Talk About Network

Google


Register and Login
Nick
Password
Register create new account Sign up is FREE and you can post replies, new topics, bookmark posts and more!
Recover lost password


Journalism > News Media > NIGEL BROOKS CA...
Latest [ Topics | Posts ] Archive Post A New Topic Post a Reply
<< Topic < Post Post 1 of 71 Topic 12534 of 13486
Post > Topic >>

NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL

by "DGVREIMAN" <dgvreiman@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > May 4, 2008 at 12:46 PM

NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL

(Smear Merchant Disclaimer: Please note this article (the same as all of 
my past articles and exchanges with posters) represents an editorial on 
contem****ary issues and events - my opinion. Nothing in this article 
represents in any manner any asseveration of biographical fact, nor is 
about, directed toward or against any particular person - other than 
those specifically mentioned herein. This article is being posted for 
entertainment purposes only. If any person finds this post personally 
annoying, abusive, defaming or otherwise disturbing, please notify me of 
your specific reasons for annoyance via email at legalcoach@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
If we find your detailed objections reasonable (considering the 
"reasonable person" doctrine and case law) we will then remove this 
post, or the offending passages contained therein, from the Google 
archive, publicly apologize and retract. My intent is to entertain, and 
to present articles to USENET readers prior to publication to determine 
interest, and not to annoy, abuse, humiliate, or in any way cause anyone 
emotional harm by posting on USENET or elsewhere. Please note that 
defending myself from harassment and obloquy with rebuttal posts has 
been deemed a "lawful and legitimate" publication by my legal counsel. 
If I am not attacked, defamed or harassed, or my copyrighted articles 
not interrupted nor infringed upon, I clearly do not have a reason to 
respond with a rebuttal. Please also note that I intend to notify any 
and all ISP's and web hosts of any annoying or calumnious post, web site 
or other similar entity about me after I give the offender an 
op****tunity to retract, apologize and remove said post from the Google 
archive).







1. Mr. Sp4 Nigel Brooks said I was asleep in my BEQ when the January 13, 
1969 attacks on the Can Tho Army base and POW camp took place. 
Statements such as these indicate to me that Sp4 draftee Brooks (two 
whole years in service as a personnel clerk) is sorely unknowledgeable 
about Can Tho, the 1969 January attack, the US Army, the duties of an 
NCO, the US Army in General, the functions of a base under attack, the 
functions of a large BEQ such as the Melton when such an attack occurs, 
how the Melton was structured, how the defenses for the Melton were 
organized and placed on the outside walkways, entrances and roof top of 
the Melton, life in general in Vietnam for a NCO, especially a Senior 
NCO housed in a BEQ containing hundreds of enlisted men, and just about 
everything else you can imagine about this incident. And I am sure I 
have left out much that Nigel Brooks is clearly clueless about.

The Melton BEQ

2. The Melton BEQ at Can Tho Vietnam was an old French type Hotel that 
was several stories high that was converted into a large BEQ for 
enlisted men. Enlisted men from several different units in the Can Tho 
area occupied the Melton, and I was permanently (and sometimes 
tem****arily) assigned to that Melton BEQ for quarters. The bottom floor 
of the BEQ contained our Armory which was more than a company size 
armory. The old Hotel/BEQ had chicken wire plastered on the front of the 
hotel all the way up several stories to stop Charlie from driving by on 
the main street (which ran right in front of the hotel) and lobbing 
grenades into the hotel, which occurred frequently enough to warrant the 
chicken wire.


2-a. There were also two adjacent buildings to the Melton that were not 
quite as high as the Melton. Both of those adjacent buildings were 
whorehouses, and the men in the Melton, from the roof and from their EM 
club, could see the whores sunning themselves, or doing their ubiquitous 
wa****ng, chomping rice, and giggling together on their rooftops from the 
vantage point of the Melton's rooftop NCO and EM Clubs. Moreover, from 
our rooftop we could also clearly see the Can Tho airfield and base, and 
in fact we could even see the distant air base at Bein Thuy when all of 
its lights were on or it was under mortar attack, which also happened 
frequently.

