my letter to John Wollaston's base commander....

[mike_c]

Several folks have asked me to copy them the complaint I wrote to Cpl. John Wollaston's base commander following his recent political denunciation letter to my department chairman. For those of you who haven't see it, this is in reference to this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2109093

Here is the letter:

(letterhead boilerplate omitted)

Colonel Brian W. Lauritzen, Garrison Commander
Dept. of the Army
U.S. Army Garrison, Fort Belvoir
Command Group
9820 Flagler Road
Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-5932

Dear Colonel Lauritzen,

I am writing to complain about the actions of a soldier under your command and to ask you some questions about his recent activities.

Corporal John S. Wollaston recently sent—- via email—- what can only be described as a political denunciation to the chairman of my department. I’ve attached a copy of the letter. In it, he cites his rank and his status in the U.S. Army as justification for his actions. He appeared to suggest that I be reprimanded for engaging in protected free speech, and in particular for an opinion I wrote as a private citizen, outside the context of my employment at the California State University. It’s hard to imagine why else he would seek to have me censored by my department chairperson. After sending the denouncement, Cpl. Wollaston further attempted to orchestrate a letter writing campaign against me on a conservative internet political forum. My department chairman subsequently received several additional letters denouncing me. Cpl. Wollaston’s comments and the rather shocking rhetoric he incited can be viewed at this URL (where he posts under the account name “txradioguy”):

(removed a link to the site which shall not be linked, per DU rules)

To be sure, I understand that the views I expressed were provocative and unpopular with many servicepersons and other supporters of the war against Iraq. The comments he quoted were ones I made in March, 2005, and while my opinions have moderated somewhat in the year and a half since I made those remarks, I certainly do not expect him—- or you—- to agree with them. However, I would expect him to respect my right to express them, and not to seek retribution against me through my employer.

Luckily, there is little to be concerned about regarding a reprimand from my university administrators. First, I am a tenured professor, so my opinions about public affairs outside the classroom are unlikely to cause me grief, even when they are unpopular with some. Second, although he implies that I am some sort of new “Ward Churchill,” in fact my job performance is regularly reviewed by my supervisors and my colleagues and has never been judged inconsistent with the mission of my parent institution. I have few concerns about any negative impact resulting from Cpl. Wollaston’s denunciation campaign against me. However, I wonder who else he has sent such denunciations to-— the comments in the discussion forum I cited above alluded to unnamed additional recipients.

It is unseemly for Cpl Wollaston to misuse his authority as a U.S. serviceman to seek limits on the protected activities of a fellow citizen, even one with whom he disagrees vehemently. I would greatly appreciate answers from your office regarding the following questions:

1. Is it the policy of the U.S. Army or of your command to encourage personnel to denounce the exercise of free speech by private citizens? Do you countenance political denunciation letters to employers or to other government offices, written under authority of your command?

2. Cpl. Wollaston cites his authority as an Army serviceman in his denunciation. Is making political denunciations among Cpl. Wollaston’s assigned duties? Does that mission extend to organizing broader letter writing campaigns against U.S. citizens?

3. A cursory examination of several political discussion forums, including the one cited above, reveals that Cpl. Wollaston posts his comments and his denunciations during a wide variety of times, including during regular working hours. Is he participating in those activities during his duty shifts, and if so, is he using U.S. government computers and internet bandwidth to do so? Do such activities have the approval of your command?

4. Did Cpl. Wollaston use U.S. government resources to compose and deliver his denunciation to my employers? Is that activity approved under your command?

Thank you for your attention to these matters. Please do not hesitate to contact me directly if I can provide any further information.

Respectfully yours,


Michael Camann

Cc: (my chairperson)
Capt. Steven Schwoerke
Rep. Mike Thompson

Attachment

[ThomCat]

1. It will be interesting if you get a response.

[greenbriar]

5. oh good

any reply????

[mike_c]

7. it'll go out tomorrow AM via U.S. mail...

...so I don't expect him to even receive it until next week.

[KharmaTrain]

15. Send It Registered

A very good letter and I will be anxious how this plays out.

I'd suggest sending this letter registered and ask for a return receipt...to ensure the Garrison commander gets it...or at least you can document the letter got to the office.

