| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#2
October 27th 05, 03:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Frankie of Silliland: A Coward Who Lied To And Stole From His Country Lectures About "Integrity"
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 07:49:16 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote: Got lots of work today so I'll only make a few comments: On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 23:17:50 -0400, wrote in : snip abu graib is another topic than frank and so The soldiers at Abu Gharib shold have REPORTED THE INFRACTIONS via the chain of command. no they should have refused to prefrom them and then informed the chain of comand the "orders" were unlawfull and they should have had the gut to refuse them Quite right. The oath requires you to perform any -LEGAL- order given to you by your superiors. This was the issue during the Iran-Contra scam when Ollie claimed he was just following orders and didn't care if his actions were legal or not (although I'm sure he knew they were illegal). That's blind obedience and it's wrong. and dangerous as well even were he tried and found guilty (it being found that the orders were not illegal) thais does not prove he was lying or in any way violated his oath or stole his rightfull pay Markie...He WAS tried and found guilty! Twice! Indicted, tried and CONVICTED! your source? Me, but Dudly didn't have all the facts. I pled guilty at the first court-martial and so was never tried. snip Mind you that the Marines would much rather send a "junior trooper" to Office Hours, whichn in the Marine Corps are Article 15 proceedings. In other words, letting the commander of the unit handle the incident at the lowest echelon. Something I would only advise a soldier to try if they are guilty of something but likely he reufsed Art 15 as I did many times And that's exactly what I did for the second infraction. I forced a summary court-martial so the facts regarding the case would be a matter of record. snip He WAS found guilty. not according to him not after apeal was it but that does not count with you For once Dudly is right. There were no appeals and both convictions stand. The vindication of my second infraction was the result of a seperate entry made as the result of a review that I requested after my discharge. The violation leading to the conviction was found to have "mitigating circumstances that should have been considered [by the presiding officer] but were not," and that I "was denied evidence, and the opportunity to gather and present certain evidence" relevant to my defense. The conviction was not overturned (since it was not an appeal) but my conduct marks were adjusted accordingly, and my discharge upgraded to Honorable. well thanks for clearing it up Id say it was an appeal of sorts but then try not to quible when I can snip USMC attitudes on this are that if you let those four guys carry that fifth guy off the battlefield, there will be five guys to worry about later. Better to kill them all now than to ahve to face them a second time. The USMC attitude on this is simple: "Accomplish the Mission". snip he has expressed his opinion you did not serve holding that opinion even if it may be contary to fact is not a lie Sure it's a lie. nope it is an opinion Frank holds and stets that he doesn't believe you sered that is no lie Oh, I'm sure he served alright. And I'm sure he served all of 18 years as he claimed. But I'm also sure that his time was spent almost entirely in garrison, that nothing on his record is outstanding, that he probably got a few Page 11 entries, and that his discharge was not an honorable retirement but a general discharge, probably for medical reasons (suggested by his current career in the medical field, which, according to statistics gathered by psychologists, happens to be the preferred occupational field for hypochondriacs). he claims that his discharge is medical he also denies that it was for a physical cuase which leaves ..... In other words, he served 18 years as a sick-bay commando. Certainly nothing to be proud of, nothing to brag about, and nothing he will ever publically admit. Hence his silence about his "military career". And the epitath that will be imprinted on his tombstone will be, "I Told You I Was Sick", just like the one I saw on a PBS special last night. so your thought run pretty close to mine if not in the same mold interesting as I suspect we are rather different but we share the noton that at least when lie under our tombstones an eitaff can read "well at least we lived out lives" Just let Dudly keep running his mouth -- the more he talks the more he proves that he's a socially isolated misfit with serious psychological issues. He's like a cat in a box: shake the box and he thrashes around for a while. Let him calm down then shake the box again. Heck, that's better entertainment than anything on TV!!! Forgiveme if I wish I could call you liar on that one ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- _________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 140,000 groups Unlimited download http://www.usenetzone.com to open account |
|
#3
