In The united states district court for The district of maryland



tải về 339.35 Kb.
trang4/5
Chuyển đổi dữ liệu02.11.2017
Kích339.35 Kb.
1   2   3   4   5
(bắt đầu từ số 68 hay 70 gì do).

Cơng nhận Hoai Thanh tuy dốt (điều này thì ai đã gặp HT đều biết) nhưng rất gian manh (diều này thì các nạn nhân của HT đều đồng ý). Hồi Thanh rất biết cách chửi. Tuy nhiên,"credit" kỳ này chưa chắc là của HT mà co thể là của ơng "chủ bự vơ hình" chi tiền. Thật vậy, những bài "quần chúng muốn biết .."theo tơi đoan là do một "du sinh" (noi theo kiểu XHCN) viết. Ai cũng biết ơng HT đâu co khả năng viết lách, dù chỉ viết bài dởm. Nếu ơng HT muốn phản bác điều này, tơi thách thức ơng do. Ơng sẽ ngồi trong phong kín trong 2 giờ, giám khảo cho ơng một đề tài, tơi cam đoan ơng khơng viết được 3 câu cho ra câu chứ đừng noi

là viết được một bài và nhất là theo văn phong của Vân Nam.

Nếu HT đồng ý nhân lời thách thức, tơi sẽ mời ba vị trưởng thượng trong vùng Hoa Thịnh Ðốn làm giám thị và quí vị trên diễn đàn sẽ làm giám khảo. Nếu HT viết được một bài dù chỉ "hay" bằng loạt bài "Quần chúng muốn biết..." tơi sẽ chịu thua $US 10,000, giúp HT co tiền trả luật sư cho vụ kiện của UBTDTG sắp tới. Con nếu HT khơng viết được, bị thua cuộc thì phải bỏ ra tương đương số tiền trên, tức là $US10,000 cho Ban Ðại Diện Cộng Ðồng vùng Hoa Thịnh Ðốn làm những việc cơng ích.

HT co cam đảm nhận lời khơng? Nhờ ơng lên tiếng trên diễn đàn dùm. Mong lắm thay.

Ðọc loạt bài "Quần chúng muốn biết..." của Vân Nam (mà ơng HT luơn nở mũi, ưỡn ngực nhận mình là tác giả) ai cũng thấy đây là văn phong của một "du sinh" Hà Nội.

Hoai Thanh co mướn một "du sinh" Hà Nội lo việc laid-out và website. Khơng biết cậu này và Vân Nam là hai hay một. Nhưng điều chắc chắn là loạt bài "Quần chúng..." của Vân Nam luơn chất chứa những danh từ đặc biệt Hà Nội Ðỏ. Như chữ "bàu chửa" mà quí vị thấy trong bài vừa rồi. Tơi nhớ hồi một câu trong loạt bài chửi như tát nước vào mặt UBTDTG mà anh "du sinh Vân Nam" phun ra theo thoi quen, đại khái như sau: "Nếu chính quyền CSVN cho phép những tin tức liên quan đến Nguyệt Biều được phép loan tải trên báo chí, thì tuần báo Ðại Chúng sẽ đăng tải một cách cơng khai những tin tức này trong tương lai". (Sanh ra dưới sự kềm kẹp của bác và đảng, cái gì cũng chờ phép là đúng quá rồi), hoặc quan điểm sặc mùi vu khống các vị lãnh đạo tinh thần trong nước: "Tiền cứu lụt từ nước ngồi gởi về cả triệu đơ, nhưng số tiền này khơng đến tay các nạn nhân bão lụt, vì số tiền này đã bị cháu của Hoa Thượng Thích Quảng Ðộ là Hoa Thượng Thanh Minh tri hơ là bị ăn cướp. Nhưng thật ra Hoa Thượng Thanh Minh giử lại số tiền này để cất chùa". Những doan tương tự như trên đã đăng trên Ðại Chúng số 75. (Tơi nhớ chắc số này như tên phở 75).

Nếu ơng Hoai Thanh là một người bình thường, co tư cách thì chắc cả vùng Hoa Thịnh Ðốn này đã tin ơng ta và tẩy chay UBTDTG và đài Tiếng Noi VNHN lâu rồi!. Tuy vậy, ít ra ơng HT cũng thành cơng với những người nhẹ dạ ở xa. Lên website Ðại Chúng đọc vài bài, khơng tìm hiểu sâu xa, chỉ mặc nhiên nghĩ rằng "khơng co lửa sao co khoi". Nhưng đối với người co kiến thức sâu sắc đàng hoang, họ phải tìm hiểu những nguyên nhân tiềm ẩn. Một tờ báo tố cáo một tổ chức thâm lạm tiền cứu trợ thơng thường chỉ cần viết một hai bài báo, lời lẻ đúng đắn đàng hoang là đủ rồi, đâu cần phải viết liên tục mấy chục bài, chửi xa rồi lại chửi gần; như vậy theo tơi ơng HT muốn đập chết UBTDTG và đài phát thanh TNVNHN để họ khơng con tiếng noi chống lại "ơng chủ lớn" của HT; chứ đâu phải HT muốn đứng về phía dân lành "làm sạch cộng đồng" như lời ơng tuyên bố.

"Làm sạch cộng đồng". Ơi sứ mạng của ơng HT sao mà cao cả thế! Trong khi cái body-shop nhỏ xíu của ơng, khách gà mờ kiểu tơi đút đầu làm nạn nhân bất mản gây lộn với ơng hàng ngày, sao ơng khơng làm sạch? Ơng quên bài học sơ đẳng là phải tu thân trước rồi mới làm thầy thiên hạ sao?

Ơng đã giựt lương bao người thợ phụ, nay lại "anh hùng thấy chuyện bất bình" để "phẫn nộ" tiền cứu lụt của bá tánh thì thật là quá trơ trẽn đĩ nghe.