I've seen that nom de guerre used on a couple right wing web sites...and if this is that person and he is supposedly still on "our dime" in the military, I'd like to see what kind of response you get.

Hats off to you for turning this thing around...

:toast:

Cheers...

[mike_c]

33. will do....

Good suggestion.

[saigon68]

2. They won't reply These RUSTIC CRIMINALS are ABOVE the law

They will put you in a Gulag if they ever reach absolute power.
They are NAZIs

[sarcasmo]

3. I fear #1 will be policy one day. Kick and Nom

All of us here at D/U would be in Gitmo if Cheney had his way.

[qanda]

4. That's a great letter

I hope it's taken seriously and steps are taken to keep him from contacting you.

[Synnical]

6. Nicely done

Hope you get a response.

[greenbriar]

8. but said perpretrator has already seen that you are sending it

and is doing "damage" control as we type.


I just checked the unnamed board

[mike_c]

12. yes, and they apparently can't read well....

"I’ve attached a copy of the letter."

That's Cpl. Wollaston's letter, *which includes the comments I made last year* (I don't know how to make that any clearer), the ones that offended him so much. I'll not only sign my name to my opinions, I'll acknowledge them, even when they're not popular.

That's obviously a reference to the discussion over there, not a response to your comments! And the edits are a response to their discussion. I hope the mods won't get too upset by that.

[LostinVA]

43. How about your elected officials?

If the CO doesn't answer you, I'd go up the chain of command AND send it to all your Congress critters, regardless of political affiliation.

My Freeperish BIL is totally appalled by this, and told me he would give a solider of his who did this "a punishmnet he sure as hell would never forget."

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

31. How can he do damage control by talking to internet freepz and CUers?

He'd have to go to his C.O. and say "um, you're gonna get a letter, and I got some 'splainin' to do..."

I don't see how any posting would accomplish any job damage control.

[TahitiNut]

44. Digging hisself a deeper grave.

How much of his posting is during duty hours, using taxpayer-paid government resources? (It'd be wise to capture/record the posts including their dates and times - since it'd not be unexpected that the host forums would scrub them to protect a 'fellow fascist.')

Such posts also make moot any potential future disclaimer of not being that person.

The little fucker should be in the stockade - and then dishonorably discharged for "conduct unbecoming and prejudicial to the service."

[LanternWaste]

57. Would you do me a favor

Would you do me a favor and PM me with the address of this oft-referenced "un-named message board"?

[SeattleVet]

9. K&R - and I hope you send a copy to your Congresscritter.

When I was in the Air Force, the thing most feared was ANY inquiry from a member of Congress. There are very specific protocols and timeframes when a Senator or Representative makes an inquiry, and the brass always absolutely hated having to deal with them, but they almost always got action.

[mike_c]

11. I'm copying to Rep. Mike Thompson....

eom

[blm]

25. Prepare to send a copy to a newsgroup you trust or Stars and Stripes.

Couldn't hurt.

[MrScorpio]

36. Agreed

Another Air Force guy here.

People piss in their pants over Congressional inquiries.


Shoot him/her a letter.

[nadinbrzezinski]

68. I can confirm that

only reason why hubby was able to retire... BUPERS would have to do some 'splaining to a US Senator.

[AspenRose]

10. Keep us posted

Maybe you should send a copy to your local ACLU, just in case....

[malmapus]

13. Hahaha a CPL is out to get you!!!???

Well I was a Spec-4 (being same rank as a CPL just didn't do / care for the JRNCO school to get those two stripes as opposed to my shield), but still that's just a spit above Private First Class.


Why isn't the good CPL out doing shit details! He could be delegating a bunch of privates!

[steely]

14. mike - where do we sign?

I goggled this guys name and found he is/was a SPC4 (e-4 but equivalent to CPL pay, but none-the-less different), and (at one time?) a PAO, or Public Affairs Officer - short for news item writer (I took the course years ago).

I wonder if this guy out-stepped his position and gave opinions on his own "or what".

Anyway, nice letter.

[The Night Owl]

16. TRG's hypocrisy on parade...

TRG's response to the US Army granting a trial to a US soldier accused of murder...

"Agreed. I'm still scratching my head on why we're wasting Army $$$ on even giving this mutt a trial." - TX Radio Guy

So, the rightwingers can say what they will about Mike_C, but at least he, unlike TRG, is willing to grant the accused their day in court.