October 29th 05, 09:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Frankie of Silliland: A Coward Who Lied To And Stole From His Country Lectures About "Integrity"
Frank Gilliland wrote: Got lots of work today so I'll only make a few comments: On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 23:17:50 -0400, wrote in : Markie...He WAS tried and found guilty! Twice! Indicted, tried and CONVICTED! your source? Me, but Dudly didn't have all the facts. I pled guilty at the first court-martial and so was never tried. Yes, Frankie...TRIED. You had the benefit of representation, stood before the court, and had your opportunity to say your piece. snip Mind you that the Marines would much rather send a "junior trooper" to Office Hours, whichn in the Marine Corps are Article 15 proceedings. In other words, letting the commander of the unit handle the incident at the lowest echelon. Something I would only advise a soldier to try if they are guilty of something but likely he reufsed Art 15 as I did many times And that's exactly what I did for the second infraction. Ahhhhh...Let's MINIMALIZE it and call it an "infraction". You are not charged with "infractions" at a court martial. It's an "offense". I forced a summary court-martial so the facts regarding the case would be a matter of record. It would have been a matter of record in an Artcle 15 proceeding, too. Dumb, Frankie...really, REALLY dumb. snip He WAS found guilty. not according to him not after apeal was it but that does not count with you For once Dudly is right. No "for once", Frankie. I've had you nailed for weeks now. Sorry it's made things a bit uncomfortable for you. There were no appeals and both convictions stand. The vindication of my second infraction....(SNIP) "Vindication" only in that you allow yourself that "warm fuzzy" for it. It has no legal bearing. And it was your second OFFENSE..."infractions" are dealt with at Article 15. You, by your own admission, blew that off. (UNSNIP)...was the result of a seperate entry made as the result of a review that I requested after my discharge. The violation leading to the conviction was found to have "mitigating circumstances that should have been considered [by the presiding officer] but were not," and that I "was denied evidence, and the opportunity to gather and present certain evidence" relevant to my defense. The conviction was not overturned (since it was not an appeal) but my conduct marks were adjusted accordingly, and my discharge upgraded to Honorable. See..that's where we part ways, Frankie...My service never had to be UPGRADED to Honorable...It was that way all along. snip USMC attitudes on this are that if you let those four guys carry that fifth guy off the battlefield, there will be five guys to worry about later. Better to kill them all now than to have to face them a second time. |
|
#4
October 29th 05, 10:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Frankie of Silliland: A Coward Who Lied To And Stole From His Country Lectures About "Integrity"
On 29 Oct 2005 01:55:00 -0700, "K4YZ" wrote in
.com: Frank Gilliland wrote: Got lots of work today so I'll only make a few comments: On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 23:17:50 -0400, wrote in : Markie...He WAS tried and found guilty! Twice! Indicted, tried and CONVICTED! your source? Me, but Dudly didn't have all the facts. I pled guilty at the first court-martial and so was never tried. Yes, Frankie...TRIED. You had the benefit of representation, stood before the court, and had your opportunity to say your piece. Wrong. A trial is used to determine guilt. I pleaded guilty so there was no trial; i.e, I was never "tried". You couldn't learn that much with a quick google search? That's pathetic. snip Mind you that the Marines would much rather send a "junior trooper" to Office Hours, whichn in the Marine Corps are Article 15 proceedings. In other words, letting the commander of the unit handle the incident at the lowest echelon. Something I would only advise a soldier to try if they are guilty of something but likely he reufsed Art 15 as I did many times And that's exactly what I did for the second infraction. Ahhhhh...Let's MINIMALIZE it and call it an "infraction". You are not charged with "infractions" at a court martial. It's an "offense". Call it a 'crime' if you want -- makes no difference to me. I forced a summary court-martial so the facts regarding the case would be a matter of record. It would have been a matter of record in an Artcle 15 proceeding, too. Wrong again, Dudly. The proceedings and evidence are not recorded for an Article 15, only the 'crime' and punishment. Dumb, Frankie...really, REALLY dumb. Well, maybe you should take that up with the attorney who was appointed to my case and made that recommendation. snip He WAS found guilty. not according to him not after apeal was it but that does not count with you For once Dudly is right. No "for once", Frankie. I've had you nailed for weeks now. Sorry it's made things a bit uncomfortable for you. Whatever you say, Dudly. There were no appeals and both convictions stand. The vindication of my second infraction....