Tơi biết Bà Hiền khơng ngu. Tiền bạc thu chi về cứu trợ nạn lụt chắc chắn phải phân minh đàng hoang. Bà ấy mới dám kiện Ðại Chúng và Hoai Thanh ra toa: Co ai dại "lạy ơng tơi ở bụi này" đưa hồ sơ cho ơng luật sư của HT "vạch lá tìm sâu" để nếu hồ sơ khơng đúng, vào tù ngồi xé lịch! Chắc chắn bà Hiền khơng dại đến độ này đâu. Co dại là chính HT, tưởng mình ranh ma, co thể lường gạt những người dại như mình, tuyên bố mình thắng kiện để chứng minh Bà Hiền gian dối, sai trái. Hoai Thanh ngồi ghế bị cáo thì co gì để thắng. Khơng bị quan toa xử đã dùng những lời lẻ vu khống, chụp mủ là mừng thấu trời rồi.

Hiện nay, bàng dân thiên hạ đang chờ HT đưa Bà Hiền ra toa vì bà ta tuyên bố HT noi láo, mạ ly, vu khống ..., trong khi HT toan noi sự thật trong mấy mươi bài báo "Quần chúng ...". Khi nào HT dám đưa Bà Hiền ra toa với các tội trên hay bất cứ tội gì, thì dù toa chưa xử, cộng đồng cũng khen HT là anh hùng. Hoai Thanh thấy cộng đồng thiên vị HT chưa? Hảy thừa thắng xơng...vơ, kiện Bà Hiền đi, cho thiên hạ nễ chút mặt mốc. Lúc do mới là "thắng" thật. Rán lên!

Hoai Thanh hùng hổ co hai người (của HT) về VN đến gặp TT Thích Khơng Tánh và được Thương Tọa cho biết Bà Hiền khơng hề gởi 15,800 đơla cứu lụt cho GHPGVNTN.

Hoai Thanh ngoa mà ngu. TT Thích Khơng Tánh cùng toan thể GHPGVNTN đang bị quản chế, thì dễ gì người của HT co thể vào gặp, trừ khi người do co "lai-sân" hoặc "mác" Hà Nội. Mà dù co gặp đi nữa, TT Khơng Tánh đâu co ngu như HT, trong thời buổi này, trước mặt một "đệ tử bá vơ, phản thầy nọ kia", mà dám "thưa ơng Việt-Kiều, thưa ơng VC, chúng tơi đã cải lệnh ơng, đã đi cứu trợ và đã nhận của Bà Hiền 15,800 đơla" !!

Về tư cách 2 người của HT, ơng bà ta co câu "ngưu tầm ngưu, mã tầm mã". Bạn bè của ơng mà noi miệng thì cho no tin. Giấy tờ ơng con làm giả thì co kho gì noi co thành khơng, noi khơng thành co. Nếu 2 người này quang minh chính đại thì hảy cơng khai đưa địa chỉ, số điện thoại để mọi người tham khảo, tại sao phải qua địa chỉ của báo Ðại Chúng để được anh "du sinh Vân Nam" kiểm soat và báo cáo về Trung Ương Hà Nội hoặc cái Sứ-Quán tại Washington !! Và chắc là anh "du sinh" sẽ trả lời dùm? Cơ Kim Huê là nhân vật giả hay thật thì tơi khơng biết. Con ơng Nguyễn Văn Thắng(thân phụ LS Nguyễn Thái) thì tơi quá biết ơng này. Ơng "Nọ-Kia" này khơng đến nổi gian hùng như HT, nhưng tư cách cũng chẳng ra gì. Ơng Nguyên Thái Nguyễn Văn Thắng, chuyên viên thư rơi dạo nào, giờ tứ cố vơ thân, lảnh tiền SSI, luơn kiếm cơm chực. (cam đoan đây là sự thật 100%) nên chỉ cần 100 đơla là ơng hăng hái nĩi đủ thứ, khơng chỉ giới hạn chuyện Thầy Thích khơng Tánh đâu. Khơng nhận những bửa cơm thí mà con được HT đưa lên Ðại Chúng với danh xưng giáo sư này, nhà phát minh nọ. "Ơ Mê Ly" như vậy thì sai biểu gì mà "giáo sư" chả làm!!

Viết tới đây, tơi thật tơi nghiệp cho Luật Sư Nguyễn Thái (con ơng Thắng). Ðây là trường hợp "cha cú đẻ con tiên". Chắc ơng luật sư giống mẹ, khơng bị giống một điểm tồi bại nào của người cha khơng tư cách. Co lẻ nhờ LS xa cha từ thuở nhỏ. Tơi biết LS Thái rất đau long khơng nhìn người cha vơ tư cách này. Nhưng cũng thành thật xin lỗi LS. Tơi khơng biết phải dùng chữ chính xác hơn đối với ơng Thắng, người đang bị HT lợi dụng tối đa. Bỏ đao xuống sẽ thành Phật, ơng "Nọ-Kia" ơi!

Tơi viết những dong chữ này khơng với tư cách một nạn nhân của HT. Sự thiệt hại của tơi quá nhỏ so với những nạn nhân khác của ơng ta. Nhưng thấy ơng Hoai Thanh thường tưởng mọi người như con nít noi nhăng cuội gì cũng co người tin nên tơi đành tốn chút thì giờ, mở mắt cho HT làm phước.

Cái mặt mốc HT trơ trẽn lắm. Ðể quí vị xem, noi vậy mà thằng chả chưa chịu câm miệng đâu. Nhưng thơi khơng sao, coi như cái nghiệp. Cứ "du-sinh-Vân-Nam" mà viết ngu, thì mổ tơi cứ đè đầu HT ra tế (HT muốn vậy mà).

Tơi sẽ mất chút thì giờ, chứ chẳng co gì đề mất thêm, mình cũng chẳng làm cứu lụt, cứu bão gì hết, nên cũng chả sợ bị "khơng vú" là ăn tiền của đồng bào nạn nhân!

Cũng chẳng sợ bị kiện, mình chỉ noi sự thật thơi, chứng cớ đàng hoanh, sức mấy mà HT đám để những nạn nhân của hắn ra tịa làm chứng. Vả lại chắc gì HT con tiền để kiện, trừ khi ơng thành cơng cho những vụ lường gạt mới; vì chắc chắn mấy vụ kiện của UBTDTG làm HT ngất ngư con tàu đi rồi. Tội nghiệp !

