Rule 4011. Limitation of Scope of Discovery and Deposition - Yale F. Edeiken Made False Statements to The Court
Doc Tavish
Subject: Tje Case Against Bradbury
Message-ID: <%vDt5.5816$V67.2...@newshog.newsread.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 02:59:07 GMT
On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 02:59:07 GMT, "Yale F. Edeiken" <ya...@enter.net>
wrote:
> On August 25, 2000, I filed a default judgment against Scott Bradbury. He
>has, in reality and in law...
[...]
>WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?
>
> The court gas already sent Bradbury notice that a default judgment has been
>entered against him and that he has lost the case. That notice gas already
>been mailed in an envelop which I provided. This means that it has my
>return address and a stamp (celebrating Chanukah) on it. Bradbury has
>already sent the court's notice back to me with his usual insults scrawled
>on it.
According to the office of
Andrea Naugle -- Clerk Civil Court
Lehigh County Court House
610-782-3148
Any "notice" that would be sent to me would be from my attorney or them
NOT in any case from YOU!! Why would a court trust documents to a person
who was hostile toward the intended recipient? If Ford Motor Company had
achieved a judgment against General Motors do you think the court would
trust Ford Motor Company to send General Motors Company important papers?
I don't think so!
The clerk also 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!!
You file lawsuits in your own name, on your own behalf, and are on public
record as being the attorney of record and then you turn around and expect
the person you are suing to pay you attorney's fees for suing them!
How many other shysters are there who would stoop to this level of
extortion? Remember "saying" this shyster: "..amused at the spectacle of a
court ordering you to pay me to sue you"?
http://x34.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=608943019
Anyone can call the number above to verify what I said!
Just have them look up Edeiken Vs Bradbury 1999-C-2786
and ask them who is Yale's lawyer and ask them if they would
send court papers to me via Yale and see what answer you all get!!!!!
You have also beat the "Not attending your deposition" drum long enough
too! I gave you notice in public forum that my health would not let me
attend your "deposition" and then you lied to the court saying I agreed to
attend when I never did!
Here is the rule on depositions which you willfully disobeyed and
willfully filed a false statement to the court:
http://search.pacode.com/cgi-bin/wg2?WAISdocID=399747648+135+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
Rule 4011. Limitation of Scope of Discovery and Deposition.
No discovery or deposition shall be permitted which
(a) is sought in bad faith;
(b) would cause unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression,
burden or expense to the deponent or any person or party;
(c) is beyond the scope of discovery as set forth in Rules 4003.1
through 4003.6; or
(d) Rescinded.
(e) would require the making of an unreasonable investigation by the
deponent or any party or witness.
(f) Rescinded.
Explanatory Note
The amendments, as already pointed out, make two important changes in
present Rule 4011. They delete subdivision (d) limiting the discovery of
trial preparation material, and subdivision (f) forbidding any discovery
which would require a deponent, whether or not a party, to give an opinion
as an expert witness over his objection. These changes have already been
discussed under Rules 4003.3 to 4003.5, supra. Minor stylistic changes
have been made in subdivision (b). The provision protecting trade secrets
or other confidential research, development, or commercial information has
been transposed from subdivision (c) to Rule 4012(a)(9).
Source
The provisions of this Rule 4011 amended November 20, 1978, effective
April 16, 1979, 8 Pa.B. 3551; amended March 5, 1997, effective July 1,
1997, 27 Pa.B. 1443. Immediately preceding text appears at serial page
(209493).
***END***
Compare part (b) "would cause unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment,
oppression, burden or expense to the deponent or any person or party" to
what I said publicly and what Yale acknowledged in public and is in
DejaCom archives as saying:
http://x63.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=608277101
Here is Yale's first reply to my medical condition:
Xref: http://x39.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=567038486&fmt=text
Subject: Re: Delusional Yale F. Edeiken Spews His Dementia
Date: 12/31/1999
Author: Yale F. Edeiken <ya...@enter.net>
I, Doc Tavish, had stated:
>The document did not detail any of the complaints nor any date. Fair warning:
>With my complex medical problems and now not even being able to drive my
>own personal vehicle how do you expect any judge to order me to your state
>over what is plainly a frivolous lawsuit?