(SNIP) "Vindication" only in that you allow yourself that "warm fuzzy" for it. It has no legal bearing. Wrong yet again, Dudly: It had enough "legal bearing" to change the status of my discharge. And it was your second OFFENSE..."infractions" are dealt with at Article 15. You, by your own admission, blew that off. More semantics..... gee, I'm devastated. Really. And I mean that. (UNSNIP)...was the result of a seperate entry made as the result of a review that I requested after my discharge. The violation leading to the conviction was found to have "mitigating circumstances that should have been considered [by the presiding officer] but were not," and that I "was denied evidence, and the opportunity to gather and present certain evidence" relevant to my defense. The conviction was not overturned (since it was not an appeal) but my conduct marks were adjusted accordingly, and my discharge upgraded to Honorable. See..that's where we part ways, Frankie...My service never had to be UPGRADED to Honorable...It was that way all along. Uh-huh. Sure thing, Dudly. That's why you claimed to have been discharged for medical reasons, huh? Probably because you are in the early stages of Alzheimer's...... snip Yet another snip-job -- too bad you can't address your failures. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
|
#5
October 29th 05, 11:29 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Frankie of Silliland: A Coward Who Lied To And Stole From His Country Lectures About "Integrity"
Frank Gilliland wrote: On 29 Oct 2005 01:55:00 -0700, "K4YZ" wrote in .com: Frank Gilliland wrote: Got lots of work today so I'll only make a few comments: On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 23:17:50 -0400, wrote in : Markie...He WAS tried and found guilty! Twice! Indicted, tried and CONVICTED! your source? Me, but Dudly didn't have all the facts. I pled guilty at the first court-martial and so was never tried. Yes, Frankie...TRIED. You had the benefit of representation, stood before the court, and had your opportunity to say your piece. Wrong. A trial is used to determine guilt. I pleaded guilty so there was no trial; i.e, I was never "tried". You couldn't learn that much with a quick google search? That's pathetic. What's "pathetic" is your attempts to minimize the fact that you're a disgraced, courtmartialed EX Marine, who's only reconcilliation with having BEEN a Marine is to try an undermine others. Basically, you're a punk, Frankie. snip Mind you that the Marines would much rather send a "junior trooper" to Office Hours, whichn in the Marine Corps are Article 15 proceedings. In other words, letting the commander of the unit handle the incident at the lowest echelon. Something I would only advise a soldier to try if they are guilty of something but likely he reufsed Art 15 as I did many times And that's exactly what I did for the second infraction. Ahhhhh...Let's MINIMALIZE it and call it an "infraction". You are not charged with "infractions" at a court martial. It's an "offense". Call it a 'crime' if you want -- makes no difference to me. Gee...Above you try and "teach" about legal fine points and here you want to dismiss them... Can't have your Kate and Edith too, Frankie. I forced a summary court-martial so the facts regarding the case would be a matter of record. It would have been a matter of record in an Artcle 15 proceeding, too. Wrong again, Dudly. The proceedings and evidence are not recorded for an Article 15, only the 'crime' and punishment. Wrong. Idiot. Dumb, Frankie...really, REALLY dumb. Well, maybe you should take that up with the attorney who was appointed to my case and made that recommendation. And all the attorney COULD do was RECOMMEND. YOU were the one who had to make the DECISION, Frankie. Don't try and slide out from under YOUR mistakes, frankie. snip He WAS found guilty. not according to him not after apeal was it but that does not count with you For once Dudly is right. No "for once", Frankie. I've had you nailed for weeks now. Sorry it's made things a bit uncomfortable for you. Whatever you say, Dudly. There were no appeals and both convictions stand. The vindication of my second infraction....(SNIP) "Vindication" only in that you allow yourself that "warm fuzzy" for it. It has no legal bearing. Wrong yet again, Dudly: It had enough "legal bearing" to change the status of my discharge. Perhaps. But the CONVICTIONS still stand. Convictions that may keep you from federal contracts and/or security clearances should you need one for contract work in the future. And it was your second OFFENSE..."infractions" are dealt with at Article 15. You, by your own admission, blew that off. More semantics..... gee, I'm devastated. Really. And I mean that. There's no "semantics" to it, Frankie. And I could care less about how "devastated" you are. Your lack of Honor and honesty are "devastating" enough. The Marines did the best possible thing with you...sent ya packin'. (UNSNIP)...was the result of a seperate entry made as the result of a review that I requested after my discharge. The violation leading to the conviction was found to have "mitigating circumstances that should have been considered [by the presiding officer] but were not," and that I "was denied evidence, and the opportunity to gather and present certain evidence" relevant to my defense. The conviction was not overturned (since it was not an appeal) but my conduct marks were adjusted accordingly, and my discharge upgraded to Honorable. See..that's where we part ways, Frankie...My service never had to be UPGRADED to Honorable...It was that way all along. Uh-huh. Sure thing, Dudly. That's why you claimed to have been discharged for medical reasons, huh? Probably because you are in the early stages of Alzheimer's...... Your lack of grasp of the facts is hillarious. .. snip Yet another snip-job -- too bad you can't address your failures. Poor redirect to others "failures" in order to mitigate your own humiliation. Lame. Steve, K4YZ |