2-b. The Melton had corridor walkways around the outside of each floor 
and the rooms were entered from the outside corridor. (Typical French 
Indochina architecture.) My room was near the top of the Melton, and 
most of the time two other SFC E-7's and I represented the ranking NCO's 
billeted in the Melton. My NCO room was also facing the Can Tho Airbase.

2-c. There was an extremely narrow and dangerous stone spiral staircase 
in the middle of the Hotel that led all the way up to the rooftop. (That 
staircase was hard enough to navigate sober, not to mention after a 
night of drinking and poker, and to get to your room you had to navigate 
that staircase if you were in one of the clubs on the roof). The roof of 
the BEQ was where I and the rest of the NCO's spent most of our time 
eating, drinking and playing poker and watching the whores do their 
thing.

Tag the Whore

3. The side of the Hotel between the Hotel and the first Whorehouse 
contained thousands of empty beer cans, about one story high, that 
represented evidence of thousands of past beer can tosses at the whores 
by the men. Some men found great s****t in tossing empty (and some not so 
empty) beer cans at the whores when they came out on their roofs to do 
whatever whores do on roofs. Sometimes the whores would carry little 
umbrellas and run as fast as they could when they were on their roofs 
due to the barrage of beer cans their presence was sure to evoke each 
time they ventured out onto their roofs. Some of the whores would 
intelligently run out of their roof door, stop, wait a second then 
quickly run back into the door just before the barrage of beer cans 
arrived. The whores became very adroit at ducking, dodging and faking 
out the barrages of beer cans thrown at them. There also was much 
gambling, hoots and laughter involved with those beer can tosses, and 
there was little the NCO's could do to stop the men from their game of 
"tag the whore." And of course some of the NCO's were also participants 
in that tag the whore game - (I won't mention which ones).

3-a. The whores would pay back the men by stealing one of their boots 
whenever the men visited the whorehouses. It was a common site on payday 
to see several men limping back from one of the whorehouses with only 
one boot on amidst the howls and catcalls from the other men that 
spotted them trying to sneak back to the Melton. Trying to sneak back 
into the Melton with one boot missing became a Chinese pennant depicting 
a recent visit to one of the whorehouses. I assume the whores would 
steal a left boot then a right boot, and so on. Exactly how they matched 
them up later I do not know - not caring much at the time how whores 
market GI footwear. Hell, they might even be boiling those boots and 
eating them as far as I know considering I have yet to see something a 
Vietnamese whore would not do for two dollars MPC or so.



4. All in all, and not counting the many times that Hotel came under 
attack in one way or another, it was not a bad place to be housed in Can 
Tho. The Melton certainly was entertaining almost on a daily basis, and 
there was never a dull moment. One payday in fact I remember about a 
hundred men brought their tape recorders out of their rooms and blasted 
Bob Dylan's "No No No It Ain't Me Babe" song/sonnet on full volume. We 
NCO's screwed up that day and allowed hard liquor to be brought into the 
EM club for what the men claimed was a "special party." The entire Hotel 
was rocking and vibrating, and even the whores came out on their roofs 
to see what was going on. Even Vietnamese civilians walking down the 
street in front of the Hotel were also stopping and watching the Hotel 
in amazed curiosity. Our guards at the front of the Hotel had to chase 
crowds away that day. I always remember it as the day the men all went 
crazy - which duty in Can Tho was known to do to American GI's from time 
to time.

My Duty Station Was in the Can Tho Army Base

5. Note first that Sp4 Nigel Brooks says my military records state I was 
assigned to the 51st Maintenance Company in Can Tho for duty. Sp4 Nigel 
Brooks is full of **** as usual. My military records prove otherwise, 
and I even found a morning re****t noting I was assigned to the 51st only 
for rations and quarters and my duty assignment was to a completely 
different and very large unit located on the Can Tho Army base. (I will 
send the morning re****t to one of my independent experts for 
verification, but more on that later).