(Xref: http://x46.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=566703041&fmt=text)
(Yale F. Edeiken replies):
It is amazing that you have been able to determine this. Given your
threats of violence, no judge would, under any circumstance, fail to order
your appearance at a deposition. Whatever accomodations might be
otherwise made are now out the question.
You just dig yourself in deeper with every post.
~~~End of DejaCom Archive~~~
You think I made the above up to escape your deposition but the order
about my NOT driving was issued December 22, 1999 or eight whole days
before I had an official notice that you had even filed a lawsuit! If you
wish to verify this then contact:
Hermann Hospital
Medical Records
P.O. Box 200758
Houston, Texas 77216-0758
The discharge document which has an area on it which says:
"Resumption of Normal Activities" has entered:
Date you can return to work: HOLD
Date you can resume driving a car: HOLD
Date you can resume your normal sexual activities: 12/22/99
(At least they didn't want me to be miserable on top of not being able to
work or drive! :-) Tavish comment)
The release document is dated 12/22/99 and its number is:
50 04882 6 9356
~~~END~~~
For the record it is now September 5, 2000 and I am still not allowed to
drive except for very short hops such as groceries and prescriptions AND I
am not currently fit for any work due to my medical condition and not
being allowed to drive!
Compare part (a) "is sought in bad faith" to what Yale posted in public
forum about his "deposition" he had arranged for me! Is the following not
"bad faith"?
http://x33.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=559273259&fmt=text
"The next proceeding, if Defendant Tavish shows up, will be a
deposition that will be taken in the dead of winter in Allentown."
http://x25.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=559265740&fmt=text
"And you deserve to be sitting in a cold courtroom watching a jury
look at you you with loathing and disgust. February, Defendant Tavish.
I'll inform you of the exact date when it becomes impossible for you to
buy cheap airfare. And you are about to regret your illegal actions for
years to come."
http://x35.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=558789961&fmt=text
"One can only hope it includes a plastic shield for when the
jury starts spitting at you. And add soe warm clothing for
your deposition. It is quite cold up herein February."
Notice how the "bad faith" is evident in the above unprofessional and
unethical utterances of Yale F. Edeiken which also violate part (b)
which states: No discovery or deposition shall be permitted which
"would cause unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, burden or
expense to the deponent or any person or party;"...
I told you numerous times and the "public" may be my witness as well as
DejaCom archives that I was not fit to travel. Did you make this important
truth known to the court? NO! You kept giving them the impression that I
was being "arrogant" etc. and willfully in contempt.
You are dishonest, unethical, and most unscrupulous!
Yale F. Edeiken Attorney at Law -- Allentown, Pennsylvania,
Supreme Court ID# 40290 <http://www.enter.net/walker.html>
The facts are plain and simple you lied to the court!
Doc Tavish
BTW The conduct you displayed in public forum about how you would handle
your "deposition" also violates this "Disciplinary Rule":
http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/pa-code/query=*/doc/{@161}?
Pennsylvania Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct (1999 edition)
Rule 3.6 Trial Publicity
(a) A lawyer shall not make an extrajudicial statement that a reasonable
person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication if
the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that it will have a substantial
likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding.
(b) A statement referred to in paragraph (a) ordinarily is likely to have
such an effect when it refers to a civil matter triable to a jury, a
criminal matter, or any other proceeding that could result in
incarceration, and the statement relates to:
(1) the character, credibility, reputation or criminal record of a party,
suspect in a criminal investigation or witness, or the identity of a
witness, or the expected testimony of a party or witness;
(2) in a criminal case or proceeding that could result in incarceration,
the possibility of a plea of guilty to the offense or the existence or
contents of any confession, admission, or statement given by a defendant
or suspect or that person's refusal or failure to make a statement;
(3) the performance or results of any examination or test or the refusal
or failure of a person to submit to an examination or test, or the
identity or nature of physical evidence expected to be presented;
(4) any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of a defendant or suspect in
a criminal case or proceeding that could result in incarceration;
(5) information the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is likely to be
inadmissible as evidence in a trial and would if disclosed create a
substantial risk of prejudicing an impartial trial;..
