|
|
| |
| |
n Tue, 5 Oct 2004 16:39:45 -0400,
<zED8d.10968$HO1.568920@news20.bellglobal.com> "Test User" <test@dev.null>
wrote:
<YuB8d.9469$HO1.544477@news20.bellglobal.com>
<snip tilt >
After all, I've seen a post claiming to be by Mr. Bradbury, boasting
about having sex with underage girls.
Sorry, but it's not a lie.
I did not mean that you were lying. I meant the post is a lie and that I did not
post it.
I *have* seen such a post, and its poster claimed to be you.
I have no doubt seeing how many such forgeries were made to smear me which
proves my enemies can't deal with me with facts or logic.
In fact, just for fact-checking, I'm looking at it in another window as I write.
I did *not* say that I believed it *was* from you. Do you understand this,
or is this a concept beyond your comprehension?
It most certainly did, and still does. It's at least six years old.
Says the guy who's just gone off on a smear campaign, because I pointed out
that you can't believe everything you read on usenet...
What smear campaign?
Just because it's on usenet does not make it true.
Even though, as far as I can tell, Mr. Bradbury has never said that that
post was a forgery....
I never saw the post!
And you think that's an excuse? You've had over six years to find it, and
it's been referred to before.
I don't dance to all trollings and if I took time to chase every thing as such I
would not have time to post the posts your masters love to see.
Just like I never said Yale F. Edeiken's lies were perjury
in court seeing how he never would serve his complaints thus giving me the
chance!
If you never had a chance to answer his complaints, why did you have a
lawyer in that court?
Because I was sued and because it is a normal course of action to get an
attorney-- an attorney who had Edeiken's kook lawsuit dismissed against me which
he did!
As a reminder and read it carefully so you know how filth like Yale fights:
http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=9i9740t3teigg6ghb7jbr1rpcs1m8p3fuh@4ax.com&lr=&hl=en
Subject: Critical Updates- 1999-C-2786 How I Was Not Given My Legal Right to
Refute the Defamatory and Perjurious Accusations Made Against Me V1.1 S_0228
Message-ID: <9i9740t3teigg6ghb7jbr1rpcs1m8p3fuh@4ax.com>
Date: 1 Mar 2004 21:52:11 GMT EXCERPT BELOW:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 09:27:55 -0800, <c1qj2n02ehj@enews1.newsguy.com> "Ken McVay,
OBC" <spamfreek@nizkor.org> wrote:
The following was accepted as factual by a Pennsylvania Court:
ONLY because I was not given my legal right of due process to get a copy of the
complaints to refute in the first place!
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:
For Yale F. Edeiken to have legally (and properly) served his complaints on me
he would have had to have sent them to the Sheriff's Department in my local
jurisdiction and then a Deputy would have sought me out and presented such
complaints in person and he would have required my signature! THAT IS FACT!
Docket printout to 1999-C-2786
"July 14, 2000 PLTF'S NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE
DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY UPON DAYLIN LEACH. AFDT OF SERVICE
ATTACHED." <<Which proves I had an attorney before July 20, 2000.>>
"July 20, 2000 COMPLAINT, NOTICE TO DEFEND. DAMAGES PRAYED FOR IN COUNTS I
THRU V. IN AMT IN EXCESS OF STATUTORY LIMIT FOR ARBITRATION TOGETHER WITH
PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN EXCESS OF STATUTORY LIMITS WITH INTEREST. COSTS & ATTY'S
FEES. AFDT OF SERVICE. EXHIBITS ATTACHED."
"August 25, 2000: PRAE TO ENTER JDGT AFGAINST DFT SCOTT BRADBURY AKA DOC
TAVISH FOR FAILURE TO RESPOND. JDGT ENTERED VS/SAID DFT IN AN AMT TO BE
ASSESSEED. IMPORTANT NOTICE, AFDT OF SERVICE EXHIBIT ATTACHED. NOTICE MLD
8/25/2000 FILED @ 9:28 AM."
I was given 30 days to refute the false accusations BUT Yale did not serve the
complaints on me by a Sheriff's Deputy nor on my attorney who is on record with
the court as stating:
Filed September 22, 2000
PETTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
COMES NOW, the defendant, Scott Bradbury, by and through his counsel Daylin B.
