FATUOUS CASINO DENIALS
DGVREIMAN
FATUOUS CASINO DENIALS
© Copyright all materials written by Author DGV Reiman 2008, all rights
reserved. By posting or publishing this article and other copyrighted
articles on USENET and/or elsewhere, Author is expressly NOT granting
any implied authorization to reproduce his copyrighted work in any
manner. The Author further does not accept as "Fair Use" under U.S. Code
Title 17, nor will condone, the reproduction of any portion of his
copyrighted materials IN ANY MANNER for the purpose of harassing,
stalking or defaming the Author, or in conjunction with any violation of
any civil or criminal statutes. Violators will face legal action. If
anyone wishes to reproduce my copyrighted materials all they need to do
first is email me and receive back via email my written permission to do
so - such permission will not be unreasonably withheld. As I have often
stated, I post copyrighted articles on USENET for a pre-review by the
public prior to placing those articles in a book to be sold in
international commerce. All those that read these articles already know
or should already know my copyrighted articles cannot be infringed upon
in any manner simply because they were first posted on USENET. Moreover,
according to case law and expert answers in respect to this issue, the
general stated policy of newgroups, such as to invite comment, DOES NOT
preclude, supercede nor abrogate the author's right of copyright
protection. Moreover, case law has further provided a precedent that
"Fair Use" cannot be claimed by an infringer to disguise the spiteful
and defaming reproduction of an author's work.
(Smear Merchant Disclaimer: Please note this article (the same as all of
my past articles and exchanges with posters) represents an editorial on
contemporary 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 legal...@comcast.net.
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
opportunity to retract, apologize and remove said post from the Google
archive).
Reference the following copyrighted post:
CASINO I SUED ILLEGAL! -WHO'S "FATUOUS" NOW?
Doug's Rebuttal:
It is amazing that people caught in outright lies and fraud would simply
repeat their lies and fraud hoping some fool will believe it. Have they
no shame? As an example of the fraud I have seen over this post:
(1) Denying the fact the NJ CCC has finally agreed that Adamar, the
company we sued was operating its casino illegally just like we said it
was, is a very germane issue in respect to our previous lawsuit against
that company. Of course the two issues are relevant - any fool can see
the connection.
(2). Posting erroneous opinions from a Judge in the case as if they were
in any way directed to or about me while ignoring the comments being
quoted were about an element of the case that I had nothing to do with,
and was not even a plaintiff! This is especially fraudulent when you
consider the very Judge being misrepresented as saying nasty things
about me actually praised my element of the complaint, and he said it
would have had merit if my complaint was filed within the statutes of
limitations.
(3) How can a Judge be admonishing me personally over an element of a
complaint that (1) I did not write, (2) had nothing to do with as a
Plaintiff, and when he also (3) published praise for my element of the
complaint to a degree that allowed the corporate Plaintiffs to gain a
cash settlement from the law firm that failed to bring our complaint to
court within the prescribed statute of limitations? Nigel Brooks'
misrepresentations in respect to my case are glaring and clearly
fraudulent, specious and "fatuous."
Fact: None of the quotations Nigel Brooks posts from the lawsuit in
question had anything to do with me, were not directed to me, and I had
nothing to do with that element of the case being referenced by Brooks.
Judge Irenas even said the complaint contained different plaintiffs and
different causes of action. I could not claim damages in many elements
of that complaint, and neither could others. And Brooks is using
comments from a Judge about an element of the case that had absolutely
nothing to do with me whatsoever, neither as an author nor as a
Plaintiff - and that repeated obvious fraud represents clear and
deliberate forgeries and fraud by Nigel Brooks for the purpose of
defaming me and casting me in a false and defaming light.
It is the same as me quoting excerpts from the Charles Manson case and
then claiming the Judge in the case was really talking about Nigel
Brooks and not Charles Manson. Nigel Brooks and his gang's fraud in this
case is so glaring, so obvious, and so egregious that even Brooks is
willing to repeat his fraud as if it were true to hide his shame and
embarrassment of being exposed as a fraud merchant that is using
outright fraud and false accusations for the purpose of stalking,
inciting threats and obloquy.
I even found out that today that Nigel Brooks has created some secret
web site again dedicated to me - secret only because he knows if I can
access his fraud I can easily refute and rebut it to a degree that all
will know Nigel Brooks is a fraud and smear merchant bent on libel and
fraud to smear his target victims with cons, lies, fraud, forgeries,
false accusations and general obloquy. Why hide the web site if a
smidgen of truth was on it? Brooks knows his lies cannot stand the light
of day, and Brooks' sure talks the talk, but I notice he cowers and runs
each time it is time to "walk the walk." Post access to the site Nigel,
that is if you want others to believe you are not lying again. Pathetic.
(In fact as the above Tiny URL proves, I was not even involved in the
element of the lawsuit the Judge negatively opined about. And in respect
to the corporate claims, which represented the element of the lawsuit I
WAS involved with, the Judge the gang likes to misquote said "had my
claims been brought within the statute of limitations they would have
had merit." (Or words to that effect - see the above Tiny URL). That
particular favorable comment by the Judge was one of the reasons our
lawsuit against the first law firm that failed to bring our complaint
within the required time limit was settled with a cash payment to the
Plaintiff group).
So why would a clearly fatuous gang leader like Nigel Brooks and members
of his smear gang continue to post quotes from a Judge he is
fraudulently claiming were being directed to me personally when the
actual quotations and facts of the case irrefutably prove otherwise? It
is called fraud, obloquy and deliberate defamation for the purpose of
harassment and cyberstalking - there can be no other logical reason.
Contrary to Nigel Brooks goofy claims to the contrary, anyone (with a IQ
of 6) reading the case and the URL above will find it abundantly clear
the NJ CCC has the final authority and final word on casino law in New
Jersey.
Nigel Brooks and gang members propensity to quote Judges that do not
have the correct mathematical understanding of casino games, while
ignoring the final rulings of the NJ CCC that directly contradict the
opinions of such uninformed Judges, is obviously a deliberate attempt to
deceive and misrepresent, which of course is the hallmark of the
"fatuous" Nigel Brooks smear gang, as I know it.
Also, the Nigel Brooks smear gang's support of the Judge's opinions
which were overruled and considered "ridiculous" by the NJ CCC and all
of the other experts on casino games, (see the above URL for proof) and
the smear gang's open support of casinos that cheat and are incapable to
legally run a casino, such as the company we sued, is beyond
explainable.
Why would Nigel Brooks take such an opposing and converse position to
the facts of our case, the law, and the final rulings of the gaming
commission in respect to our case? Is he a complete drooling idiot? Or,
is he supporting cheating casinos and ridiculous opinions from
uninformed judges simply to harass and cyberstalk me? Or both perhaps?
Who knows what his motives are? I believe only a Doctor of psychiatry
could possibly determine what makes smear merchants like Nigel Brooks
tick - er, tock.
Yet, regardless of his efforts to demonize me and others, his
unmistakable obsession to smear me with fraud and false accusations
seems to keep backfiring on Mr. Brooks and his Brownies.
The latest from the smear gang is "YOU LOST" which of course is true in
respect to winning money from the casinos we sued. But is not true in
respect to (1) stopping the casinos from cheating in shoe games, and (2)
winning a cash settlement from the law firm that failed to bring our
claims to court within the required statutes of limitations. So winning
and losing has its own context here - it is a matter of perception.
