Regarding two attorneys from Allentown, Pennsylvania; one is now a
respected state representative who has been re-elected to office and
who gave up being an attorney at his own law firm and the other
is a laughing stock who hides in shame after word has gotten around
about his unethical conduct and legal system abuse.

Regarding two attorneys from Allentown, Pennsylvania; one is now a respected state representative
who has been re-elected to office and who gave up being an attorney at his own law firm and the other
is a laughing stock who hides in shame after word has gotten around about his unethical conduct and
legal system abuse.
Daylin Leach has never been charged with unethical conduct.
Daylin Leach has never been convicted of felonious assault.
Daylin Leach has never been disciplined by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Daylin Leach is a successful and re-elected state representative of Pennsylvania.
Daylin Leach gave up his successful law firm listed with the Lehigh County Bar Assn
as being in good standing with a fine reputation to run for state representative which he
won despite a smear campaign made against him by Edeiken's Frumpies.
Yale F. Edeiken is none of the above.
Yale F. Edeiken is a big fat laughing stock of the Lehigh County legal community.
Yale F. Edeiken has been charged with unethical conduct and reprimanded numerous times.
Yale F. Edeiken has been convicted of assaulting a female deputy sheriff.
Yale F. Edeiken has been disciplined numerous times by the disciplinary board.
Yale F. Edeiken is not successful and had to sell his house and he now lives in an apartment.
Yale F. Edeiken had to file for bankruptcy in 1997 and what sort of any kind of a successful attorney
goes bankrupt?
Yale F. Edeiken has never had his own law firm period.
Yale F. Edeiken could of made something of his life but his mental illness kept him from any
chance of success.
Yale F. Edeiken is a big fat loser who now hides in shame since his ass was kicked and also
because he lacked intestinal fortitude to file his brief for his appeal against Tavish's
victory. Was Yale afraid to have all of the fabrication of evidence exposed which he swore to
in a civil court?
Yale F. Edeiken is documented as showing contempt and disrespect for the highest court in his state
and is it no wonder he has been black balled by the local legal community because of such maniacal
conduct. Yale F. Edeiken has given local county judges the same respect he gave the judges of the
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. The following documents Yale _Fatboy_ Edeiken's disrespect for the
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, : No. 403, Disciplinary Docket No.3
Petitioner :
: No. 122DB1995
v. :
:
Attorney Registration No. 40290 :
Yale F. Edeiken Esq., :
885 COLD SPRING ROAD; APARTMENT 2 :
ALLENTOWN, PA 18103 :
610-435-9820 :
Respondent : Lehigh County
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF
THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
TO THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND JUSTICES
OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA:
Pursuant to Rule 208( d)(2)(iii) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement, The Disciplinary Board of
the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ("Board") herewith submits its findings and recommendations to your Honorable Court with
respect to the above-captioned Petition for Discipline.
I. HISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS
A Petition for Discipline was filed on May 24, 1996 against Respondent, Yale F. Edeiken, Esquire.
The Petition alleged that Respondent failed to appear for a Private Reprimand scheduled for December 7, 1995. The Petition
charged Respondent with violation ofPa.R.D.E. 203(b)(2), as well as Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4(d), 1.1 , 1.3, 1.15(b),
and 1.16(d).
A hearing was held on January 9, 1997, before Hearing Committee [ ] comprised of Chair [ ], Esquire, and Member [ ],
Esquire. Respondent was represented at the hearing by [ ], Esquire. Petitioner was represented by [ ], Esquire. The
Committee filed a Report on September 22, 1997 and recommended a public censure. No exceptions were filed by the parties.
This matter was adjudicated by the Disciplinary Board at the meeting held on November 14, 1997.
II. FINDINGS OF FACT