Leach, Esquire, to petition this honorable court for Relief from Judgment,
pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 237.3. In support of this petition, the defendant avers
the following:
On August 25, 2000, the Plaintiff filed a Praecipe for Default Judgment with
this court. A true and correct copy of which is hereto and marked as "Exhibit
A."
Since a complaint has never been filed or served, the defendant is unable to
attach a copy of preliminary objections he would file if the judgment was opened
pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 237.3 (a).
"[The] plaintiff engage[d] in a vendetta against the defendant... When attorney
Leach asked Mr. Edeiken for a copy of the complaint when he first becomes
involved in the case, he is told "Fuck You" via e-mail. In plain English, this
is not a lawsuit, it is a bizarre war waged by Mr. Edeiken on a man he has never
met. The court should not be a party to this."
Respectfully submitted
Daylin B. Leach Esquire
The results of the above:
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>
Looks like the court ruled in my favor to me! Both the lawsuit and the judgment
against me were DISMISSED! Yale even lost his appeal as well! Looks like I was
victorious twice! BTW it was the judge (not me) who wrote the above with some
words in all CAPS!
<START>
September 26, 2001
Yale F. Edeiken
918 N Bayard Street
Allentown, PA 18104-3759
RE: Yale F. Edeiken, Appellant v. Scott Bradbury et al
1714 EDA 2001
Dear Mr. Edeiken:
This is to advise that the attached Order has been entered in the
above- captioned matters.
A Certified Copy of this Order together with the record will be
sent to th
|
| |
| |
avish, Where did Yale go? Was he ordered to stay away from his
computer? He had no shame, did he die or drink to xs?
I know you don't really care, but curious minds . . .
Isn't it time for a massive truth flood?
On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 16:45:56 -0500, Doc Tavish
<Doc_Tavish@Tavish-Central01.net> wrote:
On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 16:39:45 -0400,
<zED8d.10968$HO1.568920@news20.bellglobal.com> "Test User" <test@dev.null>
wrote:
I did not mean that you were lying. I meant the post is a lie and that I did not
post it.
I have no doubt seeing how many such forgeries were made to smear me which
proves my enemies can't deal with me with facts or logic.
What smear campaign?
Just because it's on usenet does not make it true.
Even though, as far as I can tell, Mr. Bradbury has never said that that
post was a forgery....
I never saw the post!
I don't dance to all trollings and if I took time to chase every thing as such I
would not have time to post the posts your masters love to see.
Just like I never said Yale F. Edeiken's lies were perjury
in court seeing how he never would serve his complaints thus giving me the
chance!
Because I was sued and because it is a normal course of action to get an
attorney-- an attorney who had Edeiken's kook lawsuit dismissed against me which
he did!
As a reminder and read it carefully so you know how filth like Yale fights:
http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=9i9740t3teigg6ghb7jbr1rpcs1m8p3fuh@4ax.com&lr=&hl=en
Subject: Critical Updates- 1999-C-2786 How I Was Not Given My Legal Right to
Refute the Defamatory and Perjurious Accusations Made Against Me V1.1 S_0228
Message-ID: <9i9740t3teigg6ghb7jbr1rpcs1m8p3fuh@4ax.com>
Date: 1 Mar 2004 21:52:11 GMT EXCERPT BELOW:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 09:27:55 -0800, <c1qj2n02ehj@enews1.newsguy.com> "Ken McVay,
OBC" <spamfreek@nizkor.org> wrote:
ONLY because I was not given my legal right of due process to get a copy of the
complaints to refute in the first place!
For Yale F. Edeiken to have legally (and properly) served his complaints on me
he would have had to have sent them to the Sheriff's Department in my local
jurisdiction and then a Deputy would have sought me out and presented such
complaints in person and he would have required my signature! THAT IS FACT!
Docket printout to 1999-C-2786
"July 14, 2000 PLTF'S NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE
DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY UPON DAYLIN LEACH. AFDT OF SERVICE
ATTACHED." <<Which proves I had an attorney before July 20, 2000.>>
"July 20, 2000 COMPLAINT, NOTICE TO DEFEND. DAMAGES PRAYED FOR IN COUNTS I
THRU V. IN AMT IN EXCESS OF STATUTORY LIMIT FOR ARBITRATION TOGETHER WITH
PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN EXCESS OF STATUTORY LIMITS WITH INTEREST. COSTS & ATTY'S
FEES. AFDT OF SERVICE. EXHIBITS ATTACHED."