<end>
I now ask-- who has violated the above Pennsylvania State Disciplinary
Rule by publicizing his "lawsuit"? Who has prejudiced others in public
communication using such words as Bradshit, Defendant, Criminal, Mentally
Diseased etc ad infinitum!? I have it all on file too!
Just so you don't forget how you've denied "Disciplinary Rules" exist I'll
remind you! No wonder you deny they exist-- you've violated numerous ones
too! Here's the reminder shyster of the other lies you've told:
http://x56.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=667124433
Subject: Re: NOTICE TO YALE EDEIKEN
Date: 09/08/2000
Author: Yale F. Edeiken <ya...@enter.net>
[...]
>YOU are still in violation of the disciplinary rules which
>you have denied exist and caught in a lie about their existence!
Faklse. No such document as yje "Discipplainary Rules"exists..
~~~End of DejaCom Archival Snippet #1 ~~~
http://x56.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=664616664
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 DejaCom Archival Snippet #2 ~~~
http://x56.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=663768955
Subject: Re: Attn Pat Blakely - Please Read and Send Reply if One is Made
by The Liar and Miscreant
Date: 08/29/2000
Author: Yale F. Edeiken <ya...@enter.net>
> 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 DejaCom Archival Snippet #3 ~~~
Who is lying? Is Yale F. Edeiken an attorney in Allentown, Pennsylvania,
Supreme Court ID# 40290 who is advertised in public domain with this link:
http://www.enter.net/walker.html 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 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 what GOOGLE.COM turns up using DISCIPLINARY RULES PENNSYLVANIA
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
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You're on your way to being removed from the legal profession! You are
going to be surprised at all the people who have taken an interest in your
unethical activities. BTW having hostile witnesses (who have displayed
such prejudicial activity in public forum) are not allowed in court either
as the disciplinary rules you deny exists mandate! I also have your public
statement posted to various news groups seeking such "hostile witnesses."
I love how you openly and wantonly display your unethical conduct for all
to see! You're an anathema to the legal profession Yale F. Edeiken!
Doc Tavish
Doc Tavish
>court ordering you to pay me to sue you"? In regard to the extortion demand
>Shyster Edeiken also remarked concerning his demand that I pay him to sue
>me with this: "Care to get that certified check in the mail, asshole?"
>So much for "professional ethics" of Yale F. Edeiken - Attorney
>Allentown, PA Supreme Court ID# 40290
>http://x34.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=608943019
>Click this public record link for verification of the extortion demand.
BTW the above scam is in violation of this disciplinary rule:
Comment - Rule 3.7
[1] Combining the roles of advocate and witness can prejudice the opposing
party and can involve a conflict of interest between the lawyer and
client.
[2] The opposing party has proper objection where the combination of roles
may prejudice that party's rights in the litigation.
Yale F. Edeiken is his own client as well as his own lawyer!
He did after all file a lawsuit in his own name, on his own behalf with
him being on public record as the attorney of record!
The case Edeiken Vs Bradbury 1999-C-2786 has Yale F. Edeiken listed as
the attorney!
Seeing how I am the opposing party-- I vehemently object to the painfully
obvious "conflict of interests between the lawyer and client" and it is
also painfully obvious "the combination of roles may prejudice [my]
rights in the litigation."
There is much judicial misconduct in the State of Pennsylvania!
The above rules quoted from the source shyster lawyer
Yale F. Edeiken Attorney at Law -- Allentown, Pennsylvania,
Supreme Court ID# 40290 <http://www.enter.net/walker.html>
deny exist! The quoting of rules is from The State of
Pennsylvania Disciplinary Rules.
LOOK!
[...]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Anyone can call the number above to verify what I said!
mod...@my-deja.com
doc_t...@NOSPAMscottsmail.com
wrote:
. . .
You really ought to be speaking to a lawyer rather than flooding
historical news groups with your court fights.