I know all that stuff about due process bugs ya, TRG, but that is how we roll in America.

[Dinger]

17. You Don't Screw Around, Do You Mike?

Wow, excellent letter, and thanks for doing this!

[moc]

18. Very very nice.

:toast:

[Jack Rabbit]

19. That's very good, Professor

Please keep us informed.

You will probably get a polite letter from either the base commander or one his subordinates or possibly CPT Schwoerke, who I assume is CPL Wallaston's company commander. Any disciplinary action against CPL Wallaston probably will be handled by him. The letter will probably say the matter is now under investigation and exactly what the Army's policies about political activity by service members are nowadays.

I am a veteran of the United States Army and I assure you I put on my uniform thirty years ago to defend the right of Americans to speak freely and not to tell them what they should or shouldn't say. I will add that I have now read the comments to which CPL Wallaston took exception and, like him, I didn't agree with what you said a year and a half ago. To paraphrase a remark attributed to Voltaire, on the other hand, unlike CPL Wallaston, I had on the uniform of this country to defend to my death your right to say it.

[mike_c]

24. I cannot tell you how much I appreciate that...

...but if you're ever in Arcata, CA, do NOT plan on spending money for a motel or restuarant.

[chat_noir]

20. How about the fact that he's doing it on "company" time and

using taxpayer-funded resources (computer, internet, etc)?

Ah, yes, just look at who he considers his C-I-C...




……….


WWW.AWOLBUSH.COM






DESERTER: THE STORY OF GEORGE W. BUSH AFTER HE QUIT THE TEXAS AIR NATIONAL GUARD http://www.glcq.com/bush_at_arpc1.htm















$10,000 reward was never collected




Cheerleader action doll hahahaha

[CarlVK]

56. That was covered in point #3 of the letter.

And it's probably the silver bullet. Not many employers, the US armed forces included, like their employees to abuse company time, money and resources.

[fudge stripe cookays]

21. Well done!

{{{Shake and Bake voice}}}} "And I helped!"

I agree wholeheartedly with KarmaTrain. Make sure to send it registered so you get a receipt. This sucker is too important to leave to chance. Make sure you know they got it.

[blonndee]

22. Kick! Let's hope the fascist bully learns a lesson from this. n/t

[Kingshakabobo]

23. It's amazing how all the little brown-shirt stooges are NOW crying....

......foul because you contacted HIS boss/commander. Chalk it up to republican hypocrisy I guess. I don't know why I'm surprised.

[sendero]

26. They can dish it out..

... but they can't take it.

Remind me to never tangle with mike_c. Excellent letter, 100% professional, asking the right questions, providing the correct documentation, basically could not be better.

I'm sure the good CPL is crapping his pants as he should be. This is still America, just barely, but still America.

There is nothing quite so satisfying as seeing a CHICKENSHIT get his comeuppance. Trying to mess with a man's job is right up there with messing with his wife and kids. It's unconscionable, unjustified, and probably not even within the code of conduct the CHICKENSHIT himself swore to uphold.

And the fucking right wing has the nerve to question our integrity. It's pretty amazing.

[Raffi Ella]

41. AMEN!

Freedom of speech is worth fighting for.I'm glad you're the one he chose to do this to since you seem to be the man to deal with it in the manner it should be dealt with.

I hope he's punished and punished severely for this atrocious act he's committed against you Mike.Actually it was committed against all of us;it threatens our constitutional rights.Who the hell does this guy think he is!??

In any case,Good Luck with this and please,keep us updated.

[Shakespeare]

27. I believe I hear the sound of a Code Brown being called in the Cpl's pants

These morans need to think through their vindictive actions and deduce whether they might possibly harm themselves in the long run. What an idiot.

[TahitiNut]

30. Another "law and order" neoconservative shits on the law and foments

... disorder. The hypocrisy is appalling. The rat-bastard deserves time in the stockade and a dishonorable discharge.

[TahitiNut]

28. Assuming Capt. Steven Schwoerke is his C.O. ...

... I wish he were the base's senior J.A.G. officer. As a minor point of etiquette, the primary addressee could've probably been his C.O. and the 'cc' to the base commander. No matter, though.

Your letter is excellent - rational, moderate, respectful, and focused.