5-a. Bottom Line: I was very familiar with the Can Tho Army base, and I 
could see both the Airfield and my duty station from the roof of the 
Melton. I could even tell from the roof when my Colonel was in or out by 
looking for his parked jeep in his parking spot in front of my duty 
station - which at times was good information to know. From my vantage 
point on the roof of the Melton, and with my Binoculars, I could also 
easily see the faces of the men at the Can Tho base, the base's 
buildings, the Airfield, the POW camp and the faces of the men and 
prisoners at that camp, and just about everything else in that area with 
very good clarity. (The POW camp and some of the ARVN positions were 
along the side the Can Tho Army Airbase on the south side just across 
the wire).

6. We had set up an NCO club of sorts on the roof and it was cool up 
there and even during the rainy season there was enough cover to say on 
the roof. Immediately outside of my room at the Melton, and to the right 
of my entrance door, there was located a corner section of the corridor 
t walkway around the Hotel. In each corner of the Melton's outside 
corridor we had built a sandbagged defensive position with a Pig mounted 
with its ammo boxes on the floor. (Pig=M-60 Machine Gun). On the Rooftop 
we also had built M-60 positions, and one Ma Duce position. There were 
men that were assigned to all of our defensive machine gun positions, 
and there were also men assigned to rifle and grenadier positions at 
various locations in and around the Hotel. We also had assigned men to 
communications, rations, water bearers, ammo bearers, etc. . . .

The Melton sup****ted large iron doors on the front entrance, and guard 
positions with drag wire (Barbed and Razor wire that can be dragged 
together to form a wire barrier) in front of the Hotel and at all side 
entrances. On alert we would button up, bring our guards inside, and 
they could monitor the front of the hotel from their inside battle 
positions. All battle stations at the Melton had to be instantly manned 
in case of any attack on Can Tho or upon an attack on anything near us 
(we were located in a suburb of the City of Can Tho) or of course upon 
any attack on the Can Tho base itself. In fact, when I was located at 
the Melton, we even went on alert and took battle stations at times 
whenever Bein Thuy was attacked, which occurred often enough to become 
bothersome for the men. Think of the Melton as a Navy ****p at sea, and 
you will get the idea of our very necessary defensive positions.

6-a. So Nigel Brook's snide comment that I was fast asleep in my BEQ 
when that January 1969 major attack occurred on the Can Tho base and POW 
camp is about as idiotic and preposterous as you can now imagine. Sp4 
Nigel Books clearly does not have a clue about the US Army, nor the 
Melton, nor anything about my duties in Can Tho, nor about how we 
defended ourselves, nor about alerts, nor anything about that attack in 
1969. I do. Why? Because I was there.

Here is what I saw, and what I was told by the MP's the next day:

7. S****adic firing from ARVN positions far out on the left flank of the 
Can Tho base woke me at about 0030 that morning. The ARVN's were 
shooting at something, which was not that uncommon, but this was machine 
gun fire, and lots of it. I and a few other NCO's immediately dressed 
and went up to the roof with our high-powered binoculars to see what was 
going on. There were no sirens going off, and the Can Tho base was 
quiet. Nevertheless, off to our left the ARVN's certainly were shooting 
at something. There were a lot of tracers going out from the ARVN 
positions, but none coming back. So I thought they were just shooting at 
shadows which they did from time to time. (I am not a fan of the ARVN - 
and for good reason. Even that night they wildly fired at our base camp 
when the full attack was underway, but thankfully, as usual, they hit 
Maggie's Drawers).

Once again, in more detail, here is what I saw:

8. The ARVN small arms fire had us watching but not calling for an alert 
because ARVN firing at shadows was not that unfrequent. However, as I 
was standing on the roof watching the ARVN fire, and I don't remember 
the exact time but it was on or around 0130, a "WUMPH" explosion 
(usually that noise indicated incoming) suddenly occurred on the Can Tho 
Airbase. The Melton was only about three miles from the base as you 
drive but much closer as the Crow flies, and the explosion was easy to 
see and hear. Then after that first explosion drew my instant attention, 
I could positively and without question see two vehicles speeding down 
the Airbase Tarmac and a series of explosions were following them.