--
Modesty Acclermo Blaise
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Doc Tavish
<doc_t...@NOSPAMscottsmail.com> wrote:
>court ordering you to pay me to sue you"? In regard to the extortion demand
>Shyster Edeiken also remarked concerning his demand that I pay him to sue
>me with this: "Care to get that certified check in the mail, asshole?"
>So much for "professional ethics" of Yale F. Edeiken - Attorney
>Allentown, PA Supreme Court ID# 40290
>http://x34.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=608943019
>Click this public record link for verification of the extortion demand.
BTW the above scam is in violation of this disciplinary rule:
Comment - Rule 3.7
[1] Combining the roles of advocate and witness can prejudice the opposing
party and can involve a conflict of interest between the lawyer and
client.
[2] The opposing party has proper objection where the combination of roles
may prejudice that party's rights in the litigation.
Yale F. Edeiken is his own client as well as his own lawyer!
He did after all file a lawsuit in his own name, on his own behalf with
him being on public record as the attorney of record!
The case Edeiken Vs Bradbury 1999-C-2786 has Yale F. Edeiken listed as
the attorney for the plaintiff who is Yale F. Edeiken!!
Seeing how I am the opposing party-- I vehemently object to the painfully
obvious "conflict of interests between the lawyer and client" and it is
also painfully obvious "the combination of roles may prejudice [my]
rights in the litigation."
For the record September 18, 2000 8:25am csdst I called the same office of
Andrea Naugle (as shown above) and asked who the attorney on record was
for the plaintiff in Edeiken Vs Michael 1999-C-3048 and she said
Yale F. Edeiken!
Two lawsuits filed by Yale F. Edeiken, on his own behalf, in his name with
him as the attorney of record for the plaintiff! What is that old saying
about a "person representing them self has a fool for a client"? Well Yale
is a fool for a client and a fool for a lawyer too!
ATTENTION Pat Blakely and Don Ellis-- if this god damned scab s.o.b. has a
lawsuit against you please e-mail me immediately the case number! I now
have two conflicts of interests and I would like to have more! This will
be presented to some people who specialize in judicial misconduct and
unethical practices. Edeiken has a definite pattern of legal system abuse!
E-mail me at <doc_t...@my-deja.com>. I want to run the bastard's nuts
threw the wringer many times over!
There is much judicial misconduct in the State of Pennsylvania!
The above rules quoted from the source shyster lawyer
Yale F. Edeiken Attorney at Law -- Allentown, Pennsylvania,
Supreme Court ID# 40290 <http://www.enter.net/walker.html>
deny exist! The quoting of rules is from The State of
Pennsylvania Disciplinary Rules.
LOOK!
http://x56.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=667124433
[...]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Anyone can call the number above to verify what I said!
mod...@my-deja.com
doc_t...@NOSPAMscottsmail.com
wrote:
Why are you speaking to yourself?
Doc Tavish
<doc_t...@NOSPAMscottsmail.com> wrote:
the person you are suing to pay you attorney's fees for you suing them!
How many other shysters are there who would stoop to this level of
extortion? Remember "saying" this shyster: "..amused at the spectacle of a
court ordering you to pay me to sue you"? In regard to the extortion
demand Shyster Edeiken also remarked concerning his demand that I pay him
to sue me with this: "Care to get that certified check in the mail,
asshole?" In the same post I am also threatened with arrest if I do NOT
pay the extortion demands with such lines as: "Send that certified check
yet? Or do you want to say "bench warrant" instead?"
So much for "professional ethics" of Yale F. Edeiken - Attorney
Allentown, PA Supreme Court ID# 40290
Click this public record link for verification of the extortion demands.
http://x34.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=608943019
Yale F. Edeiken Attorney at Law -- Allentown, Pennsylvania,
Supreme Court ID# 40290 <http://www.enter.net/walker.html>
deny exist! The quoting of rules is from The State of
Pennsylvania Disciplinary Rules.
LOOK!
http://x56.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=667124433
[...]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Anyone can call the number above to verify what I said!
mod...@my-deja.com
doc_t...@NOSPAMscottsmail.com
wrote:
Still talking to yourself? Do you have anything to offer that applies
to the topic of this news group?