I'm PARTICULARLY pleased you cc'd your Congressman. If he doesn't query Col. Lauritzen regarding the progress on and disposition of the matter, he's utterly and abysmally failing his duty as a Congressman.

I'm a veteran. There's no way in hell I can tolerate that E-4 rat-bastard's behavior. His job - nay - his sworn DUTY is to place his very life on the line to defend your right to free speech, even speech he may find personally offensive! When in the service, I understood and embraced that DUTY!

In my opinion, the little fuck should, at a very minimum, get busted and be dishonorably discharged for "conduct unbecoming." If, as one might easily suppose, he engaged in his Gestapo activities using government facilities, he should additionally be placed in the stockade for up to three months before being ejected.

This is NOT a trivial matter. NOT at all. It goes right to the heart of what "service" means ... and MUST mean. It is NOT 'service' to a President or political party or any individual - it is service to the PEOPLE - the nation. It is service in defense of the Constitution!!

[mike_c]

32. thank you, TN...

...both for your kind words of support and most especially for your service in defense of my right to express opinions I suspect you disagree with. I cannot fully express my gratitude.

[TahitiNut]

34. Service means never having to say "you're welcome."

:evilgrin:

As a side note, I think it's sad that fewer and fewer people understand what 'service' means -- or think it's something we tip for.

I wouldn't be too hasty in suspecting I that I disagree in any significant way.

(1) I believe the invasion and occupation of Iraq is a war crime and a violation of the Constitutional provision that makes international treaties, including the United Nations Charter and the Geneva Conventions, the "supreme law" of the U.S.

(2) I believe that each and every day we occupy Iraq is compounding that crime.

(3) I believe the (so-called) War Powers Act to be unconstitutional - a failure of Congress to perform its duty under the Constitution.

(4) I believe the IWR was a fraud and a facade - unconstitutional for the above reasons.


I further believe the atrocities on 9/11 were crimes, not acts of war. Thus, the invasion and occupation of Afgahanistan is also a war crime, imho. The entire "War on Terror" is a fraud and a lie.

[indepat]

58. Much of the rest of the world surely agree with your contentions except

for Afghanistan where a pass was largely given.

[Katzenjammer]

42. "In my opinion, [he should] get busted for "conduct unbecoming" "

I think only commissioned officers are subject to that.

Actually, what might happen is that the captain gets his career wrecked by a derogatory ER for "failure to supervise" while the corporal gets maybe an Article 15 and a fine if they can pin anything on him.

[TahitiNut]

45. I think it may be covered under "Article 134-53 -- Threat, communicating"

First of all, I think the federal statutes regarding denial of civil rights (employment, in this case) and threats against people exercising their (protected) civil liberties are, by incorporation in the UCMJ, definitive regarding the nature of the "threat."

The question of using federal property and resources in doing so would have it's own controlling articles and elements.

While I used the "conduct unbecoming" terminology, I think the applicable terminology would be "conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces" and "to the prejudice of good order and discipline."

Further, I think an Article 15 would be insufficient. An Article 15 has limited penalties that can be imposed. I believe a Special Court Martial is called for, if not a General, since the penalty should include a dishonorable discharge and demotion to E-1 prior to discharge. An Article 15 is limited to one pay grade and 7 days correctional custody, although flag officers have greater punitive powers under Article 15.

Remember, what we're talking about here is acting in an attempt to deprive an American citizen of his Civil Rights (employment, considered 'property') and using such an act as an attempt to intimidate that citizen in the exercise of his Constitutionally-protected civil liberties (free speech). This is 180 degrees in opposition to the oath to "protect and defend the Constitution" ... the single most fundamental duty of the military.

To sweep this aside would be a travesty, imho.


Important caveat: IANAL!

Punitive Articles of the UCMJ
Article 134 - (Threat, communicating)

Text.

See "Article 134—General article"

Elements.

(1) That the accused communicated certain language expressing a present determination or intent to wrongfully injure the person, property, or reputation of another person, presently or in the future;

(2) That the communication was made known to that person or to a third person;

(3) That the communication was wrongful; and

(4) That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the accused was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

Explanation. To establish the threat it is not necessary that the accused actually intended to do the injury threatened. However, a declaration made under circumstances which reveal it to be in jest or for an innocent or legitimate purpose, or which contradict the expressed intent to commit the act, does not constitute this offense. Nor is the offense committed by the mere statement of intent to commit an unlawful act not involving injury to another. See also paragraph 109 concerning bomb threat.