8-a. All the initial explosions from the vehicles occurred in 
approximately 30 seconds, and after perhaps the third small explosion, 
then the big ones started to occur. When the big explosions started to 
occur on the Airfield, (probably satchel charges) the vehicles raced to 
the south side of the Airfield, found an access road that ran along the 
side our wire, and started unloading all kinds of fire on the POW camp 
defenses, which promptly returned the fire. (Mostly ARVN MP's manned the 
POW camps but there were a few American Army MP advisors assigned there 
as well). The tracers were producing what looked like red tidal waves of 
fire coming from and going into the POW camp. All hell was breaking 
lose, and we called a full alert for the Hotel.

8-b. The NCO's always carried their weapons but the lower ranks had to 
draw them from the Armory, so the men assigned to the M-60 and 50 cal. 
Positions were first to arrive at their battle stations, and the rest of 
the men had to rush to draw their weapons and ammo from the Armory.

8-c. My section of the roof faced the Can Tho Army base, and the Can Tho 
base was lit up like a Christmas tree. We also heard some firing behind 
us toward the whorehouses and we thought Charlie might have positioned 
some VC on one of the roofs of the whorehouses to keep us in the Hotel. 
That position was not in my section so when I heard one of our M-60 
positions open up on that side I radioed the NCO in charge of that 
section and he said the man on the M-60 said he was fired on from the 
roof of the whorehouse. To this day I don't know if that is true as I 
did not see it. But I did see the attack on the base, clearly. By the 
time I looked back at the Can Tho base after my attention was distracted 
by one of our M-60's opening up on one of the whorehouses, the two 
vehicles that were firing on the POW camp had already left their 
positions and could not been seen. (I was told later those vehicles 
simply drove away and out the gate). But as I watched satchel charges 
were still going off on the Airfield, and there was lots of small arms 
fire coming from all directions, including from the ARVN positions far 
outside the base.

8-d. I don't know exactly how long the battle lasted but it was not 
long. We however, stayed on full alert until dawn. I was told a couple 
of whores were shot by one of our M-60's, but I don't know to this day 
if that rumor was true. It most likely was as probably some of the 
whores came out on their roof to see what was going on and one of our 
men took them for VC - or just whores he wanted to shoot - we will never 
really know. The next day I spoke with a Sergeant MP that was at the POW 
camp and he told me they thought Charlie had used ambulances again, and 
that some of the sappers had fired at our aircraft from those vehicles, 
and some of the sappers had jumped out of those vehicles with satchel 
charges as the vehicles were rolling down the runway toward the POW 
Camp. He also said some sappers had come in through the wire. It was a 
well-coordinated attack on both the airfield and the POW camp.

8-e. Some of what I am saying here is hearsay because it came from the 
opinion of an MP Sergeant, but I sure as hell saw those vehicles, and so 
did he. Whether they were actual Ambulances or other types of vehicles, 
who knows and who cares, they certainly did drive down the Tarmac and 
either shoot our Aircraft with M-79's or RPG's, and then attacked the 
POW camp.



Now that we all know what happened, let's deal with some of Nigel's more 
recent lies:

9. First, Sp4 Nigel Brooks' is claiming I previously said the 
Information officers were liars back when John Kerry was running for 
office. Nothing could be further from the truth. The testimony of the 
information officers in the respect they were ordered to lie was just 
recently brought to my attention. I did not even read that part of the 
Winter Solider Congressional testimony back then, only the accounts of 
some of the Ghengis Kahn type raping and pillaging, and I said I 
certainly never had seen anything like those events.

10. But when the actual information commissioned officer confirms that 
MACV ordered him to lie in his re****ts and accounts of battles, and that 
fact is confirmed and corroborated by the two Brigade level information 
Specialists, and even confirmed by a Marine Information Specialist, and 
then again corroborated by independent news men assigned to Vietnam by 
their agencies, only a complete and utter smear merchant and/or moron 
would claim all of those people are lying. And if that is not enough, I 
have read accounts of events in the 25th Unit Newspaper that I 
personally *knew* were lies. So I can confirm these unit articles and 
after action re****ts that Nigel Brooks loves to claim are the "official 
accounts" of what happened are mostly bull****, and that fact has been 
confirmed by direct testimony by ALL of the information officers 
involved in writing and publi****ng them.

10-a. All testimony before Congress during an officially convened 
investigation is considered sworn testimony. Sp4 Nigel Brooks says 
otherwise. . . weeooooooooooo.

