Copy of Lawsuit Complaint filed by Dr John Giduck against SOCNET.com

Dr John Giduck (via his lawyer Lawrence G Katz) has filed a civil lawsuit against SOCNET.com and those certain individuals who have been perpetrating the ongoing vendetta against him, his family and business Archangel Group.

In a previous post on this site we outlined broad details of the lawsuit. We can now share a copy of the actual lawsuit document.

It makes disturbing reading and shows the lengths the perpetrators have gone to in their vendetta against Dr John Giduck his family, friends and associates.

Copy of Complaint:

Special Forces Association NBO Failure to Investigate

We have received a copy of the following letter by Charles L Berg, President “Emeritus” SFA Chapter XXII, Golden Gate Chapter and it is being published in its entirety.

The letter has been emailed to a large distribution of SFA members regards claims made by MSG Clouse, SOCNET.com and SFA NBO that Dr. John Giduck had made false representations related to Special Forces, Rangers, LEO service and SFA membership and investigations by SFA president Tobin into those claims.

* * *

MSG CLOUSE – MR. JOHN GIDUCK COMMUNICATION WITH JACK TOBIN
SFA NBO FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE
 
Charles L Berg
President “Emeritus”
SFA Chapter XXIII
“Golden Gate Chapter”

Jack,

My comments and questions are not personal opinions they are professional financial management inquires and they have been respectful.

At this time I am not aware of anyone mentioning launching a recall effort nor demand anyone resignations.

My signature block indicating retired Certified Fraud Examiner, (CFE) and retired Certified Government Financial Manager (CGFM) were furnished to address your claim that what I stated was my “opinion” the furnishing of this information was to clarify the professional basis for asking detailed specific financial questions.

We both know that as of this date neither MSG Clouse, the SOCNET.com or the SFA NBO produced one repeat one single piece of paper in which Mr. Giduck claimed service in:

Special Forces
Rangers
Law Enforcement Officer (LEO)
or inferred a relationship with the SFA.

It is not a matter of John Giduck claiming experience, weightlifting titles specialized training with Russian troops etc. background and qualifications that he advertises, it is about the fiduciary duties of the SFA NBO and its obligations to follow the SFA BY LAWS concerning the giving away of members funds ($2000.00).

In accordance with the finest American traditions these other issues will be settled in the court of law, the court system will determine these issues for all members (MSG Clouse, SOCNET.com etc.) under oath.

Open minded and fair individuals can see the “fine biographies” on each of the individuals on SOCNET.com and on SOCNETLIES.com.

In the majority of cases MSG Clouse is the only actual SO person.

It is very informative and telling that the one person from SOCNET.com who claims to have attended one of the presentations does not state that Mr. Giduck claimed or inferred having served in either the SF, Rangers, LEO or inferred any relationship with the Association as you falsely have claimed in your letter soliciting financial support from the members of the SFA through the Chapters, and your effort to motivate/intimidate both the GBF and SFCT to match these funds.

As the attorneys say:
“The truth will set you free”

You wrote in your letter to the SF Community the following:

”The NBO has verified that MSG Clouse has suffered and continues to suffer acute financial hardship as a direct result of his efforts in questioning the claims of a non-member who, among other statements and actions, inferred a relationship with our Association
 
“Our decision making process involved a “full exploratory vetting of issues” followed by an active discussion and debate and only then did we arrive at a unanimous decision”

If you or anyone from SFA NBO had done even the minimal investigation (as you claimed to have) on the two nets (SOCNET.com and SOCNETLIES.net) you would have seen the facts, which do not support the rants and raves on SOCNET.com concerning Mr. Giduck, nor do they support MSG Clouse’s distorted version of facts.

The most elementary review of MSG Clouse’s alleged actions by Mr Giduck would have shown that at this time there is not one shred of written evidence that Mr. Giduck claimed service in either SF, Rangers or as a LEO and never repeat never inferred a relationship; with our Association.(SFA) as you claimed in your letter to the community

In your final e mail response to me you stayed true to the pattern, in that you attempt to distract, distort, and disparage legitimate inquiry.