Lê Tâm
Hoai Thanh: người đạo văn "du sinh HàNội-Vân Nam"


Thưa ơng Hoai Thanh,
"Chúng cháu" đọc chữ "Bọn Mày" của "chúng ơng" mà nổ đơm đốm con mắt. Sau cải cách ruộng đất 54, đây là lần đầu "chúng cháu" được đọc loại văn chương này tại hải ngoại. Cám ơn bác và đảng đã cho "du sinh Vân Nam" xuất cảng lao-động-chữ-nghĩa.

Chuyện "Ơng Ðại Bịp" thì đã co ơng Lê Minh Ngọc "xử lý" với ơng. Tơi chỉ xin "động viên" ơng vài điều nho nhỏ sau đây:

Ơng cho rằng tơi "khơng xứng đáng để thách thức với Vân Nam và Hoai Thanh". Thách thức thi viết và gian hùng như ơng Hoai Thanh thì đúng là tơi khơng xứng đáng. Tơi đâu "co chức" chủ nhậm (mắt) kiêm chủ pút-kềm-búa đâu mà dám lớn lối. Nhưng ơng phải nhìn thấy thiện chí tơi đang tìm cách kiếm tiền cho ơng đây. Ơng HT chỉ cần ngồi trong một phong kiếng. Trong 2 giờ (để bảo đảm khơng co ai nhắc tuồng, quăng "bùa", hoặc email bài viết sẳn) viết một đề tài do ban giám khảo đưa ra. Bài viết khơng cần xuất sắc, văn phong tầm cở Vân Nam trừ gian diệt bạo (nhưng chứa chấp thằng lưu manh) là đủ rồi. Ơng HT sẽ lãnh trọn 10,000 đơla. Vị chi mỗi giờ làm được 5,000 đơla. Ơng coi co văn sĩ nào được income như vậy đâu.

Hảy đem so sánh với nghề làm đồng sơn xe của ơng, kiếm năm ba trăm đổ mồ hơi hột; đã vậy khách hàng khơng biết mang ơn ơng, mà con "com pờ len" doi tiền lại vì ơng sơn khơng giống màu "o-ri-gin"! sửa xe thấy chổ vá. Ðời thật đen bạc phải khơng ơng?

Ơng co giận tơi thì cứ giận, nhưng khuyên ơng nên nhận lời đi, mười ngàn chứ đâu phải ít. Ơng co nhớ 10,000 đơ oan nghiệt mà Ơng Khương, tiệm vải Mỹ An, đã đưa ơng ra toa, ơng tốn bao tiền luật sư mà tức thay, cuối cùng, phải trả cho ơng Khương tổng cộng vốn lời đến ba mươi mấy ngàn đơ. Con kỳ này ơng ăn trọn ngon ơ. Ðã vậy con chứng minh mình là cây bút thứ thiệt làm ê mặt những đứa tố ơng chỉ cầm kềm búa, khơng biết cầm bút; "bọn mày" khơng con dám chửi hỗn nửa đâu.

Ðừng bỏ cơ hội ngàn vàng này, uổng lắm, ơng HT ơi.

Ơng HT co biết khơng, thiên hạ đồn rằng dạo này ơng "xuống cấp" lắm. Một hai tháng mới ra báo một lần vì khơng cotiền in. Lại nữa chuyện ơng điều tra tiền cứu lụt của Ủy Ban Tự Do Tơn Giáo trước đây cứ mỗi nửa tháng co một hai bài chửi rủa vơ địch. Lúc này, cả năm rồi, co thấy ơng viết gì đâu.

Rồi mới đây, ơng tuyên bố thắng thế, mà chỉ viết mấy câu yếu xìu chẳng khí thế một ly ơng cụ nào hết, khiến thiên hạ đồn ơng như con cho ghẻ, vùng vẫy rên rỉ tru lên chút đỉnh trước khi ...ngủm!

Hay ơng thua mà ơng noi xạo là thắng đĩ cha nội.. Ðã thắng thì với tài viết lách như ơng, ơng nên viết thêm, chửi cho Bà Hiền, ơng Hùng phải dọn nhà đi tiểu bang khác ở; giống như hồi ơng ở Oklahoma, khai bankrupcy dọn qua Cali; rồi từ Cali dọn về Virginia "quậy" cho tới bây giờ. Chứ ơng chỉ noi vong vong, mờ mờ ảo ảo thật chán mớ đời. Do do co mấy thằng xấu mồm loan ầm là ơng thua nặng phải bán miếng đất và bán cái body-shop ở Maryland và dọn về Alexandria chữa-thương để nghĩ mưu mơ "quậy" tiếp.

Chúc ơng sớm kiếm đủ tiền để ra số báo kế. Ðộc giả Lê Tâm đang trơng đợi để đọc bài của Vân Nam và thấy bản lãnh ngon lành của "thủ lãnh" tờ Ðại Chúng!

Con một chuyện nửa, sáng nay tơi vào website Ðại Chúng để tìm cảm hứng. Nhưng khơng biết tại mơ mà 9 số báo sau đây ơng khơng đăng tải trên trang web (từ số 124 đến số 133). Phải chăng những số báo này co đăng bài của tổ sư của ơng là Chủ Tịt VB Ðặng Văn Nhâm đã chửi bới, vu khống các bậc Thầy trong Giáo Hội Phật Giáo Thống Nhất? Chửi đã, bây giờ thấy rét, nên dẹp chăng? Hay ơng sắp sửa cầu xin chuyện gì đến quý Thầy, nên dấu biến để nịnh nọt cho dễ.

Ơng Vân Nam ơi, viết trả lời dùm Hoai Thanh đi. Viết thật độc kiểu như: mày tao, ăn cắp, ăn trộm, hiếp dâm, chuột chun đầu ống "kống" v.v...càng tốt. Tuy nhiên cũng nhớ trả lời các câu hỏi trên. Ðừng giả bộ giận dử rồi quên trả lời. Dù ơng Hoai Thanh khơng biết viết, nhưng cũng đừng để người ta tưởng là ơng khơng biết đọc thì quê lắm do.

