On 25 Oct 2004 09:27:14 -0500, <szkekjm98l9.fsf@fnord.io.com> Patrick Lee
Humphrey <patrick@io.com> wrote:
Steve_Talbot@yahoo.com (Steve Talbot) writes:
[over 1200 lines of Brad#@($e, with fewer than ten lines of original text
added]
Can't refute one point can you- you loser!?
When did you sneak out of Rusk *this* time, Blimpie?
Ad hominem attacks are all you have when you are slam dunked!
Here is a much shortened version of what you deleted in your pathetic denial:
~~The "RETURN TO STALKER" Myth Debunked~~
For a fact Yale F. Edeiken had not served his "complaints" on neither my
attorney NOR myself. This was submitted to a civil court of law:
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 <END>
My foes steadfastly claim I personally had received the complaints and then did
a "Return To Stalker" and returned the complaints to Yale F. Edeiken unopened:
"You had NO lawyer at the time the complaints were served -- and in your
ineffable stupidity, you *bragged* about sending the complaints back unopened
after scrawling "Return to Stalker" on them. That's engraved in the court
record. I suggest you tell *them* they're lying."
From: Patrick Lee Humphrey <patrick@io.com>
Date: 15 Mar 2004 06:09:21 -0600
Message-ID: <szksmganwge.fsf@fnord.io.com>
<start/quote>
Also I was NEVER served with the lawsuit's "complaints" against me! (Neither
myself NOR my attorney ever got copies of the complaints filed against me by
Yale F. Edeiken the plaintiff.) How could I have possibly answered the accusations
when I was never served with them?
You're referring to the ones you returned marked "return to stalker"?
<end/quote>
From: "Patrick Keenan" <test@dev.null>
Message-ID: <p71Tb.8319$qU3.781371@news20.bellglobal.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 01:36:05 -0500
"He refused to address the complaint in the first place. Everything that Yale
(as attorney) sent to Bradbury in reference to the case, Bradbury returned
unopened with the statement "Return to Stalker" on it."
From: Sara Salzman <catamont@concentric.net>
Date: 28 Aug 2003 17:33:07 GMT
Message-ID: <catamont-E9F2E3.11325728082003@spectator.sj.sys.us.xo.net>
I now ask a simple question- IF I HAD DONE SUCH AS THE ABOVE LIARS CLAIM THEN
WHY DIDN'T YALE F EDEIKEN PRESENT THE COMPLAINTS TO THE JUDGE ALLEGEDLY RETURNED
AS "RETURN TO STALKER" AND UNOPENED? It sure would have ruined the Petition for
Relief From Judgment and would have made my attorney a laughing stock for
submitting to the court: "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)." ANSWER AS TO WHY-- IT
DIDN'T HAPPEN!! I did not receive the complaints to return them unopened!!!
YALE F EDEIKEN IS A FILTHY LIAR AS WELL AS ALL THE PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT HIM!
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2004-05 Houston Aeros)