The Board makes the following findings of fact:
1. Petitioner, whose principal office is now located at Suite 3710, One Oxford Centre, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, is
invested, pursuant to Rule 207 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement (hereafter Pa.R.D.E.), with the power
and the duty to investigate all matters involving alleged misconduct of an attorney admitted to practice law in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and to prosecute all disciplinary proceedings brought in accordance with the various provisions
of the aforesaid Rules.
2. Respondent was admitted to practice law in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania on March 29, 1984.
3. In accordance with Rule 208(a)(5), Pa.R.D.E., it was determined that Respondent should receive a Private Reprimand
with condition as a result of misconduct arising from his representation of [A] by his grandmother and legal guardian, [B].
4. By notice dated August 28, 1995, the Secretary of the Disciplinary Board notified Respondent that a three member
panel of the Board had determined that Respondent should receive a Private Reprimand with condition.
5. The Notice of August 28, 1995, also informed Respondent that he had the option of attending the Private Reprimand
or notifying the Secretary, in writing, within twenty days of the date of the Notice, that Respondent wished the matter
to be referred for institution of formal proceedings.
6. The Notice included a copy of the Board's Order directing the Private Reprimand with the following condition:
At least ten days prior to the scheduled private reprimand, Respondent shall submit proof that he has:
1. Delivered to [B] each and every document relating to his representation of [B] or her grandson.
2. Provided to [B] the name of his professional malpractice carrier and policy number, if any.
3. Costs, if any, are to be paid by Respondent.
7. Respondent did not demand that formal proceedings be instituted against him.
8. As a result of Respondent's failure to demand formal proceedings, Respondent is deemed to have conclusively
violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 1.3, 1.15(b), and 1. 16(d), as set forth in the Notice of August 28, 1995.
9. By Notice dated Novembe

In one age, called the Second Age by some,
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Thrasher Remailer wrote
in message <ODMJ0LIR38491.4610532407@reece.net.au>:

Even if your fantasy above were correct, it remains that the Findings
of Fact are still in full force and effect,

BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, : No. 403, Disciplinary Docket No.3
Petitioner :
: No. 122DB1995
v. :
:
Attorney Registration No. 40290 :
Yale F. Edeiken Esq., :
885 COLD SPRING ROAD; APARTMENT 2 :
ALLENTOWN, PA 18103 :
610-435-9820 :
Respondent : Lehigh County
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF
THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
TO THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND JUSTICES
OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA:
Pursuant to Rule 208( d)(2)(iii) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement, The Disciplinary Board of
the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ("Board") herewith submits its findings and recommendations to your Honorable Court with
respect to the above-captioned Petition for Discipline.
I. HISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS
A Petition for Discipline was filed on May 24, 1996 against Respondent, Yale F. Edeiken, Esquire.
The Petition alleged that Respondent failed to appear for a Private Reprimand scheduled for December 7, 1995. The Petition
charged Respondent with violation ofPa.R.D.E. 203(b)(2), as well as Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4(d), 1.1 , 1.3, 1.15(b),
and 1.16(d).
A hearing was held on January 9, 1997, before Hearing Committee [ ] comprised of Chair [ ], Esquire, and Member [ ],
Esquire. Respondent was represented at the hearing by [ ], Esquire. Petitioner was represented by [ ], Esquire. The
Committee filed a Report on September 22, 1997 and recommended a public censure. No exceptions were filed by the parties.
This matter was adjudicated by the Disciplinary Board at the meeting held on November 14, 1997.
II. FINDINGS OF FACT