Moreover, since my schools are now going to reopen, and we will hire
company lawyers again, and since I. Nelson Rose, Law Professor and the
foremost authority on Casinos and the Law has indicated that our claims
against the casino for preferential shuffling would have been successful
had we sued for fraud, (which we tried to do with an amendment but that
amendment was turned down - so that issue is NOT res judicata ((already
ruled upon))) and that claim will be the basis for the next lawsuit if
the casinos try their cheating again against my students, I submit this
issue is not over, and I am not known for quitting anything when I know
I am right.
I hate to post these rebuttals to defend myself from Nigel Brooks and
his smear gang. Nevertheless, it appears from his recent attack posts
that Mr. Brooks and some anonymous cyberstalking members of his gang
have yet to find a cure to their obvious psychopathic obsession to
defame and demonize me. Their use of cyberstalking, fraud, forgeries,
lies, bullshit, idiotic misrepresentations, and of course, false,
fraudulent, deceptive and misleading nonsense about my military
records - which represents, as we all are coming to know, the hallmark
of the Nigel Brooks smear gang, is something that I will defend myself
against item by item, smear by smear, lie by lie.
BTW, some independent experts on law, investigations and such have
agreed to provide their opinions in respect to Mr. Brooks accusations
about me and my rebuttals. I will use the February 18, 2008 post by
Nigel Brooks attacking me with his typical fraud, forgeries, false
accusations, obloquy and a few malicious and false criminal charges
mixed in, and my rebuttals to his hatchet job, and then allow the
independent experts to rule and decide who is lying and who is telling
the truth.
I hope Brooks and his gang are not afraid of a little independent legal
analysis of their posts - because it is going to happen, and I will
publish and follow the directions I receive from those experts.
Doug Grant (Tm)
Nigel Brooks
news:tI2dnVTCs64N9mTa...@comcast.com...
>
> FATUOUS CASINO DENIALS
>
>
>
> Š Copyright all materials written by Author DGV Reiman 2008, all rights
Mr. Reiman:
Those the opinions of Judge Irenas and the Third Circuit were directed at
you. You are described by Judge Irenas as being the "lead plaintiff".
> (3) How can a Judge be admonishing me personally over an element of a
> complaint that (1) I did not write, (2) had nothing to do with as a
> Plaintiff, and when he also (3) published praise for my element of the
> complaint to a degree that allowed the corporate Plaintiffs to gain a cash
> settlement from the law firm that failed to bring our complaint to court
> within the prescribed statute of limitations? Nigel Brooks'
> misrepresentations in respect to my case are glaring and clearly
> fraudulent, specious and "fatuous.
The writing style of the individual who authored the complaint very closely
resembles your writing style in usenet. It also resembles your writing
style in your most recent and federal court action in Washington.
> Fact: None of the quotations Nigel Brooks posts from the lawsuit in
> question had anything to do with me, were not directed to me, and I had
> nothing to do with that element of the case being referenced by Brooks.
> Judge Irenas even said the complaint contained different plaintiffs and
> different causes of action. I could not claim damages in many elements of
> that complaint, and neither could others. And Brooks is using comments
> from a Judge about an element of the case that had absolutely nothing to
> do with me whatsoever, neither as an author nor as a Plaintiff - and that
> repeated obvious fraud represents clear and deliberate forgeries and fraud
> by Nigel Brooks for the purpose of defaming me and casting me in a false
> and defaming light.
>
> It is the same as me quoting excerpts from the Charles Manson case and
> then claiming the Judge in the case was really talking about Nigel Brooks
> and not Charles Manson. Nigel Brooks and his gang's fraud in this case is
> so glaring, so obvious, and so egregious that even Brooks is willing to
> repeat his fraud as if it were true to hide his shame and embarrassment of
> being exposed as a fraud merchant that is using outright fraud and false
> accusations for the purpose of stalking, inciting threats and obloquy.
Well for one - I was not a party to the Charles Manson case Mr Reiman. You
on the other hand in the cause styled Doug Grant v. Greate Bay are described
by the United States District Court as being the "lead plaintiff who claims
to act as attorney-in-fact for the plaintiffs"
The commentary and decisions of the District Court and the Circuit Court of
Appeals were directed to the plaintiffs in the case (you being the lead one)
> I even found out that today that Nigel Brooks has created some secret web
> site again dedicated to me - secret only because he knows if I can access
> his fraud I can easily refute and rebut it to a degree that all will know
> Nigel Brooks is a fraud and smear merchant bent on libel and fraud to
> smear his target victims with cons, lies, fraud, forgeries, false
> accusations and general obloquy. Why hide the web site if a smidgen of
> truth was on it? Brooks knows his lies cannot stand the light of day, and
> Brooks' sure talks the talk, but I notice he cowers and runs each time it
> is time to "walk the walk." Post access to the site Nigel, that is if you
> want others to believe you are not lying again. Pathetic.
If I recall correctly, you have previously requested access to the site.
Access was denied due to what was considered your disruptive nature in
usenet going back to the mid 90's. Generally applicants are given a great
deal of leeeway when considered for access, however a review of your past
usenet postings caused the site manager to determine that granting access to
you would be disruptive (see prior posts regarding rec.gambling.blackjack
and the fact that your disruptive postings in that newsgroup caused the
formation of a moderated group)
> http://tinyurl.com/46qxk8
>
> (In fact as the above Tiny URL proves, I was not even involved in the
> element of the lawsuit the Judge negatively opined about. And in respect
> to the corporate claims, which represented the element of the lawsuit I
> WAS involved with, the Judge the gang likes to misquote said "had my
> claims been brought within the statute of limitations they would have had
> merit." (Or words to that effect - see the above Tiny URL). That
> particular favorable comment by the Judge was one of the reasons our
> lawsuit against the first law firm that failed to bring our complaint
> within the required time limit was settled with a cash payment to the
> Plaintiff group).
I fail to see that such an self serving opinion written by yourself is proof
of anything except that you disagree with Judge Irenas, the Third Circuit,
and the Supreme Court.
The actual written opinions of those august bodies are located here:
http://www.bjrnet.com/member/archive/DougGrantVSGreateBayCasino.htm
http://vls.law.vill.edu/LOCATOR/3d/Nov2000/985291.txt
http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/orders/2000/052101pzor.html
Attack? I'm commenting on posts (since removed from the google archive by
yourself). that you have previously made in usenet.
Is there some kind of law against commentary?
1. The Interrogator
Dec 17, 2001
"I interrogated prisoners in Vietnam."
Feb 9, 2002
I personally captured, interrogated and imprisoned NVA regulars on several
occasions in Vietnam We maintained several POW camps in Vietnam for NVA and
Viet Cong troops. The most known and noteworthy (and one I delivered some of
my prisoners to) was located in Can Tho.
May 10, 2004
In truth I have witnessed several interrogation methods during war, and I
cannot think of a single method that does not humiliate or terrify the
prisoner. Cooking fake babies in front of female prisoners worked well in
the village interrogations(the baby was switched for a look alike doll that
really was a piece of beef). (This tactic also probably was the basis for
the Commies claiming that GI's "ate Vietnamese babies." )
Sep 15, 2006
When I was in Vietnam I had the opportunity to assist in or review several
prisoner interrogations. The main reason I was afforded this opportunity was
because I spoke fluent French, and passable Vietnamese (I scored a "4" in
French in the US Army DPLT language test, and a "2" in the Vietnamese). I
also was involved in a couple of interrogations due to opportunity and field
operations. Moreover, I also was asked from time to time to review the taped
interviews and the transcripts of prisoner interrogations to see if I could
find any "irregularities."