Lê Tâm


  1. These broadcasts on VPR by the defendants were willful and malicious and done with the intent to injure plaintiff Hoai Thanh and to expose Hoai Thanh to hatred within the Vietnamese audience and community, and to expose Hoai Thanh to ridicule, contempt, scorn and obloquy, and to cause Hoai Thanh to be shunned and avoided and to injure his standing and that of the plaintiff newspaper in the Vietnamese audience and community, to injure him in his profession as a publisher and author and as a businessman. Such words and the depiction they gave were intended to mean and did mean and were understand by the listeners in Vietnamese to the program as follows when translated into English:

ARTICLE REQUESTED TO BE PUBLISHED WITH PAYMENT BY LE MINH NGOC
TO: Le Phai Weekly Newspaper.
Dear Sir,
In the 98th issue of Dai Chung Magazine, Mr. Van Nam cited my name - Le Minh Ngoc-and blamed me for sending an anonymous letter. While the letter written by myself was sent directly to Dai Chung Magazine to be pubshied, therefore it could not be charged as anonymous as Mr. H.T. proclaimed in the Spring Magazine Issue. I was myself completely independent to write this article with a desire to support you. Mr. Hoai Thanh, to “purify” the community as you proclaimed in the Spring Issue. Mr. Editor of Le Phai! Could you please make any necessary correction in order to clarify the content of the article which Mr. Hoai Thanh had concluded as anonymous. That may cause suspicion in the public and readers who easily accuse the writer and the others.
I, the undersigned Le Minh Ngoc requested the favor from Le Phai Newspaper to public two letters that had been sent to Dai Chung Magazine previously in the section of “Pay Advertisement” .
Le Minh Ngoc (Email of LMN sent to Le Phai on May 25/02
Mr. Editor in Chief for “Le Phai Newspaper”:
Yesterday, I sent an article and requested it to be posted on your newspaper with payment but I forgot to ask about the cost to sent you a check. Could you please tell me how much is the fee that I pay for.

Thank you and wish you safe and happy always.

Sincerely yours,

Le Minh Ngoc


Mr. Hoai Thanh

Chief Editor of Dai Chung Magazine


Dear Sir:
First, I would like to introduce myself as Le Minh Ngoc, a faithful reader of your magazine Website. May I express my admiration for your concern and work to clear all the conflicts among the Vietnamese Community as you wrote in the magazine. If the journalist circle had many people like you, the VN community would have been a lot better.
Some of your articles criticizing fiercely the Freedom Religion Committee and the VN Overseas Radio that I have read, have been brought to court and the result will be turned out clearly either black or white.
According to me, you would rather not wast paper and ink to argue with them. The court will justify the facts as you have thought about. For the time being, our fellow countrymen eagerly request you to publish the letter and featuring the crook who used to deceive the VN refugees that wholeheartedly trust him as a good compatriot.
This big liar lives not far away, just around your neighborhood. His unique characteristic is boasting himself as a penholder and never holds hammers, wrenches and screwdrivers, etc...He like to use big words and talks irrelevently, shamelessly and unconsistantly like we turn up and down our hand.
The following people are his victims:
The first one was Mrs. Minh, the owner of a hair cuttery shop in Arlington, VA. who considered him as a closed good acquaintance and let him borrow $100,000.00 without requesting him to write a receipt. When Mrs. Minh claimed back her money, this dishonest guy said he lost in the business and asked her to come to his house to take all furniture and household facilities instead. Mrs. Minh, a born honest and generous woman accepted his proposal to set off part of the debt by taking things from his home. But on the day she came to the house, the debter had evacuated all his valuable items that she already knew he had possessed them previously. She got very angry and could not help cursing him in loud voice. Taking advantage of knowing the american law, he called the police and charged her of illegal invading his house and denied his inviting her to come in. Mrs. Minh with her frank nature but reacting illegally had lost $100,000.00 and was detained one day at police station. That was the story, Mr. Hoai Thanh. Guess if anyone dared to trust him, Mr. Hoai Thanh? When this bad guy always said he wanted to purify the community!.
The second victim was Mr. Le Cong Thien, a builder in Virginia who lost $30,000.00 resulting from his Vietnamese born-possessed characteristic of money transaction hands on hands, without writing any receipt, they verbally trusted each other. Therefore Mr. Le Cong Thien had paid $30,000.00 for this live experience. And the price was much cheaper than that of Mrs. Minh, was it right, Mr. Hoai Thanh?
The third victim was Mr. Thanh, who was the owner of a hot dog van in Washington DC.. Mr. Thanh bought a gas station from him and paid $70,000.00. But it turned out that the gas station was not his own property but it belonged to Sunoco. He was only hired by Sunoco as a manager. In the transaction with Mr. Thanh Hot Dog, he convinced him that a hand writing deed was enough; had it publicly notorized was only one time consuming and money wasting. Beside paying $70,000.00 to this bluffing fellow countrymen, Mr. Thanh Hot Dog also invested hundred thousand of dollars to expand the services such as adding tire change section, and building soda and candy stand etc... When the business came to its full swing, Mr. Thanh Hot Dog was evicted by the police because this gas station has not been completely his own property. One important thing that Mr. Thanh Hot Dog learn by this time was that whoever managed this gas station was only a manager, but not owner. All kind of agreed transaction must be filed at the central office for being verified to be legalized. Mr. Thanh Hot Dog did not know that process except his big bluffer who played very well his role as a good VN compatriot. Awaking from the bad dream, what Mr. Thanh Hot Dog had to do was sueing him at court to claim back part of his losses..
The fourth victim was Mr. Khuong, the owner of My An Fabrics. He is a very talented businessman with very many experiences in business field but when coming up with this Big bluffer, he also mistook him as a honest man because he always talked about offering charitable services and cpmpassion toward his fellow countryman, Mr. Hoai Thanh! When this bluffer insisted Mr. Khuong to loan him $10,000.00 the latter agreed but carefully insisted him to write a receipt. Even though Mr. Khuong could not get out of his deceptive practice. Being familiar with cheating, he did not pay Mr. Khuong the debt.
Mr. Khuong was very rich. To him ten thousand dollars meant nothing but he determined not to give him a cent and tried to bring him to the court.
What do you know, Mr. Hoai Thanh? He was very cunning, he used money cheated from his fellow countrymen to hire three talented American lawyers to defend for his crime. Under the light of American law, this cunning, shameless big bluffer armed with myriad of plots and tricks hoped to win this case. He will manipulate newspapers and makes Mr. Khuong loose face and at the same time created the credit for himself to easily continue his cheating the refugees. At the court he cunningly delared that Mr. Khuong pooled his capital as a joint venture to do the business. The business was going down and he was not responsible to refund that ten thousand dollars but the receipt of the loan was the blatant proof, he could not cheat like the previous cases. The judge had ordered him to reimburse Mr. Khuong the loan amount plus interest. Not being able to avoid the crime, he dispersed his property and filed bankruptcy to wipe out the loan. But in this case, Mr. Khuong was more high handed therefore he sorrily had to pay him back the amount of money.
In short, among numerous victims, he was only defeated by Mr. Khuong but victorious over the others by means of cheating and deceiving to collect the other’s money in the title of loan or joint venture.
Sir the list of victims is still long, I will continue to write in the next issue in order to get the investigation ending fast and satisfied result. Mr. Hoai Thanh should meet your fellow countrymen listed below. They are readily availiable to provide you the details regarding the cheatings and bluffings mentioned above and the name and background of this villainous bluffer:
Bach Tuyet Jewelry, Kim Long Jewelry, Mr. Hoang Nuoi Restaurant QueenBee, Mr. Khuong VA. Fabrics shop, Mr. Thanh Hot Dog in Washington D.C., Mr. Le Cong Thien VA., Mrs. Minh Hair Cuttery in Arlington VA., Dai Nam Restaurant, Mr. Mekong and businessmen in the Wilson/Clarendon areas.
Mr. Hoai Thanh, I always remember your wholehearted saying appearing on the Nham Ngo Spring Magazine: “In compassion with the compatriots and with desire to build up strong community...” therefore I believe, with your wisdom, you would definitely expose this crook to light. I eagerly request you to publish this letter on Dai Chung Magazine to let the people know all kind of cheatings and deceiving to spare them from being a victim. Also through reading your magazine, our people will provide you more information and events for publishing as hot news to the public. That seems to match with your words. I sincerely wish you always safe and successful.
Good bye,