|
#6
October 30th 05, 01:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Frankie of Silliland: A Coward Who Lied To And Stole From His Country Lectures About "Integrity"
On 29 Oct 2005 03:29:24 -0700, "Gunny Dudly" wrote in
. com: snip proof of comedic ineptitude It would have been a matter of record in an Artcle 15 proceeding, too. Wrong again, Dudly. The proceedings and evidence are not recorded for an Article 15, only the 'crime' and punishment. Wrong. Idiot. Well gee, Dudly, how would you know? Since you are so knowlegable about such things, what page in the SRB holds the transcript of an Article 15 hearing? And for that fact, what page is used to record crimes and punishments? Dumb, Frankie...really, REALLY dumb. Well, maybe you should take that up with the attorney who was appointed to my case and made that recommendation. And all the attorney COULD do was RECOMMEND. YOU were the one who had to make the DECISION, Frankie. Where did I say anything to the contrary? Don't try and slide out from under YOUR mistakes, frankie. I made no mistake, Dudly -- it is -you- who doesn't know squat about the UCMJ. snip "Vindication" only in that you allow yourself that "warm fuzzy" for it. It has no legal bearing. Wrong yet again, Dudly: It had enough "legal bearing" to change the status of my discharge. Perhaps. Fact. But the CONVICTIONS still stand. Yes they do. I seem to recall having said the very same thing several posts ago. Convictions that may keep you from federal contracts and/or security clearances should you need one for contract work in the future. They haven't been a problem so far. My security clearance has never been revoked. I had a job cleaning a bank while working my way through college. I also had a contract a few years ago to design and build a custom security system. I even have a concealed weapons permit. And I have no plans to start a new career in law enforcement. So I guess the only problem is the one you created in your imagination, Dudly. And it was your second OFFENSE..."infractions" are dealt with at Article 15. You, by your own admission, blew that off. More semantics..... gee, I'm devastated. Really. And I mean that. There's no "semantics" to it, Frankie. And I could care less about how "devastated" you are. Your lack of Honor and honesty are "devastating" enough. I haven't been honest about my military service? Hmmmm..... The Marines did the best possible thing with you...sent ya packin'. That might have been true had they not asked me to extend for a West-Pac float with 2nd AAV, but I declined. snip See..that's where we part ways, Frankie...My service never had to be UPGRADED to Honorable...It was that way all along. Uh-huh. Sure thing, Dudly. That's why you claimed to have been discharged for medical reasons, huh? Probably because you are in the early stages of Alzheimer's...... Your lack of grasp of the facts is hillarious. It's in the google archives, written by you, in your own words. If it isn't a fact then you lied. If it -is- a fact then you are lying now. Either way, you just proved once again that you are a liar. snip Yet another snip-job -- too bad you can't address your failures. Poor redirect to others "failures" in order to mitigate your own humiliation. Lame. You're the expert. Steve "Weekend Warrior" Robeson, K4YZ Don't look now but the medals on your uniform are tarnished. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
|
#7
December 15th 05, 08:32 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.cb
|
|||
|
|||
|
i wiosh i understoof why my asshole hubby does this ****
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 07:49:16 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote: Got lots of work today so I'll only make a few comments: On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 23:17:50 -0400, wrote in : snip abu graib is another topic than frank and so The soldiers at Abu Gharib shold have REPORTED THE INFRACTIONS via the chain of command. no they should have refused to prefrom them and then informed the chain of comand the "orders" were unlawfull and they should have had the gut to refuse them Quite right. The oath requires you to perform any -LEGAL- order given to you by your superiors. This was the issue during the Iran-Contra scam when Ollie claimed he was just following orders and didn't care if his actions were legal or not (although I'm sure he knew they were illegal). That's blind obedience and it's wrong. and dangerous as well even