From a thread initiated by DGVREIMAN on September 15, 2006 entitled "SHOULD
WE TORTURE PRISONERS?"
COMMENT:
Mr. Reiman was a SSG - E-6 with an MOS of 71H40 (personnel NCO) assigned to
Co D, 1Bn 27th Infantry Regiment (Wolfhounds), 25th Infantry Division for an
approximate five month period. He subsequently transferred to Can Tho
Vietnam - where he was assigned to the 51st Maintenance Company (Lt).
Nothing in the writer's military records indicate any expertise in interview
techniques or the Vietnamese language. The writers DA Form-20 indicates
that on August 7, 1967 he was tested for proficiency in German - there is no
indication on any of the released records that the writer has any
proficiency in the French or Vietnamese language or that he received
training in those areas.
2. On Enemy Tactics
Oct 6, 2001
The Viet Cong were also experts with mortars. They would steal trucks, and
while driving down a road fire several mortar rounds from those moving
trucks all at different altitudes. By firing in this manner the mortar
rounds would all fall in the same general area within about ten seconds of
each other.
COMMENT:
The accuracy of a mortar being fired from a moving vehicle is highly
questionable even in the most "expert" hands. As a vehicle moves it would
be necessary to adjust the elevation and the azimuth axis (at least if you
wish to hit a designated target). It would also be necessary for the
"Expert" operating the mortar to know exactly where they were in relation to
that target.
3. Almost a Prisoner of War
Feb 26, 2006
Sadly, and in memory of our POW's (I was almost one of them) that Kerry
abandoned, I say we should never forget, never rest, never allow traitors
like Hanoi John Kerry and his ilk to hide in and destroy our Government from
within.
4. The Attack on Can Tho Army Air Field
Oct 6, 2001
When I was in Vietnam, stationed in Can Tho I witnessed two ambulances drive
through our main gate, calmly drive to our airport, drive on the tarmac and
while driving down the tarmac Viet Cong contained in the ambulances shot
each plane on the tarmac with a M-79 grenade launcher. Then when they were
through, they simply drove out the back gate and down the road. This was a
"drive-by" on an airport! These six or seven Viet Cong, equipped with simple
weapons (that look like big shotguns) destroyed an entire American Army air
base in about five minutes!
Mar 22, 2005
You were not at Can Tho, I was, I did not see it all of course as I was
pretty far away and if I remember correctly the attack occurred at night.
I vaguely remember watching the explosions on the air field from my vantage
point on top of the Melton Hotel, with Biocs. Most of my information about
the attack on the Can Tho airfield came from the MP's I spoke with later.
When challenged as to the veracity of his original posting the writer
revised and extended his remarks from his previously reported "I witnessed
two ambulances" (October 6, 2001) - to a "vaguely remember" on March 22,
2005
COMMENT:
During December 1967, the enemy gained entrance to the Can Tho Army Air
Field by utilizing an ARVN ambulance - they were able to destroy a number of
aircraft and managed to escape.
Reiman was not in Can Tho during 1967 he was in Europe and did not arrive in
Vietnam until February 1968. Reiman was in Can Tho during January 1969 when
another attack was made on the Can Tho Army Air Field - this attack did not
use ambulances.
On January 13, 1969 - the enemy infiltrated the Can Tho Army Air Field
though the wire in an area where there was a ditch. The attack began at
approximately 2:00 a.m. and the enemy were successful in destroying a number
of aircraft on the flight line. When challenged - Reiman changed his story
and claimed that he witnessed the attack from the roof of his BEQ (The
Melton) and that he had also been told of the circumstances of the attack by
MP's. This would have been a suprising feat due to the fact that the Melton
was located approximately four miles from the Army Air Field. The ability
of an observer to view ambulances entering an installation, driving down the
flightline and destroying aircraft from a distance of four miles at 2 am is
highly unlikely.
Interestingly, when challenged as to whether or not he had fabricated the
incident and was merely regurgitating the December 1967 attack - On May 17,
2005 a number of postings surfaced on the newsgroup alt.vietnam.veterans.
These postings from R.smitty, Willsboy, Jaymiller and a SgtFisher spoke to
the January 13, 1969 attack and were in support of the Reimans claims that
ambulances were used in the attack. But the facts of the attack on January
13, 1969 are well documented - there were no ambulances used by the enemy to
gain entry to the Can Tho Army Air Field.
The attack as described by the "eyewitness" simply never happened. The
interesting thing about the postings is that with one exception, none of the
posters appears to have ever posted on USENET previously. In other forums,
the writer has previously been suspected of using multiple identities to
bolster claims on those forums and in fact has sometimes forgotten to remove
his signature from the bottom of the post (as in the case of a posting by a
person identifying themselves as Dr Profe)
5. On Being Wounded
May 21, 1998
I think I was wrong a few times. I certainly was wrong when I volunteered
for my second tour in Vietnam. And I was wrong to think the VC that fired
at me would not hit me.
Sep 12, 2001
War is a terrible thing to behold. I know, I fought in one for a very long
time, and I was wounded and almost lost my life.
Oct 24, 2001
I abhor war, having fought and wounded in Vietnam. I know its ugly
face....close up.
May 27, 2002
And yes, I fought for my country, and I killed the enemy and I was wounded
in the process.
Feb 16, 2003
Doug Says: I have a Purple Heart also, and I received mine in a real war,
I can't imagine where you got yours since you have never fought in a war.
About the only place you could have received a purple heart was in Lebanon,
and that was not a shooting war, just a bombing due to the ineptitude of a
gang of Marine officers. In respect to deposing Saddam, I am the one
advocating removing Saddam, you are the one advocating cowering, hiding, and
doing nothing. It is pretty clear who the coward is around here. BTW,
bragging about a Purple Heart not received in combat is about as cowardly
as it gets.
http://tinyurl.com/kfz36
COMMENT:
A review of Reimans military record failed to disclose the award of the
Purple Heart.
If one looks at the referenced URL it leads to a thread entitled "Al Qaeda
Says Saddam an Infidel", in alt.security.terrorism on February 16, 2003.
Thread number 17 is no longer accessible (the author has been requesting
Google to remove his previous postings) - however it is referenced in thread
number 18 by ChipC. The actual message ID for this missing message is
WaU3a.38894$rq4.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net. An analysis of
the thread using the Netscan search engine shows that the Thread Number 17
was from the same internet account as the other postings made by the "Doug
Says" writer http://tinyurl.com/lbwo6
On December 26, 2006 - President Bush signed the "Stolen Valor Act" into
law. The Stolen Valor Act amends Title 18, United States Code, Section 704
as it relates to false claims about military decorations and medals.
The amended act now provides for a term of imprisonment not to exceed one
year for anyone who falsely represents themselves verbally or in writing to
have been awarded a Purple Heart.
6. On Being An Expert
Sep 12, 2001
I fought terrorism for two tours in Vietnam, and belonged to a
CounterTerrorism unit, that was trained specifically to defeat the Viet
Cong, as opposed to the NVA regulars. At that time I and other members of
my team were considered Experts on Terrorism, as it applied to the Viet Cong
and their typical terrorist tactics.