Le Minh Ngoc


To: Dai Chung Magazine and Mr. Hoai Thanh ( Editor and Senior writer), how many times did you sneak in and out?
I did not intend to write any more, because Le Minh Ngoc has shown the photo of the big con artist to the public. But today, Hoai Thanh and Dai Chung Magazine “sneak in and out “ on the Thao Luan Magazine three times in a row of five days simply to talk about the article “Dai Chung Magazine sued by the Religion Freedom Committee”. I find myself not being able to be silent any more and I want to present some ideas as follows:
Not only in Vietnam do the calumnies exist as “Priest Nguyen Van Ly has a wife and ten children” or “Minister Nguyen Hong Quang seduces a teenager”; but in the USA also, are there many people who speak out without any proofs.
I have been living in the suburb of Washington, stupidly having my car repainted at Mr. Hoai Thanh’s body shop; I involved in an argument with him and consequently I lost money for nothing. Afterward I have heard many people complain about his “bad achievements” and I have read a series of articles under the title: ” The public wants to know the relief fund for the flood and storm victims” slandering the Religion Freedom Committee sordidly ( those who want to read these articles can surf the Dai Chung website : www.daichung.com ( starting from the issue 68 -70 or so).
Though Hoai Thanh is illiterate (everyone who has met him has known that) but very crooked (all Hoai Thanh’ s victims agreed on this). Hoai Thanh knows how to criticize very well. Even though “this credit” does not surely belong to him but it likely belongs to ”an invisible big boss” who paid for. Truly, a series of articles “The Public wants to know” as I guess, were written by ”an overseas student” (using the term of Socialism). Everybody knows that Hoai Thanh does not have enough ability to write, even a bad essay. If Mr. Hoai Thanh wants to deny this weakness, I bet you sit in a closed room for two hours and a proctor gives you a subject, I guarantee you cannot complete three correct sentences, but not an article in the same style of Van Nam.
If Hoai Thanh accepts the challenge, I will invite three respectable seniors in the Washington metropolitan area to be proctors and the gentlemen in the editing staff act as examiners. If Hoai Thanh is able to write an article that is as good as that in “ The public wants to know”, I will lose $10.000 which will help Hoai Thanh to pay for the attorney fee in the law suit of the Religion Freedom Committee; and if Hoai Thanh cannot write, you will lose the bet and must hand over the same amount of money of $10.000 to the Community Representative Committee in the Washington area to spend on the public services.
Are you courageous enough to accept the bet. I hope to hear your answer soon on the newspaper.
Reading the series of articles “The public wants to know”, of Van Nam (that made Mr. Hoai Thanh proud of, with your nose inflated, and chest thrown up to the front to claim that you are the author), everyone see this is the style of “ the overseas student” from Hanoi.
Hoai Thanh has hired one Hanoi overseas student to take care of the “lay out on the web site”. I do not know if this guy and Van Nam are two individuals or just one? But surely the series of articles “ The public wants to know”, of Van Nam always consisted of the special terms used in Hanoi Red such as the word “ baøu chöûa” that was read in the recent essay. I always remember a sentence in a severe criticism that was like a splash of water to the face of the Religion Freedom Committee, and that the overseas student Van Nam used to spit out roughly as follows “the Vietnamese Communist government authorizes the newspapers to publish the news related to Nguyet Bieu, then Dai Chung Magazine will reproduce it publicly in the future”, -(Being born in the suppressive regime of uncle Ho and the Communist Party, everything must be waited the permission, that is quite right!) -or the calumnious opinion against the spirit leaders in the country:” The relief fund for Flood reliefs accounted to millions of dollars from overseas did not reach to the hands of the flood victims, because this fund was robbed ,as said in the report, by Venerable Thanh Minh, -a nephew of Venerable Thich Quang Do -, but in reality, Venerable Thanh Minh has kept this fund to build the pagoda”. The similar news as mentioned above was published on Dai Chung, the issue 75. I remember this number, as it is the same name of Pho 75).
If Mr. Hoai Thanh was a normal person, with good personality then surely all the people in the Washington area would believe him and boycott the Religion Freedom Committee and the Overseas VN Radio long time ago.
Although, at least Mr. Hoai Thanh is also successful with some who are naive and live far away and Read Dai Chung on the Website, if not understanding thoroughly, but simply thinking of ”there is no smoke without fire”. But to the wise and intellectual, they tend to look for the hidden causes. A newspaper denouncing the corruption and embezzlement of the relief fund for flood victims in an organization, normally needs only one or two commentaries with appropriate languages. That is enough; writing score of articles is not necessary. Mr. Hoai Thanh, in this case, found fault with and blamed them directly and indirectly in the way because he wanted to beat to death the Religion Freedom Committee and the Overseas VN Radio so that they do not have voices to stand against ” the Big Boss” of his; not because he wants to be on the side of the people to purify community as he said.
“Purify the community” how sublime is the mission of Mr. Hoai Thanh! In the meantime why do you not clean your tiny body shop? Only the naiïve client like me gets into your business and was dissatisfied after involving in an argument with you everyday, why do you not clear it up? You forget an elementary lesson which teaches us to perfect ourselves before preaching to others?
You have robbed the salaries of so many apprentices, but now playing the role of a hero to interfere in and get angry against the relief fund raised by the community is blatantly shameless.
I know Mrs. Hien is not stupid. The money received and spent for the flood victims was so surely accounted with care that she dared sue Dai Chung and Hoai Thanh in the court. No criminal is so naïive to report to the police that he is hidding in this bush or hand over the files to Hoai Thanh’s attorney to collect the mistakes in order to be put into the jail if any sign of fraud or embezzlement have been found! Surely Mrs Hien is not such a stupid .It is yourself, a dump who think yourself malicious, being able to deceive the others, and proclaim to be the winner in the law suit in order to prove Mrs Hien “s wrongdoing and cheating.