The Board makes the following findings of fact:
1. Petitioner, whose principal office is now located at Suite 3710, One Oxford Centre, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, is
invested, pursuant to Rule 207 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement (hereafter Pa.R.D.E.), with the power
and the duty to investigate all matters involving alleged misconduct of an attorney admitted to practice law in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and to prosecute all disciplinary proceedings brought in accordance with the various provisions
of the aforesaid Rules.
2. Respondent was admitted to practice law in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania on March 29, 1984.
3. In accordance with Rule 208(a)(5), Pa.R.D.E., it was determined that Respondent should receive a Private Reprimand
with condition as a result of misconduct arising from his representation of [A] by his grandmother and legal guardian, [B].
4. By notice dated August 28, 1995, the Secretary of the Disciplinary Board notified Respondent that a three member
panel of the Board had determined that Respondent should receive a Private Reprimand with condition.
5. The Notice of August 28, 1995, also informed Respondent that he had the option of attending the Private Reprimand
or notifying the Secretary, in writing, within twenty days of the date of the Notice, that Respondent wished the matter
to be referred for institution of formal proceedings.
6. The Notice included a copy of the Board's Order directing the Private Reprimand with the following condition:
At least ten days prior to the scheduled private reprimand, Respondent shall submit proof that he has:
1. Delivered to [B] each and every document relating to his representation of [B] or her grandson.
2. Provided to [B] the name of his professional malpractice carrier and policy number, if any.
3. Costs, if any, are to be paid by Respondent.
7. Respondent did not demand that formal proceedings be instituted against him.
8. As a result of Respondent's failure to demand formal proceedings, Respondent is deemed to have conclusively
violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 1.3, 1.15(b), and 1. 16(d), as set forth in the Notice of August 28, 1995.
9. By Notice dated November 3, 1995, Respondent was directed to appear before the Board on December 7, 1995 to receive
a Private Reprimand.
10. Respondent received the Board's Notice, which was sent by regular and certified mail, return receipt requested,
to Respondent's office address.
11. Respondent knew he was to appear on December 7, 1995 to receive a Private Reprimand.
12. Respondent failed to appear and failed to provide proof of his compliance with the condition.
13. By letter of December 11, 1995, Respondent was directed by James J. Powell, then Board Chair, to provide good
cause for his failure to appear and noncompliance with the condition.
14. Respondent received the letter, which was sent regular and certified mail, return receipt requested, to
Respondent's address.
15. Respondent was to reply to Board Chair Powell's letter on or before December 29, 1995.
16. As of the date of the filing of the Petition for Discipline in this matter, Respondent has not replied to the
December 11, 1995 letter.
17. At the disciplinary hearing, Respondent made a statement of remorse for his actions and testified that he did not
show the respect that was owed to the profession. (N.T. 11)
18. Respondent received an Informal Admonition in 1995 and a Private Reprimand in 1993.
III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
By his actions as set forth above, Respondent violated the following Rule of Disciplinary Enforcement and Rules of
Professional Conduct:

1. Pa.R.D.E.

On Thu, 19 May 2005 03:07:08 GMT, <ci0o819h3pia47d63hvbb74nao10mv9js8@4ax.com>
Roger <roger@.> wrote:

How about these findings of fact and by the highest court in Penn State!

Roger please accept Yale Edeiken made this deceitful claim in the past on
January 2, 2000 with Message-ID: <38700e8b@news3.enter.net> "I have never been
charged with any unethical activity relating to the practice of law..."
The following is proof of Edeiken being a pathological liar. Not only was Yale
charged with "unethical activity relating to the practice of law" but he was
found guilty three times and disciplined three times by the highest court in his
state.

I also see Yale as being convicted for the criminal act of shoving a female
deputy sheriff around as well.

In one age, called the Second Age by some,
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Steve Talbot wrote
in message <4292adb9.15487295@news20.forteinc.com>:
In one age, called the Second Age by some,
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Thrasher Remailer wrote
in message <ODMJ0LIR38491.4610532407@reece.net.au>:
Regarding two attorneys from Allentown, Pennsylvania; one is now a
respected state representative who has been re-elected to office and
who gave up being an attorney at his own law firm and the other
is a laughing stock who hides in shame after word has gotten around
about his unethical conduct and legal system abuse.
Even if your fantasy above were correct, it remains that the Findings
of Fact are still in full force and effect,
You mean the one that does not address an activity related to the
practice of law?

No, he appeared before the Disciplinary Board, not the Court.

BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, : No. 403, Disciplinary Docket No.3
Petitioner :
: No. 122DB1995
v. :
:
Attorney Registration No. 40290 :
Yale F. Edeiken Esq., :
885 COLD SPRING ROAD; APARTMENT 2 :
ALLENTOWN, PA 18103 :
610-435-9820 :
Respondent : Lehigh County
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF
THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
TO THE HONORABLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND JUSTICES
OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA:

Pursuant to Rule 208( d)(2)(iii) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement, The Disciplinary Board of
the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ("Board") herewith submits its findings and recommendations to your Honorable Court with
respect to the above-captioned Petition for Discipline.
I. HISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS
A Petition for Discipline was filed on May 24, 1996 against Respondent, Yale F. Edeiken, Esquire.
The Petition alleged that Respondent failed to appear for a Private Reprimand scheduled for December 7, 1995. The Petition
charged Respondent with violation ofPa.R.D.E. 203(b)(2), as well as Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4(d), 1.1 , 1.3, 1.15(b),
and 1.16(d).
A hearing was held on January 9, 1997, before Hearing Committee [ ] comprised of Chair [ ], Esquire, and Member [ ],
Esquire. Respondent was represented at the hearing by [ ], Esquire. Petitioner was represented by [ ], Esquire. The
Committee filed a Report on September 22, 1997 and recommended a public censure. No exceptions were filed by the parties.
This matter was adjudicated by the Disciplinary Board at the meeting held on November 14, 1997.
II. FINDINGS OF FACT

The Board makes the following findings of fact:
1. Petitioner, whose principal office is now located at Suite 3710, One Oxford Centre, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, is
invested, pursuant to Rule 207 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement (hereafter Pa.R.D.E.), with the power
and the duty to investigate all matters involving alleged misconduct of an attorney admitted to practice law in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and to prosecute all disciplinary proceedings brought in accordance with the various provisions
of the aforesaid Rules.
2. Respondent was admitted to practice law in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania on March 29, 1984.
3. In accordance with Rule 208(a)(5), Pa.R.D.E., it was determined that Respondent should receive a Private Reprimand
with condition as a result of misconduct arising from his representation of [A] by his grandmother and legal guardian, [B].
4. By notice dated August 28, 1995, the Secretary of the Disciplinary Board notified Respondent that a three member
panel of the Board had determined that Respondent should receive a Private Reprimand with condition.
5. The Notice of August 28, 1995, also informed Respondent that he had the option of attending the Private Reprimand
or notifying the Secretary, in writing, within twenty days of the date of the Notice, that Respondent wished the matter
to be referred for institution of formal proceedings.
6. The Notice included a copy of the Board's Order directing the Private Reprimand with the following condition:
At least ten days prior to the scheduled private reprimand, Respondent shall submit proof that he has:
1. Delivered to [B] each and every document relating to his representation of [B] or her grandson.
2. Provided to [B] the name of his professional malpractice carrier and policy number, if any.
3. Costs, if any, are to be paid by Respondent.
7. Respondent did not demand that formal proceedings be instituted against him.
8. As a result of Respondent's failure to demand formal proceedings, Respondent is deemed to have conclusively
violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 1.3, 1.15(b), and 1. 16(d), as set forth in the Notice of August 28, 1995.
9. By Notice dated November 3, 1995, Respondent was directed to appear before the Board on December 7, 1995 to receive
a Private Reprimand.
10. Respondent received the Board's Notice, which was sent by regular and certified mail, return receipt requested,
to Respondent's office address.
11. Respondent knew he was to appear on December 7, 1995 to receive a Private Reprimand.
12. Respondent failed to appear and failed to provide proof

On Tue, 24 May 2005 05:05:21 GMT, <7bd5919v4ps2eobe83f7baqo7kredmkpce@4ax.com>
Roger <roger@.> wrote:

Is that so? They are the ones who disbar unethical attorneys and they are the
ones estblishing and enforcing the disciplinary rules of professional conduct..

He appeared before the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Why are you being so deceitful and why do you dodge facts?

May I repeat;

Care to retract your denial and misinformed claim of "he appeared before the
Disciplinary Board, not the Court" now Roger?

Care to retract your denial and misinformed claim of "he appeared before the
Disciplinary Board, not the Court" now Roger?