Apr 1, 2002
(in response to a post from a person who indicated he had served in the
101st Airborne Division)
It sounds like you are an Engineer. I helped train the 101 when they
arrived at Cu Chi RVN, but that was way before your time. The 1st Brigade of
101st Airborne Division arrived in Vietnam in July 1965, it was joined by
the complete division in November 1967. During the time the writer was at
Cu Chi - the 101st Airborne Division was located in the I Corps hundreds of
miles from Cu Chi
Apr 26, 2002
2&1/2 tours in Vietnam, one tour in Korea, and one tour in South America
probably makes me an expert on war and terrorism" Military records indicate
15 months in Vietnam - 12 months in Korea and no time in South America
May 26, 2002
All instincts and my entire base of knowledge of being a former expert on
CBR (Chemical Biological and RadioactiveWarfare) tells me this is true.
COMMENT:
During his time in the US Army, Reimans records reflect that he held
military occupational specialties in the personnel, finance, and infantry
fields.
Military records indicate 15 months in Vietnam (one tour with an extension).
During that time, the writer held an administrative MOS as both primary and
secondary MOS. His initial assignment in February 1968 was to Company D,
1st Battalion, 27th Infantry Regiment of the 25th Infantry Division where he
held the MOS of 71H40 (personnel sergeant) in July 1968 he transferred to
the 51 Maintenance Company in Can Tho following a voluntary extension of
tour with request for transfer. His primary MOS remained 71H40.
7. Cu Chi Base Camp Musings
Nov 13, 2001
That night we departed out of the 1st of the 5th Mech area of Cu Chi, 25th
Infantry Division, and we were promptly ambushed before we even reached our
parameter wire. We were ambushed *inside* of our own parameter! The enemy
knew exactly where we were going, and when we would arrive. I lost two men
that night. Sp4 Olsen was killed and Sp5 Nelson was badly wounded
Dec 23, 2004
This event took place in June 1968, at the 25th Infantry Division's Cu Chi
Base Camp, Republic of Vietnam, and the events then are very similar to what
happened in Mosul:
On the date mentioned above, I was ordered to attend a strategy and mission
meeting in a mess hall at Headquarters Company, 25th Infantry Division.
During that meeting a Major outlined a battle plan for that very night.
Several companies of men were to form at a parade ground, and trucks would
take the men to a debarkation point in the base camp located at the 1st of
the 5th Mech. area. From that point, which was close to our bunker line, the
large force would leave the base camp through the bunker line and surprise
the VC that were believed to be surrounding the Cu Chi base camp.
During the entire presentation the Vietnamese civilian employees that the
Army had hired to perform KP duty (KP=Kitchen Police) were obviously
listening intently to the Major's battle plan.
That night we massed at our first debarkation point without incident, then
we mounted trucks and they took us to the aforementioned 1st of the 5th
Mech. area, where we dismounted and formed a long column. The column then
started moving toward the Cu Chi base camp Bunker Line. I suspected an
ambush as soon as we cleared the bunker line, but to my dismay, I was wrong.
Long before we even arrived at our own interior bunker line our column
started receiving mortar and unbelievably, grenade fire! The VC were waiting
for us not *outside* our base perimeter, but *inside* where they popped out
of tunnels and threw grenades and fired mortars point blank. When the attack
occurred, I spotted two VC that were firing mortars from a latrine and I
fired back at them killing one and thereby disabling that mortar pit.
However, the damage was done. We suffered dozens of casualties, two of which
were men assigned to my team. Sp4 Olson received a mortal wound in his liver
that night, and Sp4 Nelson was wounded in the arm. (Nelson if you are
reading this by chance email me).
Due to the ambush, the entire mission was scrubbed, and when I returned to
my company I immediately went to Headquarters, looked up that fucking Major
that delivered our battle plan in front of enemy spies, and while he was
sitting behind his desk (with a glass cover) I asked him if now he
understood what the fuck I was talking about? The Major calmly replied
"Well, that is what you get paid your combat pay for." At that point I took
my helmet off and slammed in down on his desk, breaking his glass cover, got
about an inch from his face, and told him that his life was in jeopardy from
his own men, and that is what he gets paid his combat pay for!
The next day the Major was gone. Reassigned. But the damage had already been
done.
COMMENT:
The Combat Area Current Casualty File (CACCF) and Coffelt Data Base has no
record of a Spec 4 Olson or Olsen having been killed at the Cu Chi base
during June 1968. The writer was assigned to Co D, 1st Bn 27th Infantry,
25th Division. The only SP4 Olson assigned to Co D who was killed in
Vietnam was Carl Andrew Olson died - November 13, 1969.
Reiman would have one believe that a mission briefing was performed in front
of indigenous mess hall workers
and that that the enemy infiltrated Cu Chi Base Camp by means of tunnels and
set up a mortar position inside the Base Camp.
One would fully expect that an attack on Cu Chi Base Camp by the enemy
infiltrating by tunnel would be newsworthy. The 25th Infantry Division
published a weekly newletter called Tropic Lightning News which reported
activities by the various Division components. Copies of the newsletters
for June 1968 and July 1968 are available online at
http://www.25thida.com/TLN/.
The newsletters report many incidents involving units of the 25th Infantry
Division - There is no record of any attack as described by Reiman.
Mar 4, 2005
Look again Nigel, you are lying or stupid, one or the other. He was hit on
that mission I was on and as I described, which hospital he was in when he
eventually died I do not remember, but I do know where he was hit that
night, and I also know his name is on the Wall Nigel. Stop lying and
distorting the truth, now you are even trying to denigrate a brave dead
solider and his family. The writer reinforces his claim that the story of
the death of SP4 Olsen is true by claiming that "I also know his name is on
the Wall"
Mar 5, 2005
Much later, I had a few beers with Nelson later on a Vung Tau beach when we
were both on R&R and Nelson also was under the impression that Olsen died
of his wounds. But because Brooks could not find a record of Olsen's death
at Cu Chi, Brooks tried to denigrate this true story. Olsen was medevacted
out like all soldiers with extremely serious wounds were. I don't know where
they sent him, but probably to Long Binh, Japan or to the States.
Dec 22, 2004
One night in May of 1968, at the 25th Infantry Base Camp at Cu Chi,
Vietnam.................. I went to S2 (Division Intelligence) and told them
I believed the enemy had dug trenches under our base camp. Their reaction
was analogous to me throwing a basket of rattlesnakes on their desks. They
howled, blustered, threatened, denied and told me I was crazy, and
effectively ordered me to stop making such ridiculous claims. So I went over
their and went to the 25th Infantry Division Commander and begged him to at
least dig out that single side hole to find the tunnel. He refused and
ordered me to not continue to claim that the VC had dug tunnels under our
base camp. The Division commander's adjutant said that my ridiculous claims
would undermine the morale of our troops. However, I persisted with my
claims, and lo and behold, about three months later I was suddenly
transferred to the Can Tho region of Vietnam and out of the 25th Infantry
Division for good.
Had the commanding officers of the 25th Infantry Division listened to me
back in May 1968, thousands of American lives would have been saved. But
they did not listen because if they had admitted to being so negligent as to
allow the enemy to dig tunnels under our base camps, they (the commanding
officers) would have been relieved of their commands and even perhaps
court-martialed.Cu Chi base camp was built during 1966 for the 25th Infantry
Division.
COMMENT:
During April 1966, MG Fred Weyand Commanding General of the Division
requested the assistance of the newly formed tunnel rat section of the 1st
Infantry Division in securing the base and exploring the tunnels which lay
directly underneath. Colonel Thomas Ware, a 25th Division battalion
commander recalled that when the Division built the camp, they were
uncovering tunnels for months, if not a year. At length, the 25th Infantry
Division succeeded in stopping up all the tunnels -all that is except for
the Vietcong tunnels which were used for training the Divisions tunnel rats.