Lesser included offenses.

(1) Article 117—provoking speeches or gestures

(2) Article 80—attempts

Maximum punishment. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 3 years.

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/mcm/bl134-53.htm

Article 134—General article

“Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.”

Elements.

The proof required for conviction of an offense under Article 134 depends upon the nature of the misconduct charged. If the conduct is punished as a crime or offense not capital, the proof must establish every element of the crime or offense as required by the applicable law.
If the conduct is punished as a disorder or neglect to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, or of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, then the following proof is required:

(1) That the accused did or failed to do certain acts; and

(2) That, under the circumstances, the accused’s conduct was to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces.

Explanation.

(1) In general. Article 134 makes punishable acts in three categories of offenses not specifically covered in any other article of the code. These are referred to as “clauses 1, 2, and 3” of Article 134. Clause 1 offenses involve disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces. Clause 2 offenses involve conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces. Clause 3 offenses involve noncapital crimes or offenses which violate Federal law including law made applicable through the Federal Assimilative Crimes Act, see subsection (4) below. If any conduct of this nature is specifically made punishable by another article of the code, it must be charged as a violation of that article. See subparagraph (5)(a) below. How-ever, see paragraph 59c for offenses committed by commissioned officers, cadets, and midshipmen.

(2) Disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces (clause 1).

(a) To the prejudice of good order and discipline. “To the prejudice of good order and discipline” refers only to acts directly prejudicial to good order and discipline and not to acts which are prejudicial only in a remote or indirect sense. Almost any irregular or improper act on the part of a member of the military service could be regarded as prejudicial in some indirect or remote sense; however, this article does not include these distant effects. It is confined to cases in which the prejudice is reasonably direct and palpable. An act in violation of a local civil law or of a foreign law may be punished if it constitutes a disorder or neglect to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces. However, see R.C.M. 203 concerning subject-matter jurisdiction.

(b) Breach of custom of the service. A breach of a custom of the service may result in a violation of clause 1 of Article 134. In its legal sense, “custom” means more than a method of procedure or a mode of conduct or behavior which is merely of frequent or usual occurrence. Custom arises out of long established practices which by common usage have attained the force of law in the military or other community affected by them. No custom may be contrary to existing law or regulation. A custom which has not been adopted by existing statute or regulation ceases to exist when its observance has been generally abandoned. Many customs of the service are now set forth in regulations of the various armed forces. Violations of these customs should be charged under Article 92 as violations of the regulations in which they appear if the regulation is punitive. See paragraph 16c.

(3) Conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces (clause 2). “Discredit” means to injure the reputation of. This clause of Article 134 makes punishable conduct which has a tendency to bring the service into disrepute or which tends to lower it in public esteem. Acts in violation of a local civil law or a foreign law may be punished if they are of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces. However, see R.C.M. 203 concerning subject-matter jurisdiction.

<snip>

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/134.htm

[Jack Rabbit]

51. I think an Article 15 would be appropriate

For the benefit of those with no association of the military or its ways, Article 15 of the UCMJ provides for non-judicial punishment of an enlisted member. Punishment under a company-grade Article 15 may include docking of a limited amount of pay, restriction to barracks, extra duty and reduction in rank by one grade. A field-grade Article 15 carries more severe punishments of the same nature (for example, an EM may lose up to two stripes under a field grade Article 15).

The EM has some rights in the process and can refuse the Article 15. If he refuses, however, the alternative is to face a court martial. Consequently, it isn't very often that Article 15 proceedings are brought an EM unless the brass can take it to court. The offenses under an Article 15 are relatively minor (nothing like attempting to frag an officer) and correctable. When I was in the service, I saw Article 15s given for failure to repair (sleeping through morning formation), possession of marijuana, violating traffic rules on base and damaging government property.

Until the Vietnam era, an article 15 was not a part of an EM's permanent record. However, at that time, some ass with brass wanted to show had bad he could be with troops who were discipline problems and the Article became a part of one's permanent record. An interesting story I heard was that before that happened, there was an officer who remarked that he wouldn't want to promote any one who didn't have a couple of Article 15s in his past; "If you don't have the guts to get into a little trouble," he said, "you don't have the guts to lead men into combat."