Hoai Thanh on the chair of defendant has nothing to be victorious. Not being charged for calumny and slander, that must be your big happiness.
For the time being, people are waiting Hoai Thanh to bring Mrs. Hien to the court because she charged you as a liar, a slanderer and a culumnier… while you exposed the whole truth in dozen of articles on “ Quan Chung”. When you dare sue Mrs Hien to the court for the mentioned above crime or for any crime, then the public will praise Hoai Thanh as a hero, even if, the court does not set up the trial. Do you notice that the community favors you, Mr. Hoai Thanh! Just move forward and sue Mrs. Hien then the people admire your mossy face. Only that time is your real “victory”. Try harder man!
Hoai Thanh proudly said he sent his two men back to Viet Nam to see Venerable Thich Khong Tanh and he was told that Mrs. Hien never sent $15.800 of the flood relief fund to the VN United Buddist Committee.
Hoai Thanh was boastering but idiot, Venerable Thich Khong Tanh and the whole VN United Buddist Committee were put under the surveillance of the police, therefore it was not easy for any member of this group to meet anyone except that person carried a permission or a mark of Hanoi. Even if they met each other, Venerable Thich Khong Tanh was not stupid as Hoai Thanh used to be, because in this era, meeting with an unknown, betrayal believer- is like to to say” hey Mr. Viet Cong and Mr. overseas Vietnamese, we challenged your order to receive $15.000 of the reliefs fund from Mrs. Hien to distribute to the flood victims”!
About the personality of the two individuals of Mr. Hoai Thanh, our ancestors have thought us “ Birds of the feather flock together”. Your friends talk, only dogs believe. You can falsifiy the documents and also convert from yes to no easily. If these two persons were honest they could publicly show their addresses and telephone numbers for people to make a survey. Why they had to hide behind Dai Chung Magazine in order that the overseas student Van Nam could check and report to Hanoi or to the VN Embassy in Washington! And probably this overseas student could answer in the place of you. I do not know if Ms. Kim Hue is a real or fake character. But I know exactly that Mr. Nguyen van Thang, (the father of lawyer Nguyen Thai). This Mr. “ No Kia “ is not as scoundrel as Hoai Thanh, but his personality is also mediocre. Mr. Nguyen Thai, Nguyen van Thang specialized in writing anonymous letters sometime ago, due to not having any relative supports, he collects the SSI, gets free meals (Guarantee this is 100% true), therefore only $100 can make him talk about everything, not limiting to the story of Venerable Thich Khong Tanh.
Not having a free meal but still have Hoai Thanh put his name on Dai Chung as the title Professor and Journalist. “Such an ectasy “ makes the professor carry out every kind of orders!
Writing to this point, I feel pity to the lawyer Nguyen Thai (Mr. Thang”s son). This is the circumstance of ” an owl father gives birth to an angel”. Perhaps the lawyer resembles his mother, not taking any bad feature of the father. But I sincerely apologize to the lawyer, I do not know how to use the more accurate word for Mr. Thang, he was the most exploited by Hoai Thanh. Throw away the spear you will be a Buddha, Mr.” No Kia “!
I am writing these lines of words not on behalf of the victim of Hoai Thanh. The disadvantage of mine is too small compare to the others. But Hoai Thanh thought that other people were children, who believed every thing he said, therefore I must spend time to help him open his eyes.
His mossy face is thick skin. Let’s see, that guy has not been subdued and shut up his mouth. But it is O.K I consider this as a fate. Keep using the name ”Overseas Student Van Nam “ to write stupid thing then I crush his head for the celebration (Hoai Thanh wants this action).
I will lose a little time, but nothing else to lose more, I also did not involve in helping flood or storm victims, therefore I am not afraid to be charged for taking money from the fellow countryman!
Also not afraid of being sued, I only tell the truth, with available proofs, how come Hoai Thanh be able to let his victims go to the court as witness, moreover nothing to be sure that Hoai Thanh still has enough money to follow the law suit, except he is successful in new cheats; because the litigations of the Religion Freedom Commitee certainly made him like a boat staggering in a rough sea. It ‘s a pity!
Mr. Hoai Thanh: the plagiarist “Overseas student- Van Nam”
Dear Mr. Hoai Thanh,
“We” read the words “Your group” of “our”* that made my eyes dazzled with glares: after the land reform in 1954, this is the first time “we”* read this literature style in overseas. Thank you, Uncle and Party*, for having “overseas student Van Nam” “exported language labor.”
The story “Con Artist” has had Mr. Le Minh Ngoc to deal with you. I only suggest to you some trifling things as follows:
You think that I do not deserve to challenge Van Nam and Hoai Thanh. Challenging to test the ability of writing and cheating as you are; it is true that I am not deserving. I do not hold the position of an editor and “senior pincers and hammer handling”*; therefore, I dare not boast. But you must see my good will is to look for ways to make money for you. Mr. Hoai Thanh, you only need to sit in a glass room for two hours (to guarantee no one prompt you and pass the ready made text or email the article to you) to write an essay given by a board of examiners. The writing need not be necessarily outstanding; the style should be of the same caliber as Van Nam’s, aiming at eliminating fraudulent and exterminating brutality (but supporting the scoundrel), and that is enough. You will receive US $10,000. That means $5000 per hour of work. You see, there is no other writer who can earn such high income.
Compare this to your auto body career-to gain a few hundred dollars, you must perspire plus the customer’s complaint about a job not well done and the request for a refund instead of thanks. Life is so treacherous, isn’t it?
If you get angry with me, just go ahead, but I advise you to accept the bet. $10,000 is not a small amount of money. Do you remember when Mr. Khuong, the owner of My An Fabrics, sued you in court for $10,000? You paid a lot of money to the lawyer but at the least you had to refund to Mr. Khuong the total of US $30,000 including interest. No one can earn this amount easily. Besides, you could demonstrate that you are the real writer and cause shame to those who undermined you as a pincers and hammer holder but not a writer. This group dare not curse you with bad language.
Do not let this golden opportunity pass you by-that would be very wasteful, Mr. Hoai Thanh!