The 25th Infantry Division had been well aware of the existence of tunnels
built by the enemy in the Cu Chi District - Source: "The Tunnels of Cu Chi"
Reiman would have one believe that he personally contacted the Commanding
General (General Mearns) of the 25th Division. And that because of his
persistence he was "suddenly transferred to the Can Tho region of Vietnam"
three months later .
In other postings, Reiman has stated that he extended his tour in Vietnam
and received a thirty day leave which he took to Australia.
Generally speaking, a person wishing to extend their tour of duty could do
so in 6 month increments - such an extension was rewarded with a 1 month
leave at Government expense to anywhere in the world, and a reassignment
In-Country to the unit of one's choice.
The use of the language "suddenly transferred to the Can Tho region" could
very well lead the reader to believe that the transfer was due to Reimans
insistence in reporting the tunnels. However, the record reflects the
transfer was a result of his own request. Released records show that the
Reiman voluntarily extended his tour of duty in Vietnam in order to get out
of Cu CHi he served a total of fifteen months in country.
Dec 23, 2004
One former member of the 25th Infantry division even wrote a book about "The
Tunnels at Cu Chi" there were so many tunnels found in that area after the
war.
COMMENT:
The book "The Tunnels of Cu Chi" - ISBN 0-394-52576-0 was first published in
1985 by Random House. It's authors are Tom Mangold and John Penycate - both
British Citizens. Neither of whom served in the United States Army.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0425089517/102-5578582-8267346?v=glance
8. How Many Tours Was That (and where did you say they were)
Dec 6, 1998
I am not the type to quit or be intimidated. In fact, after my three tours
in Vietnam, I would say it is impossible to intimate me into doing
anything.
Oct 15, 2001
Let me tell you as someone that spent 2&1/2 tours of combat duty in Vietnam
Dec 17, 2001
After 2&1/2 tours in Vietnam, a Tour in South America, and a Tour in Korea,
I can tell you that I cannot think of a single day that a "crime against
humanity" was not committed, by one side or the other.
Mar 7, 2002
I spent two tours of duty in Vietnam, and one tour in Korea advising Korean
troops on how to fight the Viet Cong and NVA I also spent a tour of duty in
South America fighting terrorists.
Apr 4, 2002
During a time of war nobody "mindlessly" follows anyone. I have been
involved in combat for many years. In Korea, Vietnam (2&1/2) tours, and in
South America
May 15, 2002
I was at Inchon (not during the Korean war) but I visited Inchon when I was
in Korea training ROK Marines to go to Vietnam. I was never in Hue, most of
my operations were in the Iron Triangle or in the Delta, or outside of
Vietnam in "other surrounding countries."
Jun 8, 2002
"Josh" I fought in Nicaragua I know that Jungle well.
Jan 9, 2003
In respect to your claim of "carpet bombing" Cambodia, well dum dum, I was
in Cambodia during the Vietnam war and the only "Carpet Bombing" occurred on
the Ho Chi Minh trail.
Feb 14, 2004
http://tinyurl.com/evbbr
I spent two tours in Vietnam, the first one with the 25th Infantry Division,
at Tay Ninh and Cu Chi, and the other with a LSA unit in Can Tho
Feb 28, 2005
I served 15 months in Vietnam, and 12 months in Korea, of which some of that
time was also spent in Vietnam as I was involved in training ROK Special
Forces troops.
COMMENT:
Records indicate that Reiman served a one year tour in Korea during the
period October 1962 through November 1963. His initial assignment was in an
infantry position, but his records reflect that during much of his tour in
Korea, his duty MOS was that of Finance Specialist.
Reiman also served 15 months in Vietnam during the period February 1968
through May 1969. At the time he was in Korea the United States role in
South Vietnam was advisory with roughly 16,000 personnel by December 1963.
There were no Korean troops in Vietnam when Reiman served in Korea and there
is no indication whatsoever in the historical record that either the United
States or the Republic of Korea contemplated increasing troop levels to
Vietnam during that time frame..
In fact the Tonkin Gulf incident, which gave rise to the escalation of the
Vietnam War and the subsequent deployment of US Combat and Free World Forces
Combat troops did not occur until 1964 long after Reiman had departed Korea.
The first Korean military forces to enter South Vietnam were a Liaison Team
which arrived in August 1964.
The first large Korean unit arrived in February and March of 1965 over a
year after Reiman had departed Korea. There is nothing in the records to
support a claim of a tour in South America. Reiman apparently would have
one believe that he was advising Korean troops on how to fight the Viet Cong
before anyone was even aware that there would be a need for the Koreans to
assist in Vietnam.
There is no indication in the Reimans military records the he was ever in
Cambodia. On April 29, 1970 (three months after he had been discharged
from the United States Army), United States and South Vietnamese forces
attacked an area of Cambodia known as the "Parrots Beak".
There is no indication in military records that Reiman was assigned to
Central America - DA Form 20 indicates the following foreign service :
EUSA-Korea (12 months), USAREUR-France (12 months), USAREUR-Germany (7
months), USARPAC-Vietnam (15 months
Reiman served a total of fifteen months in Vietnam. His DA Form-20
indicates that he was assigned to Co D, 1st of the 27th Infantry, 25th
Infantry Division on February 27, 1968, MOS 71H40 - Personnel Staff NCO -
Rank E-6. The writer was subsequently transferred to HHC 53d General
Support Group effective July 21, 1968. Special Orders No 244, Hqs 53d
General Support Group dated October 4, 1968 indicate that the writer was
assigned to 51st Maintenance Co (Lt), APO 96215, MOS 71H40, Rank E-6. He
was subsequently promoted to SFC E-7 effective December 19, 1968 (Special
Order 320- Dec 19, 1968)
Reimans records reflect that he served a total of 15 months in Vietnam from
February 1968 to May 1969. He served 12 months in Korea from October 1962
to November 1963. There were no Korean Forces in Vietnam during the time
that the writer served in Korea. The first Korean military forces to enter
South Vietnam were a Liaison Team which arrived in August 1964. The first
large Korean unit arrived in February and March of 1965.
9. Officer Candidate School and Butter Bars
Dec 20, 2001
"Moreover, when I was a Platoon Sergeant (before I went to OCS ..Officer
Candidate School) I and my other senior NCO's would *never* blindly follow
a battle plan contrived by G-3 or S-3 (figured out by Majors and up). If
we had, I and all other teams I know would be dead." "I have never seen a
commissioned officer receive a medal that was not handed to him by the
actions of his NCO's. And that includes me. The decorations I received as
a Platoon Sergeant are real and were because of what I did. The ones I
received later I did not consider real or deserved, as they were not earned
directly by me, but earned because of the deeds of those under my command."
Dec 23, 2001
http://tinyurl.com/pmjaz
Joe, the sad truth is the Brits are right. I went through three Butter Bars
during my first tour in Vietnam (as a SFC) then I went to OCS and returned
as a butter bar myself. Half of my graduating class in OCS Ft. Benning
ended up dead or wounded.
COMMENT:
Reimans records indicate that he was assigned to US Army Infantry School -
Officer Candidate School to report April 24, 1966 - Class 13-66 (by
authority of Special Orders No. 3, US Army Ordnance Center and School - 5
January 1966).