"August 25, 2000: PRAE TO ENTER JDGT AFGAINST DFT SCOTT BRADBURY AKA DOC
TAVISH FOR FAILURE TO RESPOND. JDGT ENTERED VS/SAID DFT IN AN AMT TO BE
ASSESSEED. IMPORTANT NOTICE, AFDT OF SERVICE EXHIBIT ATTACHED. NOTICE MLD
8/25/2000 FILED @ 9:28 AM."
I was given 30 days to refute the false accusations BUT Yale did not serve the
complaints on me by a Sheriff's Deputy nor on my attorney who is on record with
the court as stating:
Filed September 22, 2000
PETTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
COMES NOW, the defendant, Scott Bradbury, by and through his counsel Daylin B.
Leach, Esquire, to petition this honorable court for Relief from Judgment,
pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 237.3. In support of this petition, the defendant avers
the following:
On August 25, 2000, the Plaintiff filed a Praecipe for Default Judgment with
this court. A true and correct copy of which is hereto and marked as "Exhibit
A."
Since a complaint has never been filed or served, the defendant is unable to
attach a copy of preliminary objections he would file if the judgment was opened
pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 237.3 (a).
"[The] plaintiff engage[d] in a vendetta against the defendant... When attorney
Leach asked Mr. Edeiken for a copy of the complaint when he first becomes
involved in the case, he is told "Fuck You" via e-mail. In plain English, this
is not a lawsuit, it is a bizarre war waged by Mr. Edeiken on a man he has never
met. The court should not be a party to this."
Respectfully submitted
Daylin B. Leach Esquire
The results of the above:
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>
Looks like the court ruled in my favor to me! Both the lawsuit and the judgment
against me were DISMISSED! Yale even lost his appeal as well! Looks like I was
victorious twice! BTW it was the judge (not me) who wrote the above wit
|
| |
| |
n Wed, 06 Oct 2004 00:27:45 GMT, <ivb6m05qmbc73u47abj9gvc42mj3qgpahr@4ax.com>
c@c.cc wrote:
Tavish, Where did Yale go? Was he ordered to stay away from his
computer? He had no shame, did he die or drink to xs?
I know you don't really care, but curious minds . . .
The shyster went off into hiding at the time I told him I wouldn't fight his
appeal at all and that I did prefer for his lawsuit to start again from square
one.I was going to nail his hide to the wall for all the perjurious accusations
he made against me in his failed lawsuit.
This archive has a sampling of his stellar whoppers:
http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=0neq10177ekocu8996adgnu8iqg8q7ngkc@4ax.com&lr=&hl=en
Subject: Sara Salzman Won't Comment on These Forgeries - I Wonder Why!.. V2.0
Message-ID: <0neq10177ekocu8996adgnu8iqg8q7ngkc@4ax.com>
Date: 1 Feb 2004 18:21:27 GMT
Here is a run down on me being denied my right to defend myself and the court's
decision etc:
http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=9i9740t3teigg6ghb7jbr1rpcs1m8p3fuh@4ax.com&lr=&hl=en
Subject: Critical Updates- 1999-C-2786 How I Was Not Given My Legal Right to
Refute the Defamatory and Perjurious Accusations Made Against Me V1.1 S_0228
Message-ID: <9i9740t3teigg6ghb7jbr1rpcs1m8p3fuh@4ax.com>
Date: 1 Mar 2004 21:52:11 GMT EXCERPT BELOW:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 09:27:55 -0800, <c1qj2n02ehj@enews1.newsguy.com> "Ken McVay,
OBC" <spamfreek@nizkor.org> wrote:
The following was accepted as factual by a Pennsylvania Court:
ONLY because I was not given my legal right of due process to get a copy of the
complaints to refute in the first place!
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:
For Yale F. Edeiken to have legally (and properly) served his complaints on me
he would have had to have sent them to the Sheriff's Department in my local
jurisdiction and then a Deputy would have sought me out and presented such
complaints in person and he would have required my signature! THAT IS FACT!