Doc Tavish
<doc_t...@NOSPAMscottsmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>[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
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 do declare! Tubby Edeiken will soon be tried and most certainly
convicted for making an obscene threatening telephone call to my residence
while in the capacity of being the attorney of record for the plaintiff
(himself).
I would say this would go a long way in having him disbarred on top of his
violation of the disciplinary rules, which he agreed to, to not attempt to
make any direct contact with me!
Here is the legal and binding written agreement:
From: Yale F. Edeiken <ya...@enter.net>
Message ID: <001501bfc9d5$2ddae340$d99c10cf!oemcomputer>
To: Dxxx...@aol.com
References: <e8.501626...@aol.com
Subject: Re: Edeiken v. Bradbury
Date: Mon, May 29 2000 21:20:00 -0400
[...]
> Finally as you know the disciplinary rules prohibit you from having
> any direct contact with my client as long as he has an attorney.
> Please refrain from having any contact with Mr. Bradberry.
If this confirms your representation I certainly will.
If so I expect to hear an explanation of why you advised
a client to defy a court order. As you well know that constitutes
a flagrant violation of the disciplinary rules, Furter, should you
actually be representing this creature, I expect a check for the
sanctions already imposed to be forwarded to me immediately.
-- Yale F. Edeiken
<End of EXACT copy of a small portion of the e-mail>
Here is another outright violation of the same disciplinary rules:
According to the office of
Andrea Naugle -- Clerk Civil Court
Lehigh County Court House
610-782-3148
(Addressed to Yale F. Edeiken):
The clerk exposed you in a lie that you have been telling! You say
It is gfoing to be a pleasure to have that shyster disbarred!
Doc Tavish
steve wolk
No, it's going to be a pleasure to watch the officers of the court,
especially the judge, laugh themselves sick at your stupidity before
they pronounce damages that will make you even more indigent than you
already are. I daresay that I will have a hard time controlling my
laughter while on the witness stand.
Steve
Yale F. Edeiken
Doc Tavish <doc_t...@NOSPAMscottsmail.com> wrote in message
Actaully the key phrase is that "events surrounding the criminal Charge
must be taken into account."
That means that any Board would hear about your thre year campaign of
criminal harassment, forgery, and defamtion (all of which has been admitted
by you). They will also hear about your criminal harassment of my family.
> I do declare! Tubby Edeiken will soon be tried and most certainly
> convicted for making an obscene threatening telephone call to my residence
> while in the capacity of being the attorney of record for the plaintiff
> (himself).
>
Another lie from Defendant Bradshit. The call was made ny an offended
family member of being criminally harassed by a neo-Nazi and his
accomplices.
> I would say this would go a long way in having him disbarred on top of his
> violation of the disciplinary rules, which he agreed to, to not attempt to
> make any direct contact with me!
>
Another lie.
> Here is the legal and binding written agreement:
> From: Yale F. Edeiken <ya...@enter.net>
> Message ID: <001501bfc9d5$2ddae340$d99c10cf!oemcomputer>
> To: dayli...@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.
Ro which Daylin Leach responded in the negativge. He denied
representing you and never filed an entry of appearance.
You have been caught lying again.
\> Here is another outright violation of the same disciplinary rules:
>
> According to the office of
> Andrea Naugle -- Clerk Civil Court
> Lehigh County Court House
> 610-782-3148
>
> (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.
> You file lawsuits in your own name, on your own behalf, and are on public
> record as being the attorney of record and then you turn around and expect
> the person you are suing to pay you attorney's fees for you suing them!
And it was ordered by the court that you do so. You seem to miss that
point.
> How many other shysters are there who would stoop to this level of
> extortion? Remember "saying" this shyster: "..amused at the spectacle of a
> court ordering you to pay me to sue you"?
Which they did.
In regard to the extortion
> demand Shyster Edeiken also remarked concerning his demand that I pay him
> to sue me with this: "Care to get that certified check in the mail,
> asshole?"
As was ordered by a court. You still haven't paid, by the way, and a
contempt order against you is on the judge;s desk.