By May 19, 1966 he was no longer an Officer Candidate and was assigned to
the Casual Company awaiting further orders. He was subsequently reassigned
to 256th Signal Co, APO NY 09122 - MOS 71J20, SP5 E5 - Report Date 19 July
1966 (Special Orders No 140, Hqs The Student Brigade, USAIS, Ft Benning -
dated June 16, 1966 - the Special Orders further reference a Department of
the Army message relating to the transfer of the individual dated May 19
1966)
There is nothing in the records to indicate the Reiman was ever a platoon
sergeant. In fact prior to OCS, the Reiman was a Specialist Five Finance
Specialist assigned to Aberdeen Proving Grounds
The writers' DA Form-20 lists the following awards and decorations: Good
Conduct Medal, Army Commendation Medal, National Defense Service Medal,
Vietnam Service Medal, Vietnam Campaign Medal, 2 Overseas Service Bars,
Expeditionary Medal, Expert rifle badge.
The term "Butter Bar" is a term used to identify a second lieutenant. Its
origin is derived from the fact that the insignia of rank of a 2lt is a
yellow or gold colored single bar. Contrary to Reimans claim of having
attended OCS after his "first tour in Vietnam" the released records indicate
that he applied for, and attended OCS Class 13-66 in April 1966. The writers
only tour of Vietnam occurred nearly two years later, in 1968.
The records further show that he failed to graduate from OCS as an officer
and was reassigned to the 256th Signal Company as a SP5 E5, 71J20 Finance
Specialist in July 1966.
After being challenged as whether or not his use of the term "butter bar"
was meant to mislead readers into thinking that he had received a Commission
as a 2Lt in the United States Army following Officer Candidate School, the
writer claimed that the term "butter bar" meant "Platoon Leader" and was
also used to describe a non-commission officer.
Mar 7, 2006
....and in Vietnam, a Butter Bar was a Platoon leader, not always a 2nd Lt
and often was a NCO ("B.B.") was the actual slang - offsetting L.T.) (In
Vietnam a "Brown Bar" was a 2nd Lt - at least it was when I was there). So
we are not talking about back in Ft. Benning, we were talking about in
Vietnam, in my unit, during the Tet offensive
COMMENT:
The President of the 27th Infantry Regiment (Wolfhounds) Association (the
writers unit in Vietnam during the Tet Offensive) - had this to say about
the writers claim.
"Having been both a 2nd LT., and 1st, in Vietnam, I never heard the term
Butter Bar, or Brown Bar used in any reference other than a 2Lt. The term
changed from Butter Bar to Brown when the Army went to subdued brass, and
the Gold Bar became brown. I never heard an NCO referred to as a Butter Bar.
Most of the NCO's that I knew would have considered that a negative term."
April 1, 2006
Doug Says: Nope Dai Dickhead, it is the truth and you know it and I know it:
I was not assigned to class 13-66 ever. You are missing another in-unit
amendment to that order that is not sent to OPO, therefore the US Army would
not have a copy of it - but I would! Also Infantry OCS at Ft. Benning (when
I was there) did not last six months. You have been caught lying again. And
I will hereby amend my claim of being within 3 weeks of completion to being
within 3 weeks and six days of completion - more like four weeks
COMMENT:
Reimans records indicate that he was assigned to US Army Infantry School -
Officer Candidate School to report April 24, 1966 - Class 13-66 (by
authority of Special Orders No. 3, US Army Ordnance Center and School - 5
January 1966).
The actual records of the Benning OCS classes are as follows:
OCS Class 10-66 - Began on or about January 27, 1966 and Graduated June 28,
1966
OCS Class 11-66 - Began on or about March 20, 1966 and Graduated August 23,
1966
OCS Class 12-66 - Began on or about April 16, 1966 and Graduated September
14, 1966
OCS Class 13-66 - Began on or about April 24, 1966 and Graduated September
22, 1966
The only possible other classes Reiman could have been assigned to would
have been either 11-66 or 12-66 (class 10-66 began while Reiman was still at
Aberdeen Proving Grounds)
Records received from the US Army clearly show that Reiman was assigned to
the Casual Company by at least May 19, 1966.
Special Order number 140 dated June 16, 1966 reassigns Reiman from the
Casual Company to the 256th Signal Company and specifically references a DA
Msg dated 19 May 1966.
The earliest OCS class the Reiman could have been in was 11-66 which began
on or about March 20, 1966 and graduated on August 23, 1966. Three full
months prior to the graduation of that class, Reiman was in the casual
company.
Clearly the Reimans claim of having been within 3 weeks and six days of
completion of OCS is false and a FATUITY.
10. On Combat
Mar 18, 2002
(I also used Claymores extensively in ambushes, but that has nothing to do
with this story.)
Mar 18, 2002
Question - Did you kill anyone?
As many VC and NVA as I could. (1803 estimated BC in 2.5 tours with only 3
wounded in my team). It is too bad however that we did not kill more
Apr 21, 2002
Second I have killed the enemy with Guns, Knives, Claymore mines, Grenades,
Wire, Artillery and Air Attacks, strategy and assigning men to combat
positions for battle, like most military team leaders did in Vietnam
Dec 22, 2004
I have experienced 122mm rockets' land within 15 feet of me when I was
fighting in Vietnam, and although they can do a tremendous amount of damage,
they cannot produce the volume nor type of shrapnel that was produced in
that Mosul Mess Tent slaughter.
Mar 28, 2002
No, (1) I do not live in a fantasy world, apparently you do. If you want a
few names of battles in which the Media was on site and broadcasting our
every move, it would harder to list the ones in which the media was NOT
present in Vietnam than listing the ones in which our battle plans were
being broadcast openly. (1) Hobo Woods (2) Au Shaw Valley (3) Tet 1968 (4)
Battle for Hue (5) May Iron Triangle Offensive 1969...etc Those were some
of the battles I *personally* was involved, and I *personally* watched and
heard the "newsboys" broadcast our tactics
COMMENT:
Military records indicate that Reiman served in Vietnam from February 1968
until April 1969. He held an MOS of Personnel Sergeant with the 25th
Infantry Division at Cu Chi and 51st Maintenance Company at Can Tho. The
Hobo woods are in the vicinity of Cu Chi and were part of the operational
area for the 25th Division - the writer arrived in Vietnam during the Tet
Offensive, however there is no indication in the records that he ever
participated in any "battles" in Hue or the A Shaw Valley. Both of those
locations were under the operational control of other units and were some
distance from either Cu Chi or Can Tho. The 25th Division was never
involved in any battles for Hue or A Shaw.
When challenged, Reiman has indicated that his participation in the listed
battles was due to the fact that he processed transfers of Officers from the
25th Infantry Division to those units involved in the battles - ergo he was
personally involved with the battles.
There is no indication in the released records which would substantiate that
his administrative duties included "assigning men to combat positions for
battle, ordering artillery or air attacks etc.
REiman was a SSG - E-6 with an MOS of 71H40 (personnel NCO) assigned to Co
D, 1Bn 27th Infantry Regiment (Wolfhounds), 25th Infantry Division he worked
in the Officer records and assignments section of the 25th Admin Company.
At Can Tho - the writer held the same MOS and rank and was assigned to the
51st Maintenance Company (Lt). The writers records indicate that the
positions he held in Vietnam were administrative in nature. His Primary and
Duty MOS as reflected on his DA Form 20 at both duty stations is that of
71H40 Pers Staff NCO.