[TahitiNut]

52. Well, perhaps needless to say, I didn't get the GCM.

I had an Article 15 in the (stateside) months before being ordered to Nam. Without going into it, I rocked the boat and got set up by the company sergeant. After a Saturday night out on pass with other guys, I was bushwhacked early (about 6am) the next morning (sleeping it off). We didn't stand morning formation on Sundays, but he had two of his crony NCOs come into the barracks and order me out for Honor Guard drill practice - while I was still sleeping. Barely awake after less than 5 hours sleep, I rolled over with a "screw you" and they later nailed me on the "failure to repair." (I should've known better, I guess.)

I'd hate to see that guy get off with just an Article 15. I think it'd be a travesty.

[Jack Rabbit]

53. I have to disagree

I think this should cost CPL Wallaston a stripe (can you say PFC Wallaston? I knew you could) and a week's pay. That is at the least. That part of the punishment should not be suspended. That would be without regard to whether he used government equipment or did this on government time. He is misusing his uniform to bully private American citizens like Professor Camann; if you'll pardon my barracks language, that shit is wrong. What does he think he's trying to do? Pull rank on dissidents?

Nobody I knew thought that losing a stripe in an Article 15 proceeding was a trivial matter. It would not be a travesty.

If you would, please PM me with the grusome details of your story. I love stories and the Army was a good place to find some. I'll give you one or two in return.

[dalaigh lllama]

29. K & R

What an articulate, well-reasoned letter! If he's harassing others, too, it's great that you're writing to his commander to get this stopped. Here's hoping the little thug gets his comeuppance.

[Synnical]

35. . .. . .

[Rex]

37. The guy is fucked.

The BC will rip his ass off for this. This is a major no-no. I've seen guys in the Army lose rank and pay over far less things.

[Laurab]

38. I am SO glad you did this mike_c

And I do think he'll get in trouble over it, as he should. It's one thing to post things on discussion boards, quite another to do what he did. Some people may well have lost their jobs over an email like his to your employer. Under this misadministration, one never knows.

I hope your congressman sends an inquiry as well. I worked for the Federal Government (civilian) for 12 years, and we just about panicked when we got congressional inquiries - they had to be answered within 24 hours, and we dropped everything else to respond.

I'm an easygoing person, and it normally takes a lot to get me angry, but this guy was trying to mess with your livelihood. It needs to be taken seriously IMO, if only to keep him and his buddies from doing it to other people. And, it wouldn't hurt to have them learn we're still allowed to have opinions, since obviously they're not aware of that.

Very nicely written letter, too!

[BlueCentrist]

39. It was the right thing to do.

I'm behind you 100% on this Micheal as I'm sure most people are.What this man tried to do to you was unconscionable and cannot be ignored.
This ordeal must be terribly upsetting and I am very sorry you're having to go through it.I hope that your actions will prevent him from doing this to anyone else in the future.

[raccoon]

40. You rock, Mike! Great letter. K&R. nt

[Minnesota_Lib]

46. Looks like Txradioguy has a history...check this out.

http://www.myopenforum.com/forum/member.php?u=16


Txradioguy
BANNED

I guess they got tired of his insanity over there. :freak: :dunce: :silly: :crazy:

[WildEyedLiberal]

47. Great letter and I hope it gets real results

I am not sure I've ever agreed with you on DU, but as your letter so eloquently pointed out, that is quite beside the point. You are guaranteed under the Constitution your right to freely express any opinion you see fit and it is abominable that someone who SWORE AN OATH to uphold said Constitution would betray all that it stands for to go on a political witch hunt against you. I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. Such is the necessary foundation of any free society.

[Straight Shooter]

48. It is so important to stand up for yourself when you are being attacked.

I commend you for the respectful and cogent manner in which you have presented your case against Cpl. Wollaston. Question number 3 is a killer (posting during working hours). Using our tax dollars to harass a citizen. Not good.

My father (Army lifer) used to say during debates over the dinner table, "I disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

I suppose Wollaston takes the view of, "I disagree with what you say, and I will do everything to suppress your right to say it."