In the same post I am also threatened with arrest if I do NOT
> pay the extortion demands with such lines as: "Send that certified check
> yet? Or do you want to say "bench warrant" instead?"
That's what eventually happens when, as you have, you disobey a court's
order.
> It is gfoing to be a pleasure to have that shyster disbarred!
An even grater pleasure is to see your face when a judge laughs at you.
The remainder of this delusional and dishonest post from the diseased mind
of Scott Bradbury (doc_t...@my-deja.com) writing under the name of "Doc
Tavish" is deleted as the garbage that it is.
Scott Bradbury of Bellville, Texas, is well-know for his tortured
perversion of Christianity which he espouses and for spamming his barely
coherent ravings to dozens of unrelated newsgroups. He is a notorious liar
and anti-Semite whose activities are characterized by utter dishonesty and
include such criminal activities as forging the posts of others and issuing
death threats. He has threatened one person who exposed his lies with
sexual molestation, torture, death and mutilation. There is, of course, not
a word of truth in the venom he spews so freely.
For a refutation of this and his other lies about the Talmud and Judaism
consult:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Cyprus/8815/
--YFE
The Holocaust History Project is at http://www.holocaust-history.org/
The Einsatzgruppen page is at http://www.pgonline.com/electriczen/
The Cybrary of the Holocaust is at http://www.remember.org/
Yale F. Edeiken
Doc Tavish <doc_t...@NOSPAMscottsmail.com> wrote in message
Which exactly what was stated you illiterate asshole. If you really
had an attorney working for you he wold have informed you of R.C.P. 236
which requires the moving party to supply a stamped envelop to the court
clerk.
> NOT in any case from YOU!! Why would a court trust documents to a person
> who was hostile toward the intended recipient? If Ford Motor Company had
> achieved a judgment against General Motors do you think the court would
> trust Ford Motor Company to send General Motors Company important papers?
> I don't think so!
Then you think wrong. It is rather standard practice in motion court
where the judge signs the Order from the bench. Any attonrey you had really
hired would have told you that.
Scott Bradbury of Bellville, Texas, is well-know for his tortured
perversion of Christianity which he espouses and for spamming his barely
coherent ravings to dozens of unrelated newsgroups. He is a notorious liar
and anti-Semite whose activities are characterized by utter dishonesty and
include such criminal activities as forging the posts of others and issuing
death threats. He has threatened one person who exposed his lies with
sexual molestation, torture, death and mutilation. There is, of course, not
a word of truth in the venom he spews so freely.
For a refutation of this and his other lies about the Talmud and Judaism
consult:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Cyprus/8815/
For a humorous take on the ravings of this madman see:
http://internettrash.com/users/satireworld/tartindex.html#hooligan
Yale F. Edeiken
Doc Tavish <doc_t...@NOSPAMscottsmail.com> wrote in message
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 09:17:49 GMT, Doc Tavish
> <doc_t...@NOSPAMscottsmail.com> wrote:
>
> >From: "Yale F. Edeiken" <ya...@enter.net>
> >Subject: Tje Case Against Bradbury
> >Message-ID: <%vDt5.5816$V67.2...@newshog.newsread.com>
> >Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 02:59:07 GMT
> >
> >On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 02:59:07 GMT, "Yale F. Edeiken" <ya...@enter.net>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> On August 25, 2000, I filed a default judgment against Scott Bradbury.
He
> >>has, in reality and in law...
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >>WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?
> >>
> >> The court gas already sent Bradbury notice that a default judgment has
been
> >>entered against him and that he has lost the case. That notice gas
already
> >>been mailed in an envelop which I provided. This means that it has my
> >>return address and a stamp (celebrating Chanukah) on it. Bradbury has
> >>already sent the court's notice back to me with his usual insults
scrawled
> >>on it.
>
>
> you have an attorney BUT she says that you are the only attorney!!
Incorrect. As you know, the President Judge was notified that the name
of the attorney who would represent me at trial would not be revealed to you
prior to that action because of your past pattern of criminal harassment
which has included an independent law firm and the judge assigned to the
case.