The Combat Area Current Casualty File (CACCF) and Coffelt Data Base lists 7
members of Co D, 1st of the 27th Infantry who were killed in action during
the time that the writer was assigned to that unit. The CACCF and Coffelt
Data Base also lists 1 person with the 51 Maintenance Company who was a
casualty in January 1968 one full month prior to the writer arriving in
Vietnam.
The writers records indicate one tour of Vietnam beginning in February 1968
and ending in April 1969. The writers initial assignment was for a period
of 12 months and he extended for a six month period with a transfer to the
51st Maintenance Company in Can Tho. The writer served a total of 15 months
in Vietnam - by any stretch of the imagination 2.5 tours for an individual
in the United States Army would equate to a period of 30 months (a regular
tour being 12 months)
Further - the Reimans post of December 23, 2004 directly contradicts his
claim of being in a "team" which only had 3 wounded - "However, the damage
was done. We suffered dozens of casualties, two of which were men assigned
to my team. Sp4 Olson received a mortal wound in his liver that night, and
Sp4 Nelson was wounded in the arm. (Nelson if you are reading this by chance
email me). " [Here]
Reiman has subsequently inferred that these duties were fulfilled as part of
his duties when he performed guard and reaction force assignments.
Most - if not all personnel assigned to Vietnam experienced duties as guards
or in assignments to reaction forces. These duties were secondary in nature
to the primary assignment and occurred on a recurring basis. One might be
assigned to a reaction force at night for a week at a time. Duties would be
to respond with weapons should their be any alert or attack on the base. It
goes without saying that it is highly unlikely that an administrative
sergeant would be calling in artillery or air strikes. This would be left
to those who had such training, and their is nothing in the writers record
to show that he possessed such training
Aug 9, 2005
I was assigned an 11B MOS when I first entered the Army and held that MOS as
a primary or a secondary MOS for the duration of my time in the US Army.
COMMENT:
Contrary to Reimans boast that he held an infantry MOS for the duration of
the time he was in the Army, his records reveal that he entered the United
States Army in 1962 with an MOS of 111.1 (the equivalent of 11B-Rifleman).
His records further reflect that the MOS was withdrawn in April 1965.
Special Orders Number 63, Hqs US Army Ordnance Center and School, Aberdeen
Proving Ground, dated 2 April 1965 - withdrew the Secondary Infantry MOS of
111.10 under the authority of AR611-203. Distribution on the orders
indicate that the individual received 5 copies of this order in addition to
the one going into his personnel file.
Rather than holding an infantry MOS for the duration of his time in the
Army - Reiman held an infantry MOS for about three years at the beginning of
his Army career.
12. General Wesley Clark
Sep 19, 2003
I knew General Clark, I met him once in Vietnam and again in Aberdeen
Proving Ground (I believe it was he at Aberdeen but I am not positive) and I
am sure he will never remember me, and for that I am thankful.
Sep 6, 2004
I was introduced to General Clark, and I answered several of his questions -
and therefore, I knew the man. Of course I did, he inspected my section at
Aberdeen Proving Ground.
COMMENT:
General Clark entered West Point in 1962, and was commissioned in 1966.
Following his commissioning he received a Rhodes Scholarship to Oxford
University, England where he studied for a further 2 years. Following Army
Ranger School and a short command in the United States - Clark received his
assignment to Vietnam arriving in May 1969 where he was assigned to the 1st
Infantry Division Lai Khe.
General Clarke was a cadet at USMA West Point during the time the writer was
at Aberdeen Proving Grounds - following his Commission into the United
States Army in 1966 he immediately went to Oxford on a Rhodes Scholarship.
During the period the writer was in Vietnam (February 1968 -April 1969),
Wesley Clark was assigned to the Ranger School and held a command in the
United States. Clark did not arrive in Vietnam until one month after the
writer departed.
13. On Intelligence Matters
Jan 6, 2002
I spent 30 years in the Military. First the US Marine Corps, then the
United States Army. My last command was a MI command.
Mar 19, 2002
So what does the CIA have to do with students attending classes, passing
tests and getting degrees? I will tell you, absolutely nothing! Moreover,
the entity that was doing campus investigation during the 60's was Military
Intelligence, NOT the CIA. Moreover, MI detachments were concentrating on
schools with SDS branches and other subversive organizations. My last
assignment in the military involved that very issue, and in fact if you
would like to research it, when it was revealed that MI was doing the Campus
investigations there was considerable backlash from the liberal democrats.
Apr 1, 2002
The reason I asked is I worked for General Young for awhile in the 7th
Engineer Battalion in Frankfurt Germany, (the I.G. Farben Bldg). I was not
in the Engineers but they needed some special intelligence services there
for a while.
Dec 12, 2002
Further, if you want to debate the SDS Jim, you have picked the wrong man.
I have *volumes* of information on the SDS as I helped debrief some of the
undercover operatives involved in penetrating that organization.
Dec 13, 2002
In respect to my involvement in S-2 and G-2, in several different theaters
and units, my records speak for themselves Jim. Like I said, due to all
those lawsuits, my past is an open
book.
Dec 13, 2002
I worked for the US Army, and I helped debrief US Army personnel that were
operating undercover for the MI branch of the US Army. There is no
indication whatsoever in the writers' Military Records that he was ever
involved in intelligence operations or ever held an intelligence related MOS
Dec 22, 2002
I personally helped with debriefings that indicated that a million dollars
was delivered to the Pennsylvania chapters of the SDS, and that regular sums
of money were being provided by the Russians to SDS members.
COMMENT:
Reiman did not spend 30 years in the military and he never commanded a
Military Intelligence unit.
His military records indicate that following:
USMC service 21 July 1961 - 19 October 1961
US Army service 18 June 1962 - 20 January 1970
His last assignment was that of Field Recruiter from May 1969 until January
1970.
There is no indication in his records that the writer ever held a Military
intelligence MOS or ever commanded an MI unit.
13. Delta Force and Other Musings
Jun 17, 2002
Doug Says: I doubt if I could confuse him more than he already is...but you
do have a point. I was going to post the fact that Southern Command
recently moved from Panama (where they have been located for about 40 years)
to Puerto Rico. I also researched some of my old documents and I found some
information from the time I was in Central/South America that I believe are
not classified...such as my old health instructions for Delta Force
personnel when in the Jungle, and stuff like that.
COMMENT:
Reimans military records indicate that he was discharged from the US Army in
1970. There is no indication in his records that he ever served in Central
or South America.
Delta Force (1st Special Operations Detachment Airborne - Delta) was formed
in 1977 - 7 years after Reiman was discharged from the US Army
Mar 3, 2005
Some of my missions and tours were classified
COMMENT:
There is no indication that any of Mr. Reimans assignments were classified.
May 12, 2002
Fidel announced in Iran that he was going to help the Iranians bring
"America to its knees" and Fidel has been caught red-handed giving
Biochemical weapons to our enemies for the specific use against America.
Now does that sound like someone we should attack? Duh. When we do Cuba
will fall in ten days or less. (I fought Cuban soldiers personally, they
actually ran faster than the Viet Cong...if that is possible.)
COMMENT:
Reimans military records show no indication that he was ever involved with
fighting Cuban Soldiers or at any of the locations where Cuban Soldiers were
stationed (such as Grenada-Angola-etc)
--
Nigel Brooks
!Jones
<dgvr...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Doug's Rebuttal:
Yea, Doug! Refute his ass!