Docket printout to 1999-C-2786
"July 14, 2000 PLTF'S NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE
DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY UPON DAYLIN LEACH. AFDT OF SERVICE
ATTACHED." <<Which proves I had an attorney before July 20, 2000.>>
"July 20, 2000 COMPLAINT, NOTICE TO DEFEND. DAMAGES PRAYED FOR IN COUNTS I
THRU V. IN AMT IN EXCESS OF STATUTORY LIMIT FOR ARBITRATION TOGETHER WITH
PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN EXCESS OF STATUTORY LIMITS WITH INTEREST. COSTS & ATTY'S
FEES. AFDT OF SERVICE. EXHIBITS ATTACHED."
"August 25, 2000: PRAE TO ENTER JDGT AFGAINST DFT SCOTT BRADBURY AKA DOC
TAVISH FOR FAILURE TO RESPOND. JDGT ENTERED VS/SAID DFT IN AN AMT TO BE
ASSESSEED. IMPORTANT NOTICE, AFDT OF SERVICE EXHIBIT ATTACHED. NOTICE MLD
8/25/2000 FILED @ 9:28 AM."
I was given 30 days to refute the false accusations BUT Yale did not serve the
complaints on me by a Sheriff's Deputy nor on my attorney who is on record with
the court as stating:
Filed September 22, 2000
PETTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
COMES NOW, the defendant, Scott Bradbury, by and through his counsel Daylin B.
Leach, Esquire, to petition this honorable court for Relief from Judgment,
pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 237.3. In support of this petition, the defendant avers
the following:
On August 25, 2000, the Plaintiff filed a Praecipe for Default Judgment with
this court. A true and correct copy of which is hereto and marked as "Exhibit
A."
Since a complaint has never been filed or served, the defendant is unable to
attach a copy of preliminary objections he would file if the judgment was opened
pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 237.3 (a).
"[The] plaintiff engage[d] in a vendetta against the defendant... When attorney
Leach asked Mr. Edeiken for a copy of the complaint when he first becomes
involved in the case, he is told "Fuck You" via e-mail. In plain English, this
is not a lawsuit, it is a bizarre war waged by Mr. Edeiken on a man he has never
met. The court should not be a party to this."
Respectfully submitted
Daylin B. Leach Esquire
The result of the above:
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>
Looks like the court ruled in my favor to me! Both the lawsuit and the judgment
against me were DISMISSED! Yale even lost his appeal as well! Looks like I was
victorious twice! BTW it was the judge (not me) who wrote the above with some
words in all CAPS!
<START>
September 26, 2001
Yale F. Edeiken
918 N Bayard Street
Allentown, PA 18104-3759
RE: Yale F. Edeiken, Appellant v. Scott Bradbury et al
1714 EDA 2001
Dear Mr. Edeiken:
This is to advise that the attached Order has been entered in the
above- captioned matters.
A Certified Copy of this Order together with the record will be
sent to the Prothonotary of Lehigh County in due course.
Very truly yours,
(Signed)
David A. Szewczak
Prothonotary
DAS/dag
Attachment
CC: Daylin B. Leach, Esquire
Scott Bradbury
Honorable Edward D. Reibman
The Attachment:
<Start>
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Eastern District Office
Yale F. Edeiken APPELLANT No. 1714 EDA 2001
V.
Scott Bradbury Et Al C.P. Civil Lehigh County
99-C-2786
ORDER
AND NOW, this 26th day of September, 2001, the within
appeal is DISMISSED for failure to file a brief."
PER CURIAM
<STOP>
The prudent question to why Yale failed to file his brief is answered in this
archive which shows his motive for legal system abuse and how serious he was NOT
in litigating me!
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=sq4v2us0odig5nhq79f6crk7a2e7lsqh1s%404ax.com&rnum=6&filter=0
Subject: Why Yale F. Edeiken LOST His Appeal..
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 17:30:59 -0600
Message-ID: <sq4v2us0odig5nhq79f6crk7a2e7lsqh1s@4ax.com>
Here is FACT about the Perjurer Shyster who sued me and lost which speaks
volumes of his character and the type of "attorney" he is:
~~Shyster Yale F. Edeiken has
|
| |
| |
On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 16:39:45 -0400,
<zED8d.10968$HO1.568920@news20.bellglobal.com> "Test User" <test@dev.null>
wrote:
I did not mean that you were lying.
Then why did you write it?
I meant the post is a lie and that I did not
post it.
Perhaps you should take care about what you write, then.
I have no doubt seeing how many such forgeries were made to smear me which
proves my enemies can't deal with me with facts or logic.
What smear campaign?
