On Sun, 4 May 2008 12:46:47 -0700, "DGVREIMAN" <dgvreiman@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>
>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)
>
>
>
Posting more justifiction for your kOOk Awards Doogie?
kOO kOO Doogie
|