So, how come you're suing the casino? Not that I really care... but
aren't most of them a little on the sleazy side? I'd guess that very
few are *really* legal in that they're selling a get rich quickly
scheme. Of course, the same is true of state-run lotteries.
Hey, I heard that Nevada is the only state never to have had a
state-run lottery. I wonder if it's true. The source was somewhat
apocryphal, or, at least, less than fully vetted.
Jones
!Jones
<leon...@davinci.info> wrote:
>So just what does this insipid shit have to do with alt.war.vietnam?
About as much as your whining that he's off topic... and me whining
about your whining, for that matter. Of all the pests up with which
we must put, Doug is the least obnoxious. If you don't like it, then
don't read it... it's that easy.
Hey, wanna have a whining contest? We could ask the good folks over
at alt.fool.whine to judge.
Jones
tankfixer
dgvr...@comcast.net says...
>
> FATUOUS CASINO DENIALS
>
stupid disclaimer discarded...
>
> Reference the following copyrighted post:
>
>
>
> CASINO I SUED ILLEGAL! -WHO'S "FATUOUS" NOW?
>
> http://tinyurl.com/4pj8kk
>
>
> Doug's Rebuttal:
>
>
>
> It is amazing that people caught in outright lies and fraud would simply
> repeat their lies and fraud hoping some fool will believe it. Have they
> no shame? As an example of the fraud I have seen over this post:
I have often wondered that myself Doug,
Why do you keep repeating the same lies over and over ?
>
> (1) Denying the fact the NJ CCC has finally agreed that Adamar, the
> company we sued was operating its casino illegally just like we said it
> was, is a very germane issue in respect to our previous lawsuit against
> that company. Of course the two issues are relevant - any fool can see
> the connection.
Your case was dismissed...
>
> (2). Posting erroneous opinions from a Judge in the case as if they were
> in any way directed to or about me while ignoring the comments being
> quoted were about an element of the case that I had nothing to do with,
> and was not even a plaintiff! This is especially fraudulent when you
> consider the very Judge being misrepresented as saying nasty things
> about me actually praised my element of the complaint, and he said it
> would have had merit if my complaint was filed within the statutes of
> limitations.
Go tell the judge his opinion is erroneous.
I expect you might be cited for contempt.
>
> (3) How can a Judge be admonishing me personally over an element of a
> complaint that (1) I did not write, (2) had nothing to do with as a
> Plaintiff, and when he also (3) published praise for my element of the
> complaint to a degree that allowed the corporate Plaintiffs to gain a
> cash settlement from the law firm that failed to bring our complaint to
> court within the prescribed statute of limitations? Nigel Brooks'
> misrepresentations in respect to my case are glaring and clearly
> fraudulent, specious and "fatuous."
I suppose we could get someone to post the writings of the judge who
kept denying your motions last summer.
He wasn't impressed with your legal arguments either...
>
> Fact: None of the quotations Nigel Brooks posts from the lawsuit in
> question had anything to do with me, were not directed to me, and I had
> nothing to do with that element of the case being referenced by Brooks.
> Judge Irenas even said the complaint contained different plaintiffs and
> different causes of action. I could not claim damages in many elements
> of that complaint, and neither could others. And Brooks is using
> comments from a Judge about an element of the case that had absolutely
> nothing to do with me whatsoever, neither as an author nor as a
> Plaintiff - and that repeated obvious fraud represents clear and
> deliberate forgeries and fraud by Nigel Brooks for the purpose of
> defaming me and casting me in a false and defaming light.
Yadda Yadda Yadda.
fact is your appeal was rejected with prejudice
>
> fraud
> fraud
> fraud
> fraud
It seems you may be.
>
> I even found out that today that Nigel Brooks has created some secret
> web site again dedicated to me - secret only because he knows if I can
> access his fraud I can easily refute and rebut it to a degree that all
> will know Nigel Brooks is a fraud and smear merchant bent on libel and
> fraud to smear his target victims with cons, lies, fraud, forgeries,
> false accusations and general obloquy. Why hide the web site if a
> smidgen of truth was on it? Brooks knows his lies cannot stand the light
> of day, and Brooks' sure talks the talk, but I notice he cowers and runs
> each time it is time to "walk the walk." Post access to the site Nigel,
> that is if you want others to believe you are not lying again. Pathetic.
Ohh, Secrets....
>
>
>
> http://tinyurl.com/46qk8
Citing yourself is well, disturbing....
>
Your Self agrandizations are sick...
> I hope Brooks and his gang are not afraid of a little independent legal
> analysis of their posts - because it is going to happen, and I will
> publish and follow the directions I receive from those experts.
have you considered help from mental health experts ?
--
"Plaintiffs' complaint is a verbose, confused, overreaching and immature
work product, and its allegations of cheating, RICO, consumer fraud,
constitutional violations, defamation and civil conspiracy confuse
rather than elucidate the essential nature of the dispute."
tankfixer
says...
He tried to run a card counting operation and got caught....
!Jones
<paul.c...@us.kat.army.mil> wrote:
>He tried to run a card counting operation and got caught....
So, why is it against the rules to count cards? I thought that's what
you did in a casino. You remember what has been played and bet
accordingly... or so I thought. That's what I would do, anyway.
Of course, I haven't ever spent a nickle in a casino, so WTF do I
know?
Jones
!Jones
<nbr...@msn.com> wrote:
>The accuracy of a mortar being fired from a moving vehicle is highly
>questionable even in the most "expert" hands. As a vehicle moves it would
>be necessary to adjust the elevation and the azimuth axis (at least if you
>wish to hit a designated target). It would also be necessary for the
>"Expert" operating the mortar to know exactly where they were in relation to
>that target.
Awwww... let's not let a bunch of facts ruin a perfectly good war
story, I say! Didn't you ever see "Fighting Seabees" wherein John
Wayne used that very tactic to kill a Japanese tank? And in the Dell
comics "Our Army at War" (January, 1962, Issue 14, Page 6), Sgt. Rock
and Ice Cream Soldier fired a mortar with utterly devastating
effectiveness from the side car of a comandeered motorcycle. See
also, the TV series "Combat" wherein, in one episode, the Germans had
a mortar in the back of a half track. Are you calling John Wayne,
Sgt. Rock, *and* Sgt. Saunders liars? It's clearly very well
documented.
And *I* ate Vietnamese babies... they tasted like chicken.
Jones
tankfixer
says...
From what I understand they try to stack the table with counter to try
and beat the house....
Nigel Brooks
news:k51jv31gtf1s4poj4...@4ax.com...
I have a feeling that Mr. Reiman will be citing you as proof of the veracity
of his post.
You'll probably be joining Sgt Fisher, Dr Ragge, Willsboy, and R Smitty on
the witness list.
--
Nigel Brooks
p.s. dont tell him how long you were in the nam man - or he'll be calling
you a Village Rat and making rude remarks about your family members.
Mac
wrote:
>CASINO I SUED ILLEGAL! -WHO'S "FATUOUS" NOW?
***********************************************
You are.
Still.
And your posts deliberately confuse rather than elucidate.
---Mac, the Medic
!Jones
<nbr...@msn.com> wrote:
>I have a feeling that Mr. Reiman will be citing you as proof of the veracity
>of his post.
Our other litigious friend that we have discussed finally had his ass
hauled back to town in shackles by the US marshals.
So he sued them! And the judge... and the prosecutor... and the
driver of a cab parked outside for good measure. I think he's out
now, though.
Jones