SHYSTER ALERT FOR PENNSYLVANIA!! EVERYONE SEE DETAILS FURTHER DOWN.
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 08:48:29 -0600,
<catamont-634DE0.08482924102004@news.giganews.com> Sara Salzman
<catamont@concentric.net> wrote:
In article <b38nn09phg1gt4f4ie1al0ath6e9nmcckv@4ax.com>,
James Roberts <jimbo12@yahoo.com> wrote:
That's the biggest lie of all. Bradbury was served.
That is a major lie!
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!
Bradbury returned the summons unopened and wrote "Return to Stalker" on the envelope.
Another lie!
Bradbury publicly bragged about it.
I bragged about sending Yale's simple little first class one or two page rants
back unopened to him. He was obligated by the Disciplinary Rules to no longer
make ANY form of contact with me since May 29 which he violated!
My proof:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=&selm=i9ccb09nk0n01ao5lq0vv6fkvciip3kprd%404ax.com&rnum=3
Subject: Yale F. Edeiken Esq Contacting Me Against Disciplinary Rules and More
of His Lies Exposed for Posterity
Message-ID: <i9ccb09nk0n01ao5lq0vv6fkvciip3kprd@4ax.com>
Date: 27 May 2004 19:06:20 GMT
(EXCERPT)
I have said before that I do have in my possession the hardcopy of
the e-mailings between my attorney and Tubby Edeiken. I'd imagine that all
of Tubby's snail mails I've FWD to my attorney will be presented to court
within a day or so showing Tubby Edeiken agreeing to not make direct
contact with me.
Read it again, Brad#@($. It says nothing of the kind.
From: Yale F. Edeiken <yawen@enter.net>
Message ID: <001501bfc9d5$2ddae340$d99c10cf!oemcomputer>
To: Dyaliberal@aol.com
References: <e8.5016260.2664611a@aol.com
Subject: Re: Edeiken v. Bradbury
Date: Mon, May 29 2000 21:20:00 -0400
[...]