You do seem to have problems with reality, don't you?
Just because it's on usenet does not make it true.
Even though, as far as I can tell, Mr. Bradbury has never said that
that
post was a forgery....
I never saw the post!
I don't dance to all trollings and if I took time to chase every thing as
such I
would not have time to post the posts your masters love to see.
And who, exactly, are my "masters"?
Just like I never said Yale F. Edeiken's lies were perjury
in court seeing how he never would serve his complaints thus giving me
the
chance!
Because I was sued and because it is a normal course of action to get an
attorney--
Ah, so you *did* have a chance to answer the complaints. It's one or the
other, Mr. Bradbury. Either you didn't know about the complaints and didn't
get a lawyer or appear, or you did know, did get a lawyer, and did make an
appearance (via the lawyer).
an attorney who had Edeiken's kook lawsuit dismissed against me which
he did!
It was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, not factual ones.
<snip>
By the way, where's that $10K to back up your "challenge"?
Already been answered you liar!
http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=r96o10ptkou9i8eggfom41tpq44d545rvd@4ax.com&lr=&hl=en
Subject: Stock Reply to Patrick Keenan (Can Apply to Other Pinheads as
Well!)
<<Regarding whether I have $10,000 or not and if I have ties to a
terrorist
group.>> Message-ID: <r96o10ptkou9i8eggfom41tpq44d545rvd@4ax.com>
Date: 31 Jan 2004 21:23:00 GMT [Special Note: Some of the loud mouths who
like
to call me "Fat" names are now claiming my "CHALLENGE" is WIRE FRAUD which
is
not true! I did not make an "OFFER" to the general public. My CHALLENGE
was
originally directed toward (and still is) a very small segment of people
who
insist on propagating Yale F. Edeiken's lie about what my medical record
stated.
And in fact, one of those people has stepped up and accepted your challenge.
You have yet to prove that you have the funds.
-pk
<snip>
|
| |
| |
n Wed, 6 Oct 2004 21:13:51 -0400,
<9L09d.21874$jj2.1048602@news20.bellglobal.com> "Patrick Keenan" <test@dev.null>
wrote:
Then why did you write it?
Perhaps you should take care about what you write, then.
You do seem to have problems with reality, don't you?
And who, exactly, are my "masters"?
Ah, so you *did* have a chance to answer the complaints.
NOPE!!!
Read this again and do try to get the sense of it please!
http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=9i9740t3teigg6ghb7jbr1rpcs1m8p3fuh@4ax.com&lr=&hl=en
Subject: Critical Updates- 1999-C-2786 How I Was Not Given My Legal Right to
Refute the Defamatory and Perjurious Accusations Made Against Me V1.1 S_0228
Message-ID: <9i9740t3teigg6ghb7jbr1rpcs1m8p3fuh@4ax.com>
Date: 1 Mar 2004 21:52:11 GMT EXCERPT BELOW:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 09:27:55 -0800, <c1qj2n02ehj@enews1.newsguy.com> "Ken McVay,
OBC" <spamfreek@nizkor.org> wrote:
The following was accepted as factual by a Pennsylvania Court:
ONLY because I was not given my legal right of due process to get a copy of the
complaints to refute in the first place!
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:
For Yale F. Edeiken to have legally (and properly) served his complaints on me
he would have had to have sent them to the Sheriff's Department in my local
jurisdiction and then a Deputy would have sought me out and presented such
complaints in person and he would have required my signature! THAT IS FACT!
Docket printout to 1999-C-2786
"July 14, 2000 PLTF'S NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE
DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY UPON DAYLIN LEACH. AFDT OF SERVICE
ATTACHED." <<Which proves I had an attorney before July 20, 2000.>>
"July 20, 2000 COMPLAINT, NOTICE TO DEFEND. DAMAGES PRAYED FOR IN COUNTS I
THRU V. IN AMT IN EXCESS OF STATUTORY LIMIT FOR ARBITRATION TOGETHER WITH
PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN EXCESS OF STATUTORY LIMITS WITH INTEREST. COSTS & ATTY'S
FEES. AFDT OF SERVICE. EXHIBITS ATTACHED."