11. Sp4 Nigel Brooks is also upset with me using outside independent 
experts on the US Military and the Law and not simply listening to his 
gaffs and his smear gang's parroting of his lies and false accusations:

Sp4 Brooks said:



"As for your experts.......................

I am entirely confident that were they to be fully apprized of all of 
the evidence which has been used to come to the conclusion that you are 
a serial bull**** artiste - they would agree. In particular the usenet 
postings that were taken into consideration in determining that both you 
and ChipC were claiming to have been awarded the Purple Heart for wounds 
received as a result of enemy action. I am also confident that you have 
never provided those so called "experts" all of the relevant data - 
however I can assure you that such experts will be given the op****tunity 
to review the data if necessary."

Doug Says: Mr. Brooks, they have already read all of the irrelevant and 
trumped up so-called evidence you have created out of thin air and they 
have concluded that not only was the topic of the conversation Cards and 
not Medals, but also that no honest investigator would make the claims 
you have posted. Now if you have some more evidence, no typos, no 
digging discarded posts from waste baskets, and no claims that my typist 
and I had to read previous statements Chip had made via mind reading or 
soothsaying, then I will be more than happy to present to them any 
additional evidence you might wish to present, that is if it is real and 
not goofy and self-serving conclusions based upon your self-acclaimed 
"soothsaying, crystal balls, and irrelevant bull****."







11. Sp4 Brooks Finds Yet Another Discarded Typo!





Sp4 Brooks said:

"Now - About that claim you spent 30 years in the military and that your 
last
command was an MI command (http://tinyurl.com/vyrt8).
My investigation
determined your military service was:

USMC July 21, 1961 - Oct 19, 1961
US Army June 18, 1962 - January 20, 1970

Whats that about 8-9 years?

My investigation also determined that rather than being an MI command (I
assume by MI you meant Military Intelligence or I guess you could try 
and
spin the **** out of it and come up with something in MI that matches
recruiting) - your last assignment was that of a Field Recruiter at
Lancaster Pennsylvania.

Nigel Brooks

Doug's Rebuttal: First, your post above is a forgery. I removed that 
post long ago and announced when I did the 30-year bit was a typo. I did 
another search on my name and the phrase "30 years in the military" and 
the post cannot be found on the Google archive. My God Brooks, is this 
yet ANOTHER discarded typo post you and SteveL have removed from my 
waste basket to try and defame and smear me with? BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Post reference:

<u3ig78sfq9s121@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>

Mr. Brooks, you have been told several times the "30 years" was a typo. 
And you have also been told that my last assignment as a "Station 
Commander" for a recruiting station dealt with MI issues that involved 
undercover MI agents working in the schools around my Station. The SDS 
were breaking into recruiting offices and doing other nasty things and 
me dealing with the MI undercover guys was very im****tant at the time.

(Note that Sp4 Brooks lies about my military records and says I was only 
a "Field Recruiter" at the Lancaster, Pa recruiting station. Yet my 
records show I was officially titled the "Station Commander" of that 
station, and I was also the ranking officer for all recruiting services, 
US Army, Marines and Navy at that location. All of the undercover MI 
guys (a PFC and A Sp4) received their instructions through me, and I 
debriefed them on a regular basis. The intelligence they provided in 
respect to when we could process our recruits without interference from 
the SDS, and such information proved to be absolutely essential and 
invaluable to all services recruiting in that area in 1969. Yes I was a 
commander, and yes I did command MI issues and operatives.

The way to prove the "30 year" entry is a typo is to look for any repeat 
of that 30-year statement, and also look for all the times I said 10 
years (with reserve time) or nine years of service. You will not find 
any repeat of 30 years ever, and when Brooks first brought up this typo 
I told him then it was a typo and I removed the erred post from Google. 
It appears that Mr. Brooks and SteveL have retrieved yet another one of 
their forgeries taken directly out of my wastebasket. Talk about 
unethical and fraudulent, could any two smear merchants be more obvious 
that Sp4 Brooks and SteveL/Jim McCulloch?