It was not surprising that you stridently threw out the following accusatory accusation concerning my use of the professional certifications of CFE and CGFM (retired):

“I can only believe that it is an attempt to intimidate myself and the Board of Directors”

This is not only ludicrous specifically because of your clear documented attempt below to intimidate me by again citing the following misleading fact:

“In our initial review of this natter, we researched these and other issues before making our announcement, in addition several Board members bring extensive corporate experience and one is in fact a lawyer

This can only be meant to infer that a lawyer had looked at it and rendered a positive legal opinion.

Staying true to form as you have the next claim from you will or would have made would be:

“You are questioning the integrity (my word) or of those you cited, such as Chapter Presidents, DMOR, SGM and members of the Chain of Command”

There is no need to question any ones word, the simple clear lack of any repeat any written documentation at this time to support the claims of MSG Clouse’s or the ones you made speaking for SFA NBO are blatantly totally unsubstantiated accusations.

Subsequently when redirected and pressed for clarification as to receiving actual written legal advice you claimed.

“We do not need a lawyer to make decisions of this nature; however FYI a member of the board is an attorney, though made his decision at Board Member, and not a legal advisor”

While you state the vast number of individual’s (Hundreds of SFA members) and when asked about the process the NBO used in documenting the need for determining “suffering a confirmed hardship” without any supporting official documentation and how did/does the NBO verify a “distressed members” financial condition” and determine the need for a “Distressed Member” to be given SFA Membership funds ($2000.00) you stated the following:

“We have not reviewed MSG Clouse’s Income Tax Records, Billing Invoices, Legal Fees and we have not required a Sworn Personal Statement”

You stated that you verified facts as follows:

“By discussions with the soldier’s Chain of command, investigation by Chapter Presidents, and several DMOR, and others”

I respectfully challenge your assertion of any written documentation from the active duty Chain of Command dealing with this issue.

In that there was never any “investigation” no active duty officer would sign off on a potential repeat potential civil law suit implying that the member is “suffering a confirmed hardship” without any supporting official documentation to verify a solider meets the criteria if a criteria was established.

You acknowledged that you did not require any supporting documentation from the member to support his alleged financial status.

As of this date in that neither you nor MSG Clouse have produced anyone (To include the illustrious members of SOCNET.com) to certify that they were present when Mr Giduck allegedly claimed service with either the Special Forces, the Rangers and or Law Enforcement Officers (LEO) or inferred a relationship with our Association (SFA) there could not have been any “investigation” despite` your false repeated claim of such.

Your claim of investigation would have shown that there is no written evidence of any such claims by Mr.Giduck, so how could your “investigation” support anything? To state that you “fully investigated” the circumstances is at best misleading, and not supported by any written documentation, and a insult to the members.

In your letter to the SF Community you stated:

“The Special Forces Association has a long established, a fraternally inspired, policy of helping distressed members. This policy frequently takes the form of monetary support for specific, identified and confirmed need.”

You previously stated that not only did you not review any financial documents, or obtain sworn statement you also did not look at any documents (see below):

(*) “We have not reviewed MSG Clouse’s Income Tax Records, Billing Invoices, Legal Fees and we have not required a Sworn Personal Statement”

Yet in the latest statements from you regarding the fact that as of this letter MSG Clouse had not even been served legal papers and therefore could not document financial need if asked.

On 27 August 2012 you stated his needs would have been:

Lawyers require retainers.

(*) See above, you stated you did not repeat did not review Legal Fees.

Now you are implying that he had to pay a Lawyer a retainer when you gave him the SFA members $2000.00.

You cannot have it both ways, either he provided some information concerning his alleged financial condition or he did not.