"August 25, 2000: PRAE TO ENTER JDGT AFGAINST DFT SCOTT BRADBURY AKA DOC
TAVISH FOR FAILURE TO RESPOND. JDGT ENTERED VS/SAID DFT IN AN AMT TO BE
ASSESSEED. IMPORTANT NOTICE, AFDT OF SERVICE EXHIBIT ATTACHED. NOTICE MLD
8/25/2000 FILED @ 9:28 AM."
I was given 30 days to refute the false accusations BUT Yale did not serve the
complaints on me by a Sheriff's Deputy nor on my attorney who is on record with
the court as stating:
Filed September 22, 2000
PETTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
COMES NOW, the defendant, Scott Bradbury, by and through his counsel Daylin B.
Leach, Esquire, to petition this honorable court for Relief from Judgment,
pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 237.3. In support of this petition, the defendant avers
the following:
On August 25, 2000, the Plaintiff filed a Praecipe for Default Judgment with
this court. A true and correct copy of which is hereto and marked as "Exhibit
A."
Since a complaint has never been filed or served, the defendant is unable to
attach a copy of preliminary objections he would file if the judgment was opened
pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 237.3 (a).
"[The] plaintiff engage[d] in a vendetta against the defendant... When attorney
Leach asked Mr. Edeiken for a copy of the complaint when he first becomes
involved in the case, he is told "Fuck You" via e-mail. In plain English, this
is not a lawsuit, it is a bizarre war waged by Mr. Edeiken on a man he has never
met. The court should not be a party to this."
Respectfully submitted
Daylin B. Leach Esquire
________________________________________________________________________________
Key statement from above: "Since a complaint has never been filed or served, the
defendant is unable to attach a copy of preliminary objections..." IOW I was
denied my day in court and due process by a liar and a person who manufactures
evidence to make false accusations in a civil court of law!
It's one or the other, Mr. Bradbury. Either you didn't know about the complaints
I knew I was sued by a Lying Shyster.
and didn't get a lawyer
I got an attorney
or appear,
Appear for what?
or you did know, did get a lawyer, and did make an appearance (via the lawyer).
Read again what my lawyer wrote above!
an attorney who had Edeiken's kook lawsuit dismissed against me which
he did!
It was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, not factual ones.
So you and others say BUT if that were the case then why didn't
|
| |
| |
In article <cfd9m0t718aph80h9j7ab0b6m4ct5mveut@4ax.com>,
Doc Tavish <Doc_Tavish@Tavish-Central01.net> wrote:
On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 21:13:51 -0400,
<9L09d.21874$jj2.1048602@news20.bellglobal.com> "Patrick Keenan"
<test@dev.null>
wrote:
It was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, not factual ones.
So you and others say BUT if that were the case then why didn't Edeiken
simply
re-file in the proper jurisdiction rather than tuck tail and run OR why
didn't
he simply re-file his kook lawsuit and I would have answered his trumped up
complaints most gladly!
This has been answered easily fifty times already: because you're an
insignificant slug and he didn't want to bother with you anymore. If he
filed in your jurisdiction, he would have had to actually go to your
town. He didn't want to bother, because you're NOT WORTH IT.
Sara
--
-My name is not "Fatbury Scumbag" you stupid lying Jew bastard. Name call
is all a pathetic loser like you has! You have yet to prove me wrong
you dirty filthy lying Jew bastard!
-I don't rely on personal attacks as my means of posting and
the bulk of my posts prove so! You can't discern the difference.
BTW my name is not Fatboy you stupid kike.
--Scott Bradbury, who completely misses the irony of the above
|
| |
| |
hey defend the hole-o-cost like they defend a shyster named Yale F.
Edeiken. Chutzpah in action.
On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 22:26:22 -0500, Doc Tavish
<Doc_Tavish@Tavish-Central01.net> wrote:
On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 21:13:51 -0400,
<9L09d.21874$jj2.1048602@news20.bellglobal.com> "Patrick Keenan" <test@dev.null>
wrote:
NOPE!!!
Read this again and do try to get the sense of it please!
http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=9i9740t3teigg6ghb7jbr1rpcs1m8p3fuh@4ax.com&lr=&hl=en
Subject: Critical Updates- 1999-C-2786 How I Was Not Given My Legal Right to
Refute the Defamatory and Perjurious Accusations Made Against Me V1.1 S_0228
Message-ID: <9i9740t3teigg6ghb7jbr1rpcs1m8p3fuh@4ax.com>
Date: 1 Mar 2004 21:52:11 GMT EXCERPT BELOW:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 09:27:55 -0800, <c1qj2n02ehj@enews1.newsguy.com> "Ken McVay,
OBC" <spamfreek@nizkor.org> wrote:
ONLY because I was not given my legal right of due process to get a copy of the
complaints to refute in the first place!