Here are a couple of references to my last assignment that Sp4 Brooks is 
clearly trying to hide - note also in this post I reveal where Jim 
McCulloch was "rewriting what I had actually said" and was presenting 
his own forgery rewrite as if I had said what he wrote in a previous 
thread. This was common for SteveL and his SDS chums. October 2007 
repeat: http://tinyurl.com/3nvy9d

http://tinyurl.com/4to7ks

"Also, Mr. Uy Uy knows that "Personnel Sergeants" never type up 
anything. And my last assignment in the US Army was that of a Station 
Commander of a Recruiting Station in Lancaster, Pa, designed for 
recruiting and some MI work. I did not deal in personnel (but wait my 
MOS still was that of a Personnel Senior NCO! - How can that be Mr. Uy 
UY and Nigel Brooks laughingly claim that no Enlisted Personnel ever 
perform duties outside of their primary MOS -of course anyone that was 
ever in the US military knows that ridiculous claim is a lie).




12. Mr. Brooks, I will tell you what a lawyer told me recently about 
your posts. He said that "reading your posts about me has become 
somewhat of a game with him, as he knows somewhere in that post there 
will be a lie, a fraud or a distortion of some kind - and it is getting 
to be fun to find them." (Or words to that effect). Mr Brooks when your 
posts are removed from the dregs, psychos and parrots that you insulate 
yourself with on the newsgroup, and away from those that you have conned 
into believing you due to all those fake Federal Agent claims, REAL 
experts, lawyers, and even Web Managers shake their heads in utter 
disbelief at your outrageous fraud, lies, forgeries, distortions and 
categorical misrepresentations, not to mention your production of 
slanted and clearly biased " evidence" to try and prove your defamation.

12-a. Some examples are: (1). You always try to use hearsay as evidence 
against first hand witness accounts to defame the first hand witness. 
You have not only done this to me, but to several other people that 
tried to post their experiences on this newsgroup. You have a pattern of 
using fraud and hearsay to defame people, and your gang chimes in on 
your fraud so they can "howl down" the truth with absolute hearsay 
bull****. That act alone has experts in investigation and the law 
shaking their heads in utter disbelief.

(2) If any hard evidence proves you wrong, you snip it out of your 
replies and try to hide it. Just like you snipped out all of those other 
eyewitnesses to the 1969 Can Tho attack that contradicted your hearsay 
version, and agreed with me that more than just satchel charges were 
used, and there were vehicles involved in the attack. Instead of 
accepting the fact that other eyewitnesses have confirmed what I said, 
you tried to hide it.

(3) You absolutely LOVE typos, errors, and such because of course they 
can be exploited and distorted into something the author clearly did not 
mean to convey, and therefore you can fraudulently make the author seem 
like he was saying something preposterous, false or idiotic. You even 
dig posts out of an author's waste basked and present them on USENET as 
an "intentional" posting on USENET. My experts also cannot believe you 
would try to con the readers into believing that a post removed for 
error was intentional, and the corrected version was the false and erred 
post! No one but your goons could be stupid enough to believe such 
obvious bull**** Mr. Brooks. You also hide and completely ignore any 
previous statements by any author explaining or correcting a typo, error 
or statement you are trying to distort and fraudulently misrepresent as 
an intentional statement by that Author.

(4). You LOVE to forge your own context or misrepresentation into 
someone else's post so you can alter the context and then use your own 
forgery to defame and smear your target victim. Just like you forged the 
terms (2nd Lieutenant) into my Butter Bar post even after I told you 
that was not what I meant, and when you forged the term Medal into my 
typist's PH Card post that was long discarded in a waste basket for an 
error, and now you have again retrieved a long discarded post with a 
typo of "30 years" from my waste basket, knowing I told you long ago the 
"30" was a typo and that post was discarded, so you can use outright 
fraud to try and defame me further. You are again digging around in my 
waste basket for errors you can falsely use to defame and smear me - do 
you realize how sick that sounds to real and honest investigators Mr. 
Brooks?