If the Disciplinary Board isn't a
court then why are those who are officiating refered to as _Chief Justice_ and
_Justices_ why are they referred to as the _Honorable Court_?

This _FINDINGS OF FACT_ will always be in public records and it is no fantasy.

Look at who is lying. You and your fellows can't accept the fact Yale is not an
ethical person in any sense of the term. Yale also is exposed as being a liar by
the above documentation when he brazenly gloated "I have never been charged with
any unethical activity relating to the practice of law..." January 2, 2000
Message-ID: <38700e8b@news3.enter.net>

Another lie!

I am not _blubberbury_.

I know that the frivolous lawsuit Edeiken filed against
Tavish was thrown out along with all of its claims for damages

Claims were made by Edeiken supporters the lawsuit was solely dismissed because
of jurisdiction

Try dealing in facts Roger for once rather than dodging and hurling insults.

In one age, called the Second Age by some,
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Steve Talbot wrote
in message <42937cab.7253785@news20.forteinc.com>:
Thrasher Remailer <thrasher@reece.net.au> writes:
Regarding two attorneys from Allentown, Pennsylvania;
the findings of fact against you are still part of the public record,
You misspelled "because zie sent them back unopened and marked "Return
to Stalker," then had the stupidity to *boast* about having done so
right here in this forum.

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.revisionism/msg/1e46b4feb2fbe6fe?hl=en

Really? Since they were returned unopened, how can you say this,

blubberbury?

But not because of this claim, as the *actual* judgment clearly shows.

On Tue, 24 May 2005 19:54:15 GMT, <oc1791hm2mmon0unstcnl83rg3gnff04bb@4ax.com>
Roger <roger@.> wrote:

Why do you keep lying against Doc Tavish?

I saw _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"_ which is
no proof Tavish returned official court documents sent by the county clerk. Once
again show just one post wyhich you haven't.

If Yale's complaints were actually returned unopened with _Return to Stalker_ on
them then why didn't Yale just simply submit the proof which would have had
Daylin Leach and Tavish with egg all over their faces which would have resulted
in the Judge denying the Plea for Relief From Judgment would it not seeing how
Attorney Leach submitted to the court in part _COMES NOW, the defendant, Scott
Bradbury, by and through his counsel Daylin B. Leach, Esquire, to petition this
honorable court for Relief from Judgment... 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. The court
has heard telephone messages left on the defendant's answering machine, in which
the plaintiff admits dedicating himself to making the defendant's life a "living
hell." He refers to the defendant as a "miserable piece of #@($" among other
charming epithets... 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."_.

What part about the above is it that you can't comprehend Roger?

Why can't you
admit Yale is an unethical lying shyster who brings shame to the legal
profession?
Why didn't Edeiken serve his complaints on Tavish's attorney which he was
required by ethics and the rules of professional conduct to do?

Also Yale denied being his own attorney so what business does the plaintiff have
sending a defendant a continual stream of harassing USPS mailings?

Anything
shyster Edeiken had been sending Tavish couldn't have been official court
mailings seeing how Edeiken at the time claimed he wasn't his own attorney which
was later as exposed as being another lie he was caught in.

Name calling is not answering facts.

You are dodging again Roger and please try to deal in facts for a change

and
please explain how what a hostile plaintiff would be sending a defendant via
USPS ever be official court documents seeing how it is the duty of the
plaintiff's attorney to present such to the defendant's attorney and please also
explain why if what you claim is true then why didn't Yale present the unopened
complaints to the judge showing that Tavish had received them and returned them
unopened.

Please Roger do explain those two idiosyncrasies for all of us.

They can't get over the fact that Edeiken is a shyster and did things
a officer of the court are forbidden to do. It's all in the legal
records for everyone to see.
Some win, some lose. Life goes on.
However, some losers can never face it. Sad, really.

Of course, the fact that this keeps being brought up by the morbidly
obese Shame of Belleville when Yale has not posted here in *years*
shows how the losers cannot face facts.