For Yale F. Edeiken to have legally (and properly) served his complaints on me
he would have had to have sent them to the Sheriff's Department in my local
jurisdiction and then a Deputy would have sought me out and presented such
complaints in person and he would have required my signature! THAT IS FACT!
Docket printout to 1999-C-2786
"July 14, 2000 PLTF'S NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE
DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY UPON DAYLIN LEACH. AFDT OF SERVICE
ATTACHED." <<Which proves I had an attorney before July 20, 2000.>>
"July 20, 2000 COMPLAINT, NOTICE TO DEFEND. DAMAGES PRAYED FOR IN COUNTS I
THRU V. IN AMT IN EXCESS OF STATUTORY LIMIT FOR ARBITRATION TOGETHER WITH
PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN EXCESS OF STATUTORY LIMITS WITH INTEREST. COSTS & ATTY'S
FEES. AFDT OF SERVICE. EXHIBITS ATTACHED."
"August 25, 2000: PRAE TO ENTER JDGT AFGAINST DFT SCOTT BRADBURY AKA DOC
TAVISH FOR FAILURE TO RESPOND. JDGT ENTERED VS/SAID DFT IN AN AMT TO BE
ASSESSEED. IMPORTANT NOTICE, AFDT OF SERVICE EXHIBIT ATTACHED. NOTICE MLD
8/25/2000 FILED @ 9:28 AM."
I was given 30 days to refute the false accusations BUT Yale did not serve the
complaints on me by a Sheriff's Deputy nor on my attorney who is on record with
the court as stating:
Filed September 22, 2000
PETTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT
COMES NOW, the defendant, Scott Bradbury, by and through his counsel Daylin B.
Leach, Esquire, to petition this honorable court for Relief from Judgment,
pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 237.3. In support of this petition, the defendant avers
the following:
On August 25, 2000, the Plaintiff filed a Praecipe for Default Judgment with
this court. A true and correct copy of which is hereto and marked as "Exhibit
A."
Since a complaint has never been filed or served, the defendant is unable to
attach a copy of preliminary objections he would file if the judgment was opened
pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 237.3 (a).
"[The] plaintiff engage[d] in a vendetta against the defendant... When attorney
Leach asked Mr. Edeiken for a copy of the complaint when he first becomes
involved in the case, he is told "Fuck You" via e-mail. In plain English, this
is not a lawsuit, it is a bizarre war waged by Mr. Edeiken on a man he has never
met. The court should not be a party to this."
Respectfully submitted
Daylin B. Leach Esquire
________________________________________________________________________________
Key statement from above: "Since a complaint has never been filed or served, the
defendant is unable to attach a copy of preliminary objections..." IOW I was
denied my day in court and due process by a liar and a person who manufactures
evidence to make false accusations in a civil court of law!
I knew I was sued by a Lying Shyster.
I got an attorney
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 22:04:02 -0600, Sara Salzman
<catamont@concentric.net> wrote:
In article <cfd9m0t718aph80h9j7ab0b6m4ct5mveut@4ax.com>,
Doc Tavish <Doc_Tavish@Tavish-Central01.net> wrote:
It was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, not factual ones.
This has been answered easily fifty times already: because you're an
insignificant slug and he didn't want to bother with you anymore.
Tavish had him by the gonads and he knew it, the judge knew it, you
knew it, and we knew it. What a pathetic thing you say: "he didn't
want to bother with you anymore."
You are loser and continue to lose. Yale F. Edeiken fled from Tavish
like a beaten dog and hasn't returned yet. Does that tell you
something?
If he
filed in your jurisdiction, he would have had to actually go to your
town.
I wish Tavish would post the threat (not just the link) so you can
listen again to his intent.
He didn't want to bother, because you're NOT WORTH IT.
Sara
Yale F. Edeiken was after Tavish for years. He was obsessed with
Tavish. He wanted to destroy Tavish. The proof is in his writings.
Tavish got tired of Yale F. Edeikens shyster ways and got a real
lawyer.
Yale F. Edeiken got his butt kicked and ran like a yellow dog.