Did you know that recently a rumor has been saying that you are “degrading” substantially? Your magazine publishes only once every one or two months because of money shortage, due to your involvement in investigating the relief fund for the flood victims of the Religion Freedom Committee. Previously, every fortnight you wrote one or two criticisms but recently maybe for a year, no one has seen any of your compositions.


And all of a sudden you proclaimed you won in a few sentences in a soft style, and not as ardent as before, that people called you a scabious dog that was wagging its tail and groaning for a while before dying!
Or you lost the case and you lied about being a winner, Man! If you had won, an expert writer like you, you should write more, and curse Mrs. Hien and Mr. Hung so that they have to move to another state. Similar to the time when you lived in Oklahoma, you filed bankruptcy and moved to California and from California to Virginia to “stir up” until now. You only talk irrelevantly and vaguely-how boring it is! Therefore, some bad-mouthed guys spread noisily that your loss was so serious that you had to sell the piece of land and the body shop in Maryland and move to Alexandria to treat the “injury,” then continue to “stir” again.
I wish you would earn enough money soon in order to publish the next issue. Reader Le Tam is waiting to read the composition of Van Nam and to see the firm characteristic of the “leader” of Dai Chung.
One more story, this morning I surfed the website of Dai Chung to search for inspiration, but I do not know why you did not place 9 issues (from #124 to #133) on the website.
Is it because in these issues there are essays of your ancestor teacher Dang Van Nham who cursed and slandered the Venerables in the United Buddhism Religion? After the bad-mouthed criticism, you felt cold and stopped? Or you are going to ask something from the Venerables, so you hide these writings in order to be successful in your request.

Hey, Mr. Van Nam, go ahead and write for Mr. Hoai Thanh! Write in as brutal a style as in the story of robbery, rape, or rats getting into the “sewer,” etc. …the better. Anyway, remember to respond to the above-mentioned questions. Don’t pretend to be upset and forget to answer. Though Mr. Hoai Thanh did not know how to write, but do not let people think that you cannot read. If so, what a shame!


Le Tam


  1. The excerpt from the September 2, 2004, program over VPR by CRFV set out above was broadcast and published by the defendants with malice and evil intent in that the defendants knew of the falsity of what they were broadcasting to the Vietnamese listening audience and/or stated, broadcast and published what they said as set out above with a reckless and wanton disregard for the truth. All of the allegations, about lawsuits, about bankruptcy, about business dealngs of the individual plaintiff, were false and known to be false by the defendants when they wrote and broadcast them. The same was true when the program was repeated on or about December 23 2004.

  1. The program as a whole, like the excerpt above, was malicious and wanton and per se defamatory and meant to be so by the defendants, misrepresenting on purpose everything that was purported about the plaintiff Hoai Thanh.

  1. The excerpt itself was malicious and wanton and per se defamatory and meant by the defendants to be so, and it was false, as the defendants well knew.

  1. The excerpt contains many specific per se defamatory words and phrases.

  1. The Vietnamese word (Thang dai bip) is translated in the excerpt as the “conning” or, in the plural “connings.” In the ninth paragraph, beginning, in English, “The third victim…,” for example the word is used in the singular, and in the fourteenth paragraph, beginning, in English, “Sir, the list of victims is still long,” it is used in the plural. This word thus means criminally deceiving as in a criminal “conning” a victim as a “con artist” in the English phrase.

  1. The related forms of the word, in Vietnamese (Thang dai bip) is the equivalent of, and can be translated into, in English, “con artist” and is repetitive of the per se defamation. It is used in paragraphs nine, ten, twelve, and fourteen and even augmented in Vietnamese, as the phrase (Thang dai bip the gian) which makes even clearer that the plaintiff Hoai Thanh is accused of a criminal act.

  1. In paragraph twelve there is a further augmentation, in Vietnamese, (Thang vo liem si) where the plaintiff Hoai Thanh is called a “shameless big con artist.” This is to make it clear that the plaintiff Hoai Than is accused of being a criminal who is guilty of punishable crimes.

  1. In paragraph fourteen there is even further augmentation in that the plaintiff Hoai Thanh is called in Vietnamese a (Nhung hanh dong lua gat bi oi), which translates into English as “villainous big con artist.”

  1. None of these accusations is true and are all defamatory per se and meant to be so.

  1. The excerpt uses variations on the Vietnamese word, in verb form, which in English is “to steal by trickery” in the sense of an actionable crime. The Vietnamese equivalent, (luong gat) is used in the past tense, in English “cheated,” and the Vietnamese (lua dao) for the English participle form “cheating” and, in the plural, “cheatings.”

  1. This term luong gat too is, and its variations are, defamatory per se and the accusations made by use of the word are false and known to be false to the defendants when they decided to use the word and its variations and specifically applied them too the plaintiff Hoai Thanh.

