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>

Roger

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 4:39:22 PM2/11/04

In one age, called the Second Age by some,
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Beaver Cleaver wrote
in message <p8tk205l7dp5r46ps...@4ax.com>:

>From: "Ken McVay, OBC" <spam...@nizkor.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
>Subject: Blubbergut Scumbury: Stuck in the Closet
>Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 08:23:06 -0800
>Organization: The Nizkor Project http://www.nizkor.org
>Message-ID: <c0dkt...@enews2.newsguy.com>

>Everybody take note of Shyster Yale F.Edeiken's cohort, Ken McVay, engaging in
>childish name calling and how Ken McVay keeps propagating lies and smear which
>were DISMISED!

The Findings of Fact are neither lies, nor smears, nor were they
dismissed when the lawsuit was.

>Ken McVay "runs" a Holocaust Info web page from a back room of
>his residence and going by his standards of truths shown below I ask how can he
>be credible in other matters and especially so when he lies about his funding!

Because he doesn't, but that doesn't stop you from obsessively
reposting your lies.

Ken Lewis

unread,

Feb 11, 2004, 5:13:30 PM2/11/04

On 11 Feb 2004 19:38:39 GMT, Beaver Cleaver
<beaver_cleaver@mayfield01net> wrote:

>Everybody take note of Shyster Yale F.Edeiken's cohort, Ken McVay, engaging in
>childish name calling and how Ken McVay keeps propagating lies and smear which
>were DISMISED! Ken McVay "runs" a Holocaust Info web page from a back room of
>his residence and going by his standards of truths shown below I ask how can he
>be credible in other matters and especially so when he lies about his funding!

Everybody take note of how Bradshit is still lying about this.

The case was dismissed on a technical issues. The marerial that was
entered into evidence were accepted by the court as a finding of fact.

0 new messages