And you, Sara, stick your fingers in your ears and scream:
"He didn't want to bother, because you're NOT WORTH IT."
Like I said, you're a pathetic excuse for protoplasm.
Thou bawdy fly-bitten maggot-pie.
|
| |
| |
In one age, called the Second Age by some,
(an Age yet to come, an Age long past)
someone claiming to be Doc Tavish wrote
in message <cfd9m0t718aph80h9j7ab0b6m4ct5mveut@4ax.com>:
On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 21:13:51 -0400,
<9L09d.21874$jj2.1048602@news20.bellglobal.com> "Patrick Keenan" <test@dev.null>
wrote:
Just like I never said Yale F. Edeiken's lies were perjury
in court seeing how he never would serve his complaints thus giving me
the chance!
If you never had a chance to answer his complaints, why did you have a
lawyer in that court?
Because I was sued and because it is a normal course of action to get an
attorney--
Ah, so you *did* have a chance to answer the complaints.
NOPE!!!
Yep.
Read this again and do try to get the sense of it please!
Repeating it doesn't make it any less dishonest..
Key statement from above:
"PETTION <sic> FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT"
IOW I was
denied my day in court and due process by a liar and a person who manufactures
evidence to make false accusations in a civil court of law!
No, IOW, this was just something your lawyer filed -- something which
was disregarded by the court.
IOW *not* found to be factual, unlike the Findings of Fact.
IOW the only one denying you due process was yourself -- and you were
even stupid enough to brag right here that you were doing it!
It's one or the other, Mr. Bradbury. Either you didn't know about the complaints
I knew I was sued by a Lying Shyster.
.... and that you got court documents which you returned marked "Return
to Stalker."
and didn't get a lawyer
I got an attorney
.... well after the case was started and almost too late.
Who was your lawyer when you were returning those court documents,
fatboy?
or appear,
Appear for what?
In response to the action. It's a legal term.
or you did know, did get a lawyer, and did make an appearance (via the lawyer).
Read again what my lawyer wrote above!
Yeah we read his claims. We also read the judge's decision, which had
nothing whatever to do with what your lawyer wrote.
an attorney who had Edeiken's kook lawsuit dismissed against me which
he did!
It was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, not factual ones.
So you and others
.... such as the judge.
say BUT if that were the case then why didn't Edeiken simply
re-file in the proper jurisdiction rather than tuck tail and run OR why didn't
he simply re-file his kook lawsuit and I would have answered his trumped up
complaints most gladly!
Are you now claiming that the judgment was overturned on anything
*but* jurisdictional grounds?
<snip>
By the way, where's that $10K to back up your "challenge"?
Already been answered you liar!
http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_umsgid=r96o10ptkou9i8eggfom41tpq44d545rvd@4ax.com&lr=&hl=en
Subject: Stock Reply to Patrick Keenan (Can Apply to Other Pinheads as
Well!)
<<Regarding whether I have $10,000 or not and if I have ties to a
terrorist
group.>> Message-ID: <r96o10ptkou9i8eggfom41tpq44d545rvd@4ax.com>
Date: 31 Jan 2004 21:23:00 GMT [Special Note: Some of the loud mouths who
like
to call me "Fat" names are now claiming my "CHALLENGE" is WIRE FRAUD which
is
not true! I did not make an "OFFER" to the general public. My CHALLENGE
was
originally directed toward (and still is) a very small segment of people
who
insist on propagating Yale F. Edeiken's lie about what my medical record
stated.
And in fact, one of those people has stepped up and accepted your challenge.
You have yet to prove that you have the funds.
And never will, because 1) zie doesn't and 2) zie knows that zie *is*
morbidly obese and is scared sh*tless that I actually *can* prove it.
|
| |
| |
On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 21:13:51 -0400,
<9L09d.21874$jj2.1048602@news20.bellglobal.com> "Patrick Keenan"
<test@dev.null>
<Snippage>>
It was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, not factual ones.
So you and others say BUT if that were the case then why didn't Edeiken
simply
re-file in the proper jurisdiction rather than tuck tail and run OR why
didn't
he simply re-file his kook lawsuit and I would have answered his trumped
up
complaints most gladly!
Why don't you ask him? I'd guess it's because you aren't worth the powder;
you've had yourself declared near indigent, and so judgement-proof.
|
| |
| |
|