==============

:patriot:

[ShortnFiery]

49. Way to go Teach!

Yes, I respect the fact that you're a tenured professor but the above sounded cooler. :blush:

:yourock: :hi:

[trotsky]

50. Well done, Professor.

Standing up to these brownshirts is the only way to make them stop.

[mom cat]

54. I just love #3. I can hardly wait to see the answers.

:dem::toast::bounce::bounce::headbang::smoke::smoke::yourock::smoke::smoke::headbang::bounce::bounce::toast::kick:

PS: Tell the Captain that we appreciate his patriotism and his pledge to defend the constitution! ... :patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot:

[CarlVK]

55. Excellent letter, my friend.

[Nikki Stone 1]

59. Excellent letter. Please keep us posted

Thanks!

[Nikki Stone 1]

60. kick

:kick:

[Blue Belle]

61. Great job on that letter!

I hope it gets results... this guy is an ass and who knows how many people he's done this to. Good on you for being proactive.

[Minnesota_Lib]

62. The Night Owl dug up some great stuff about Txradioguy

I posted this morning that txradioguy recently had been banned from Myopenforum.com where he had made a whopping 7,467 posts (11.67 posts per day) http://www.myopenforum.com/forum/member.php?u=16 . According to posters at ClownPosse.org (thanks to The Night Owl for letting me know about this) he posts multiple times per day at other sites as well (one CP poster estimates up to 32,000 posts in the past year) and may have been in hot water for posting while on duty from a government PC (as a result, he quit posting online for a while, a time one CL poster nostalgically refers to as txradiosilence. :rofl: :rofl:)

He was apparently banned from Myopenforums.com for repeatly attacking and harrassing other members.

From a thread entitled "TxRadioGuy - Still Obnoxious. Still posting from work." (note: many of the posters refer to the little corporal as txinadress).

http://www.clownposse.org/colloquy/showthread.php4?t=187 (there are some really funny posts about the corpulent corporal here as well).

_________________________________
As I recall, txinadress got into a little trouble with his boss for spending his entire workday online posting at FR, CU and the like. So who now is ratting out a leftist college professor for posting at DU?
_________________________________
I agree. Problem tx has is that this creates a major PR problem for command if it keeps heating up. I suspect upper level command people don't like being put in those kinds of situations. It isn't the same as someone just bitching about tx being a no good layabout who posts on taxpayers time. His attack on the prof carries the potential for a good bit of nasty fall out.
_________________________________
I still can't see how his CO can overlook the fact that he's posting at two or more chat sites while he's at work - regardless of the content of his posts. Anyone can look at the time stamps and see he barely takes time off from the internet, except maybe for lunch.

ETA: It's just like any employee who wastes company time on personal stuff. That he's a government employee who claims to be putting his a** on the line by playing with audio equipment and posting at chat forums just makes it more offensive.
_____________________________________

Finally, here is a great toon about txradioguy that a ClownPosse member created.



Thanks again, Night Owl

[TahitiNut]

63. As a civilian employee of a federal (DOE) contractor for 5 years ...

... I can assure you that using government resources for such activities wasn't just 'frowned on' - it was a sure way to be fired. In some instances, criminal prosecutions were entertained if not initiated - with outcomes I was not privy to.

"Waste, Fraud, and Abuse" was a mantra in the 90s. There are watchdog agencies (GAP is one) that love getting their teeth into such patterns of abuse.

[QuestionAll...]

64. hope Wallass is squinching a bit. good on you mike_c. nt

[Raffi Ella]

65. THIS letter is what patriotism looks like

Free Speech,Love it,Live it.Mess with it and we'll come after you tooth and nail.You don't mess with a mans livelihood and expect him to lay down for it.

Mike you inspire me Man.Keep us posted on what's going on when you get the chance. :kick:

[deaniac21]

66. servicepersons?

[nadinbrzezinski]

67. The only thing I would have added to this

otherwise excellent letter is... is the Corporal expresssing OFFICIAL DOD policy? After all he has done such while in uniform.

(I would have addeed a couple references to actual UCMJ articles, but married to a chief I know them, and havng served in uniform myself I knew that using my position was a no-no... funny, how that is a constant across multiple armies)

Let us know, I am certainly interested if the CPL will face some ahem, office hours