It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NC man found guilty of lying about Vietnam era

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 02:14 AM
link   
A man accused of lying about Vietnam-era combat and collecting $30,000 in compensation has been convicted in federal court in North Carolina.

Story

Another lying piece of crap caught
Hope he gets the max




posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 02:26 AM
link   
this is revolting.
and the nerve to actually put on the uniform.
enjoy prison.



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 02:32 AM
link   
Well!

I guess he probably figured that if the government terrorists can lie about the Gulf of Tonkin and get 55,000 soldiers killed, he can lie and extort 30 grand from the terrorists. Would have been nice if he gave it to a Vietnam vet though.



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 02:41 AM
link   
reply to post by HomerinNC
 


its quite ridiculous to see someone like that who probably didnt have they ba**s to actually be in combat himself soak up the glory and collect money that could have gone to real soliers who did in fact risk/give their lives for their counrty. this is absolutley dispicable and i hope he meets bubba in prison.
edit on 23-4-2011 by danamae23 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 03:38 AM
link   
listen to you guys, so quick to lambaste this man, so ready to hang him up from a tree,

and why? because some judge ruled he was lieing? you dont even know if he realy was lieing, you dont even know the details of the case, how do you know he wasnt actually telling the truth but lacked the documents to convince the courts,

you dont, you should not be so quick to assume the court system is infallible, people on this website should know damn well our court system is very fallible you should not be convinced he lied just because some judge says so,

see the evidence and decide for yourself before judging, dont just take some other persons word as the rule of law just cause he says it is,

imo the judge is just as much of a lier as the prosecuted until i see evidence to prove otherwise.

i see none in this thread



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 03:49 AM
link   
Whats the chances this bloke turning out to be skeptic or 911 offical story beleiver?



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 03:56 AM
link   
reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye
 


well dont you think that if he was some highly accredited marine colonel with medals and the whole nine, someone would come forward and speak on his behalf? dont you think his lawyer could pull up some sort of documentation or any kind of evidnce to prove his innocence? thats what they are paid for and if they couldnt even find some sort of evidence to make the judge think that there was reasonable doubt then i can only think that there was none. some cases are hard to get evidence for but proving a man was an honored marine colonel shouldnt be that hard, come on now. its not something new, people cheat the system all the time its not that far fetched.



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 04:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by danamae23
reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye
 


well dont you think that if he was some highly accredited marine colonel with medals and the whole nine, someone would come forward and speak on his behalf? dont you think his lawyer could pull up some sort of documentation or any kind of evidnce to prove his innocence? thats what they are paid for and if they couldnt even find some sort of evidence to make the judge think that there was reasonable doubt then i can only think that there was none. some cases are hard to get evidence for but proving a man was an honored marine colonel shouldnt be that hard, come on now. its not something new, people cheat the system all the time its not that far fetched.


dont you think that none of that is a guarantee, anything is possible, and we have no idea what the actual case is here because no details are provided in the article? dont you think concluding the judge and courts were right is premature without such details? while i say dont come to a conclusion so quick you defend your baseless assumptions,

dont you think thats risky and wrong?


Originally posted by danamae23
reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye
 


well dont you think that if he was some highly accredited marine colonel with medals and the whole nine, someone would come forward and speak on his behalf?
time goes by people die, what are the odds that every single colonel who participated in vietnam has someone to show up in court for them, WHY IS THAT A REQUIREMENT?



Originally posted by danamae23 dont you think his lawyer could pull up some sort of documentation or any kind of evidnce to prove his innocence?


what the hell makes you think he even has a lawyer? another assumption, maybe he's broke and had to use a public defender, all documentation is deletable and can be removed from the system at the will of those in control. only ignorance can doubt that.



Originally posted by danamae23 thats what they are paid for and if they couldnt even find some sort of evidence to make the judge think that there was reasonable doubt then i can only think that there was none.


you dont think that you assume it, how do you know that sort of evidence wasnt presented? maybe it was but the judge had already decided, maybe the judge had an agenda, MAYBE. how the hell do you know so well that it couldnt be the case, like i said, your assuming the justice system is infallible



Originally posted by danamae23 some cases are hard to get evidence for but proving a man was an honored marine colonel shouldnt be that hard, come on now. its not something new, people cheat the system all the time its not that far fetched.


that does not give you the right to just always assume its the case, what ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? your attitude here is guilty until proven innocent

just cause it shouldnt normally be that hard doesnt mean it couldnt be, all kinds of things happen in this world and it is absolutely in the realm of possibility that for this man his history may have become difficult to prove,

prove his guilt, there is no need to prove innocence, not in this country, not as it was meant to be.
edit on 4/23/11 by pryingopen3rdeye because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by HomerinNC
 


There are scams and cons for everything imaginable and they are usually ran on the gullible or elderly. Just because he claimed combat but didnt actually see any, some of you people want to hang him.
He didnt prey on the week or the sick or the elderly, he conned the US Govt, hats off to him, as far as im concerned.



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by TriForce
 


you people amaze me. You will happily and quickly defend a thief, murder, rapist, etc, and when someone comes forward do do the RIGHT THING, such as the homeless guy that found a backpack full of money last summer, you BLAST HIM for DOING THE RIGHT THING. Makes NO SENSE WHATSOEVER
Where have your morals gone people??



posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye
 


Here’s some background on the case
www.thetimesnews.com...

Also,
www.wwaytv3.com...

Hamilton pleaded guilty last year to altering a military identification card to represent himself as a three-star general. He paid $100 in fines and was sentenced to probation.

When Hamilton left the courtroom he had nothing to say to reporters as he made his way across Princess Street to his SUV. Hamilton is currently undergoing psychiatric treatment.


www.jdnews.com...

According to Robin Zier, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney's office for the eastern district of North Carolina, Hamilton was charged with several criminal counts including larceny of U.S. property, wearing a uniform without authority and entering military/Navy property, following an August 2007 incident.

As part of a plea deal in Feb. 2009, all charges but that of possessing an altered ID were dropped, and Hamilton paid $100 in fines and was sentenced to six months probation, Zier said.




I think he has problems.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Pauligirl
 


thank you very much for the links you provided, i realy wish these had been included in the op,

snippet from www.thetimesnews.com...

"Hamilton, who spoke to The Daily News on Monday from his home in Richlands, said the reason for the dearth of evidence on his service was that he was engaged in covert operations in Laos and Cambodia and sworn to secrecy for political reasons for 25 years after his medical discharge from the Corps in 1969. He said that the operations were so secret that when a platoon he commanded was wiped out in combat, their names could not even be added to the wall of the Vietnam memorial.

“As far as every medal that I have been awarded, every ribbon, they’re mine; and I’d give them all back for the 286 men I lost,” Hamilton said."


this adds a whole new twist on the two sides to the story,

i think the most solid evidence would be the fact that his claim for disability included combat wounds, if he truely never saw combat then i'd like to see his scars, maybe medical records, those sorta things could help alot to determine who is telling the truth, prosecutor or defense.

very interesting,



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join