In one age, called the Second Age by some,
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Mr Revision wrote
in message <n14791pbsnama7p2i0nuc9sdo8v4te5gtq@4ax.com>:

Of course, the fact that this keeps being brought up by the morbidly
obese Shame of Belleville when Yale has not posted here in *years*
shows how the losers cannot face facts.

Steve_Talbot@yahoo.com (Steve Talbot) writes:
Thrasher Remailer <thrasher@reece.net.au> writes:
Regarding two attorneys from Allentown, Pennsylvania;
the findings of fact against you are still part of the public record,
You saw them, and then bragged about returning mail from the court unopened,
with "Return to Stalker" scribbled. See the URL below.

It's shorter than The Black Hole of Bellville.
Get over yourself, already. (Quit bragging about sending court
papers back unopened after scribbling "Return to Stalker" on them, too.)
Try this:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.revisionism/msg/1e46b4feb2fbe6fe?hl=en
August 19, 2000.

Funny how the Lehigh County Court didn't see it as you dream of.

...on a jurisdictional issue - without prejudice,

which means the findings of fact against you are still in the court record,

and will remain so long after your rotting two-ton carcass is gone.
That's a 99.8 on the irony meter, Bloatbury.
No more than it's true that you're honest or have a backbone...

--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (soon to be TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Chicago 5, Houston 3 (April 26)
NEXT GAME: Date/opponent/site TBA in August 2005

On Tue, 24 May 2005 22:22:01 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
Some win, some lose. Life goes on.
However, some losers can never face it. Sad, really.

As long as you keep bringing up the holocaust, we shall fondly
remember the fallen and disgraced Yale F. Edeiken.
Do you remember the psychotic rant and threats left on Doc's
answering machine?

Edeiken cooked his own goose and now he stews in his own juices.
He's a shyster and is paying for his indiscretions. Never forget.
I wish someone would post it again, but not in 'Real' format.

--
Debaters should avoid ad hominem
arguments that question their opponents' motives.

On Tue, 24 May 2005 22:22:01 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:

As long as you keep bringing up the holocaust, we shall fondly
remember the fallen and disgraced Yale F. Edeiken.

On Tue, 24 May 2005 19:37:12 -0400, <g2d7911qcvc20h9rrl73a4o1r0et77b9p0@4ax.com>
Mr Revision <revisionator@hotmail.com> wrote:

The morbidly obese smear is yet another lie Edeiken started and has had
propagated against Doc Tavish.

Edeiken stopped posting when the reality of his criminal behavior caught up with
him. He dropped his appeal on the basis of jurisdiction when Tavish's attorney
advised him Tavish didn't desire to fight the appeal and that Tavish preferred
to have the lawsuit retried either in Yale's jurisdiction or Tavish's. Tavish
had since the dismissal got a copy of the perjured complaints from usenet after
Sara Salzman posted them in attempt to defame Tavish.

I remember Tavish posting the truth to Sara Salzman who also ignored the cold
hard fact that Edeiken criminally perjured himself with his numerous
fabrications and forgeries. Tavish had already supplied attorney Leach with
numerous examples of fabricated evidence which attorney Leach was going to
demand an accounting for in a retrial.

On Tue, 24 May 2005 22:22:01 GMT, <06a791pa4goblut301sug4hh2jnsc1edqk@4ax.com>
Roger <roger@.> wrote:

Yale went into hiding at the same time Tavish's attorney advised him that he
wasn't going to fight Yale's appeal and that Tavish wanted the lawsuit to start
from the beginning. Yale is the loser.

In one age, called the Second Age by some,
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Steve Talbot wrote
in message <4293dde9.32151548@news20.forteinc.com>:
On Tue, 24 May 2005 22:22:01 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
Some win, some lose. Life goes on.
However, some losers can never face it. Sad, really.
Of course, the fact that this keeps being brought up by the morbidly
obese
Of course, it's not a smear seeing as it is true...

... ignoring the fact that it cannot be "perjury" as it has already
been accepted as *fact* by the court...

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.revisionism/msg/1e46b4feb2fbe6fe?hl=en

Really? Since they were returned unopened, how can you say this,