(5). You try to claim that everything under my account was written by 
me, and when I presented you with not less than 71 previous Google 
archived posts that proved you were lying, you then confessed that you 
could not be sure if I had written anything you were defaming me for. 
When I pointed out that confession meant your defamation was malicious 
and the courts would see it that way, you hurriedly lied and said your 
entire confession was nothing but sarcasm which was not evident anywhere 
in your confession post, and considering it was posted in response to my 
post containing 71 different archived post proving that others had used 
my account to post, my lawyers believe you are lying through your teeth, 
and they think they can prove that fact with even more of your posts.

(6). Your tactics of claiming you are going to review "official 
government records" to prove your howls against your victims are true, 
and then when those very records prove you lied, you distort, 
misrepresent, lie some more, and hide all the entries in those records 
that prove your lied through your teeth about your victims' past 
military service. You said I performed nothing but Personnel Sergeant 
duties in Vietnam, you lied. You said I was assigned to the 1/27th as a 
Personnel Sergeant, you lied. You hid my second assignment in the 25th. 
You said I was assigned from the 25th to the 51st Maintenance Company in 
Can Tho for duty, that is a lie. You said I performed duty for the 51st 
Maintenance company and you tried to find how many casualties that unit 
incurred, but you know I did not perform duty for that company. You also 
lied about me being reassigned out of Can Tho for the last two months I 
was in Vietnam. You lied about my reassignment to the states, you lied 
about my discharge, you lied about my MOS, you lied about my general 
duties in Vietnam, (there were NO personnel offices in Can Tho you 
screaming moron) you lied and distorted and hid and omitted anything 
that would prove you have been lying about me all along.

All this is what is going to the experts and to the courts if you do not 
find another target smear victim to lie about Mr. Brooks. And you call 
me a "bull****er?" BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA.

Doug Grant (Tm)
 