were he tried and found guilty (it being found that the orders were not illegal) thais does not prove he was lying or in any way violated his oath or stole his rightfull pay Markie...He WAS tried and found guilty! Twice! Indicted, tried and CONVICTED! your source? Me, but Dudly didn't have all the facts. I pled guilty at the first court-martial and so was never tried. snip Mind you that the Marines would much rather send a "junior trooper" to Office Hours, whichn in the Marine Corps are Article 15 proceedings. In other words, letting the commander of the unit handle the incident at the lowest echelon. Something I would only advise a soldier to try if they are guilty of something but likely he reufsed Art 15 as I did many times And that's exactly what I did for the second infraction. I forced a summary court-martial so the facts regarding the case would be a matter of record. snip He WAS found guilty. not according to him not after apeal was it but that does not count with you For once Dudly is right. There were no appeals and both convictions stand. The vindication of my second infraction was the result of a seperate entry made as the result of a review that I requested after my discharge. The violation leading to the conviction was found to have "mitigating circumstances that should have been considered [by the presiding officer] but were not," and that I "was denied evidence, and the opportunity to gather and present certain evidence" relevant to my defense. The conviction was not overturned (since it was not an appeal) but my conduct marks were adjusted accordingly, and my discharge upgraded to Honorable. well thanks for clearing it up Id say it was an appeal of sorts but then try not to quible when I can snip USMC attitudes on this are that if you let those four guys carry that fifth guy off the battlefield, there will be five guys to worry about later. Better to kill them all now than to ahve to face them a second time. The USMC attitude on this is simple: "Accomplish the Mission". snip he has expressed his opinion you did not serve holding that opinion even if it may be contary to fact is not a lie Sure it's a lie. nope it is an opinion Frank holds and stets that he doesn't believe you sered that is no lie Oh, I'm sure he served alright. And I'm sure he served all of 18 years as he claimed. But I'm also sure that his time was spent almost entirely in garrison, that nothing on his record is outstanding, that he probably got a few Page 11 entries, and that his discharge was not an honorable retirement but a general discharge, probably for medical reasons (suggested by his current career in the medical field, which, according to statistics gathered by psychologists, happens to be the preferred occupational field for hypochondriacs). he claims that his discharge is medical he also denies that it was for a physical cuase which leaves ..... In other words, he served 18 years as a sick-bay commando. Certainly nothing to be proud of, nothing to brag about, and nothing he will ever publically admit. Hence his silence about his "military career". And the epitath that will be imprinted on his tombstone will be, "I Told You I Was Sick", just like the one I saw on a PBS special last night. so your thought run pretty close to mine if not in the same mold interesting as I suspect we are rather different but we share the noton that at least when lie under our tombstones an eitaff can read "well at least we lived out lives" Just let Dudly keep running his mouth -- the more he talks the more he proves that he's a socially isolated misfit with serious psychological issues. He's like a cat in a box: shake the box and he thrashes around for a while. Let him calm down then shake the box again. Heck, that's better entertainment than anything on TV!!! Forgiveme if I wish I could call you liar on that one ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- everyone should be advised that The following person has been advocating the abuse of elders making false charges of child rape, rape in general forges post and name he may also be making flase reports of abusing other in order to attak and cow his foes he also shows signs of being dangerously unstable STEVEN J ROBESON 151 12TH AVE NW WINCHESTER TN 37398 931-967-6282 _________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 140,000 groups Unlimited download http://www.usenetzone.com to open account |
|
#8
December 18th 05, 02:21 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.cb
|
|||
|
|||
|
More Markie Mularkie
|
|
#9
December 18th 05, 04:17 PM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.cb
|
|||
|
|||
|
More Markie Mularkie, was: i wiosh i understoof why my asshole hubby does this ****
K4YZ wrote: wrote: Forgiveme if I wish I could call you liar on that one Oh...WAIT a minute, Markie! I thought YOU were one of the guys who said that a "different opinion" did NOT make one a "liar"... And you are one of the guys who says it does. Steve, K4YZ Steve, why do you edit headings and forge "raped an old friend?" Why? bb |
|
#10
December 20th 05, 03:45 AM
posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy,rec.radio.cb
|
|||
|
|||
|
More Markie Mularkie
|
Hybrid Mode