  1. In the same way the defendants used in this broadcast program the quoted words (Thang nay quy quyet gian ma) and (ma manh) in Vietnamese meaning in English “cunning” and “cunningly” in the sense of a dishonest man who deceives and tricks in a criminally dishonest manner.

  1. The following terms were also used:




  1. (Thằng lưu manh) in Vietnamese, meaning in English “crook.”




  1. (Thằng lưu manh đại bịp) in Vietnamese, meaning in English “big liar.”

  1. (Tội trạng của nó) in Vietnamese, meaning in English “crime”

  1. (Nhiều mưu kế) in Vietnamese, meaning in English “plots and tricks.”

  1. (Thang lua bip the gian nay) in Vietnamese, meaning in English “bad guy.”

  1. All of these terms as used in the context of the broadcast were per se defamatory and known to the defendants to be false and were used with recklessness and malice.

  1. The broadcast stated that the plaintiff Hoai Thanh had filed “bankruptcy” in the course of dealing with one Khuong. This accusation was false and known to be false to the defendants when they decided to use it.

  1. This last defamatory false statement was intended maliciously to harm the business reputation and credit of both plaintiffs.

  1. The accounts of judicial proceedings in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Maryland and in the Circuit Court of Arlington County, Virginia are unfair, false and malicious. The assertions of those accounts in the above excerpt from the VPR/CRFV broadcast are slanderous and defamatory, designed and intended to falsely lead the Vietnamese listening public to believe that the plaintiff Hoai Thanh lied and deceived to, and committed fraud upon, the courts, when he did not do so but proceeded fairly in accord with the rules of the courts and the law. Defendants designed and intended these false representations to expose the plaintiff Hoai Thanh upt to the wrath, hatred, contempt and ridicule of the Vietnamese speaking American public and, by reflection, his newspaper, the plaintiff Dai Chung BiWeekly newspaper, also. They have deprived the plaintiff of business customers and readership and of the benefits of public confidence and social intercourse, and, as such, are slanderous and defamatory per se.

  1. All of the above slander, libel, and defamation aimed by the defendants at the plaintiff Hoai Thanh was designed to deprive him of business in his newspaper and auto businesses and to deprive the plaintiff Dai Chung BiWeekly Newspaper of its readers and advertisers and did so, the general defamation of the program, and the specific defamation of the particular words and phrases in the above broadcasts in a campaign of similar broadcasts repeated again and again over literally years up to the present time with an intent on the part of the defendants to continue such broadcasts into the future unless prevented from further defamation against the plaintiffs.

  1. The plaintiff Hoai Thanh lost most of the Vietnamese business in his Maryland auto business as a direct result and had to sell the business.

  1. The plaintiff Dai Chung BiWeekly Newspaper lost its readers and advertisers as a direct result to the point where it has had to repeatedly miss issues and now suspend publication in hard copy indefinitely. Contributors and subscribers have been driven away as a direct result.

  1. The defendants with this defamation and the large number of similar defamations over a period of years have directly, maliciously and unlawfully caused the plaintiff Hoai Thanh to become vexed, harassed, intimidated, threatened physically, to receive threatening phone calls and curses and insults in the street and public places, to become injured and suffer great mental and nervous strain and emotional stress and trauma, and to cause the same to occur to his wife and children and other relatives, He and his family have been unable to rest and sleep well, have been unable to work with their usual effectiveness and efficiency, and to have had to have medical treatment for conditions directly resulting from the attacks, to suffer scorn, contempt, ridicule, and obloquy from the Vietnamese community in all the states where VPR programs are heard and to suffer a loss of public confidence and social relationships. The plaintiff Hoai Thanh, for example, is a veteran of the Army of the late, lamented, Republic of South Vietnam and a member for many years of the organization in this country of such veterans. Now he is shunned by members of that group as a direct result of the defamation by the defendants.

  1. Before this campaign of defamation as part of the defendants’ campaign of false light began and before the defendants began to employ their pattern of racketeering activity directly against the plaintiff Hoai Thanh, Hoai Thanh had a good reputation in the Vietnamese community and was considered fair and honest, a leader among his peers. Defendants have willfully and maliciously destroyed that.

  1. The plaintiff newspaper has likewise, by this defamation against its princii-pal and also against itself, had its former good reputation damaged and destroyed and its personnel and associates have received a treatment similar to that of the plaintiff Hoai Thanh.

WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs pray in this count for defamation, for:

  1. General Damages in the amount of at least five million dollars.

  1. Special Damages in the amount of one million dollars.

  1. Punitive and exemplary damages in the amount of ten million dollars.

  1. Injunctive relief to command repeated publication in broadcasts in all 22 states of acknowledgement of the falsity of the defamations against the plaintiffs, and for injunctive relief on a temporary and then permanent basis to prohibit any further such defamation, and

  1. Any and other further relief as to the Court shall seem meet and proper at law or in equity.

COUNT VI: CONSPIRACY TO DEFAME

  1. Plaintiffs restate and incorporate all the preceding paragraphs of this complaint.

  1. The individual defendants, and all of them, conspired together as set out in the previous counts in order to perpetrate the torts of slander and libel and defamation to damage the plaintiffs and destroy the plaintiff Hoai Thanh’s business, livelihood and life, his standing in the community, his ability to socialize and to torment and cause emotional suffering and harm to him, his wife, and his family.

  1. The corporate defendants conspired together to the same end, and were used by the individual defendants as instrumentalities to that end.

WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs pray in this count for conspiracy to defame against all defendants, jointly and severally, for:

  1. General Damages in the amount of at least five million dollars.

  1. Special Damages in the amount of one million dollars.

  1. Punitive and exemplary damages in the amount of ten million dollars.

  1. Injunctive relief to command repeated publication in broadcasts in all 22 states of acknowledgement of the falsity of the defamations against the plaintiffs, and for injunctive relief on a temporary and then permanent basis to prohibit any further such defamation, and

  1. Any and other further relief as to the Court shall seem meet and proper at law or in equity.



Поделитесь с Вашими друзьями:
1   2   3   4   5


Cơ sở dữ liệu được bảo vệ bởi bản quyền ©tieuluan.info 2019
được sử dụng cho việc quản lý

    Quê hương