 71 Posts in Topic:
NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
"DGVREIMAN" <  2008-05-04 12:46:47 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
SteveL <stevelon@[EMAI  2008-05-04 21:32:41 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
tankfixer <paul.carrie  2008-05-04 14:27:08 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
Troll #327 <leonard@[E  2008-05-04 14:42:37 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
"DGVREIMAN" <  2008-05-04 15:32:55 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
tankfixer <paul.carrie  2008-05-04 15:42:47 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
"DGVREIMAN" <  2008-05-04 15:57:11 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
SteveL <stevelon@[EMAI  2008-05-05 00:04:05 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
"DGVREIMAN" <  2008-05-04 16:08:21 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
Troll #327 <leonard@[E  2008-05-04 16:44:05 
Third Notice to Troll 327 to cease and desist anonymous cybersta
"DGVREIMAN" <  2008-05-04 18:47:32 
Re: Third Notice to Troll 327 to cease and desist anonymous cybe
Troll #352 <Lucius@[EM  2008-05-04 19:19:47 
Third Notice to Douglas G. Reiman ALIAS Douglas Grant to cease a
Troll #327 <leonard@[E  2008-05-04 19:37:08 
Doug Reiman, cyberstalker or Spammer ?
tankfixer <paul.carrie  2008-05-04 17:02:26 
Re: Doug Reiman, cyberstalker or Spammer ?
"DGVREIMAN" <  2008-05-04 19:00:27 
Re: Doug Reiman, cyberstalker or Spammer ?
tankfixer <paul.carrie  2008-05-05 17:34:12 
Is Mr Reiman trying to hide something from, who ?
tankfixer <paul.carrie  2008-05-04 16:34:05 
Re: Is Mr Reiman trying to hide something from, who ?
"DGVREIMAN" <  2008-05-04 18:36:05 
Re: Is Mr Reiman trying to hide something from, who ?
tankfixer <paul.carrie  2008-05-05 17:34:12 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
Troll #327 <leonard@[E  2008-05-04 16:43:00 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
tankfixer <paul.carrie  2008-05-04 17:05:24 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
Troll #327 <leonard@[E  2008-05-04 17:12:43 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
"Nigel Brooks"   2008-05-04 19:28:24 
PING Nigel Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
Troll #327 <leonard@[E  2008-05-04 18:24:25 
Nigel's Legal Adivice (was
"DGVREIMAN" <  2008-05-04 19:25:21 
Re: Nigel's Legal Adivice (was
SteveL <stevelon@[EMAI  2008-05-05 07:38:31 
Re: Nigel's Legal Adivice (was
Mac <NoSpamToday@[EMAI  2008-05-05 08:56:55 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
tankfixer <paul.carrie  2008-05-04 17:31:14 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
Troll #327 <leonard@[E  2008-05-04 17:56:28 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
"DGVREIMAN" <  2008-05-04 19:26:47 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
"DGVREIMAN" <  2008-05-04 19:22:05 
Second Notice to Troll Cease and Desist anonymous cyberstalking
"DGVREIMAN" <  2008-05-04 18:46:10 
Re: Second Notice to Troll Cease and Desist anonymous cyberstalk
Troll #352 <Lucius@[EM  2008-05-04 19:20:43 
Second Notice to Douglas G. Reiman ALIAS Douglas Grant Cease and
Troll #327 <leonard@[E  2008-05-04 19:35:42 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
"DGVREIMAN" <  2008-05-04 15:27:27 
Mr Reiman's crimes reposted for eternity
tankfixer <paul.carrie  2008-05-04 16:22:44 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
"DGVREIMAN" <  2008-05-04 15:18:47 
Vote Doogie Drama Queen kOO kOO Awards Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO
Troll #327 <leonard@[E  2008-05-04 13:45:33 
NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
"DGVREIMAN" <  2008-05-04 15:19:51 
Mr Reiman admits to breaking the law
tankfixer <paul.carrie  2008-05-04 14:25:57 
NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO BS - FIRST REBUTTAL
"DGVREIMAN" <  2008-05-04 15:26:28 
Mr Reiman may be a felon.
tankfixer <paul.carrie  2008-05-04 16:06:33 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
Eat the rich <goofindo  2008-05-04 14:43:24 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
tankfixer <paul.carrie  2008-05-04 14:44:38 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
"DGVREIMAN" <  2008-05-04 15:34:58 
Mr Reimans admission reposted.
tankfixer <paul.carrie  2008-05-04 16:15:48 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
Troll #327 <leonard@[E  2008-05-04 14:46:05 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
"DGVREIMAN" <  2008-05-04 15:35:40 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
"DGVREIMAN" <  2008-05-04 15:34:03 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
"Pepperoni" <  2008-05-04 18:40:30 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
"DGVREIMAN" <  2008-05-04 15:54:40 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
SteveL <stevelon@[EMAI  2008-05-05 00:02:43 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
"DGVREIMAN" <  2008-05-04 16:07:19 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
SteveL <stevelon@[EMAI  2008-05-04 23:58:25 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
"DGVREIMAN" <  2008-05-04 16:01:35 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
SteveL <stevelon@[EMAI  2008-05-05 00:06:12 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
"DGVREIMAN" <  2008-05-04 16:09:31 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
SteveL <stevelon@[EMAI  2008-05-05 00:10:32 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
"DGVREIMAN" <  2008-05-04 16:13:05 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
SteveL <stevelon@[EMAI  2008-05-05 00:16:07 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
"DGVREIMAN" <  2008-05-04 16:20:38 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
SteveL <stevelon@[EMAI  2008-05-05 00:23:21 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
"DGVREIMAN" <  2008-05-04 18:31:31 
Mr Reiman needs help
tankfixer <paul.carrie  2008-05-04 16:30:01 
Re: Mr Reiman needs help
"DGVREIMAN" <  2008-05-04 18:34:23 
Re: Mr Reiman needs help
tankfixer <paul.carrie  2008-05-05 17:34:11 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
"Jack G." <j  2008-05-04 15:18:34 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
"Nigel Brooks"   2008-05-04 18:57:29 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
"DGVREIMAN" <  2008-05-04 18:58:20 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
Mac <NoSpamToday@[EMAI  2008-05-05 02:40:05 
Re: NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
!Jones <piss@[EMAIL PR  2008-05-05 08:51:55 

Post A Reply:
  Go here to Signup

AddThis Feed Button


About - Advertising - Contact - Frequently Asked Questions - Privacy Policy - Terms of Use - Signup

Contact
tan13V112 Sun Jul 6 16:18:49 CDT 2008.