As a matter of fact the following must have taken place and an official copy of the SFA NBO minutes for the official meeting is on file:

1. Someone (Chapter President, DMOR etc. anyone of the people you alleged to speak with) or a member of the SFA NBO presented a motion at an official SFA NBO meeting.

This would be a matter of official minutes as to who made the motion, and the specific wording.

There would have been discussion (In accordance with your statement)

2. Some one (Treasurer) should have informed the SFA NBO that there was no funds in the Restricted “Distressed Member” sub-account.

3. Someone should have made a motion to take the funding from the other Restricted “SFA Legal Fund” sub-account

4. Discussion concerning the legality and a determination justification made as to it being legal. (by active discussion and debate)(*)

5. Vote

All of this would be in the official minutes of the SFA NBO records.

“Our decision making process involved a “full exploratory vetting of the issues” followed by active discussion and debate and only then did we arrive at a unanimous decision”

There could not have been any “full exploratory vetting of the issues”, to state so is misleading (and the possible basis for SFA members to “believe” that there was such)

I have no doubt that when you put out the false statement claiming that you did a “full exploratory vetting of the issues” to the members of the SF community they took you at your word as to the validity of the allegations of MSG Clouse.

However as of this date neither the SFA NBO or MSG Clouse and or SOCNET.com produced  one shred of written evidence that Mr. Giduck claimed service in either branch nor “or inferred a relationship with our Association” as you incorrectly claimed in your earlier communication. to the SF community.

One has to wonder why the SFA NBO would make a statement so blatantly false.

Even after the receipt of statements strongly refuting (based on their personal knowledge and having attended presentations by two very distinguished retired military members you have failed to update the SF community:

CSM Mel Wick (Original member of SMU)
LTC Dave Grossman, PhD, Professor at United States Military Academy and a Ranger, successful author and lecture (you still have not informed the SFA membership of their unsolicited letters)
 
Both of these highly respected retired members of the service whom are familiar with and have attended lectures of Mr.Giduck and clearly stated Mr. Giduck has never repeat never stated or implied that he served in either SF or Rangers nor was a LEO, or inferred a relationship with our Association.
 
A very simple investigation would have determined that MSG Clouse could not and did not produced any documentation for the SFA NBO to indicate that Mr. Giduck had made any of the false claims that he MSG Clouse falsely alleges and thereby MSG Clouse’s blatant allegations were just that personal allegations.

Any attempt to morph MSG Clouse’s and the SOCNET.com clear personal agenda into something about “protecting” the SFA is pure junk, and does not pass the smell test.

The members deserve better, and you should have known better, do the right thing now and send the two letters referenced above to the chapters.

To date you personally have failed to correct the records in the Chapters or at least shared the communication from CSM Wick, LTC Grossman (ret) with them.

Where do we go from here?
The SFA NBO should recover the SFA Members $2000.00 from MSG Clouse and redeposit the funds in the members account.
The  SFA NBO individual members who voted for this clearly inappropriate giving of SFA Members $2000.00 to a unsubstantiated claimant posing as a ”Distressed Member” without adequate minimal safe guarding of SFA Membership funds (In accordance with their fiduciary duties) personally redeposit them in the members account.
This action could help address the possible breach of fiduciary duties, and make the SFA Membership funds whole again.

FIDUCUIARY “a person having a legal duty created by his undertaking, to act primarily for the benefit of another in matters connected with his undertaking” in the nature of a position of trust or holding confidence

In your email (dtd Aug 16, 2012) you went into a legal analysis of the projected lawsuit.

You stated:

“An analysis of the Compliant against MSG Clouse, finds it to be that it is long in general, vague allegations, short on specifics and lacking in a sound legal theory of recovery. Precisely it is the type of compliant that is designed to dissuade protected free speech through the imposition of costly legal fees and litigation. It is a tool of the financially strong; the use of our legal system and its inherent high costs, as a tool of suppression”

Sounds like a defense lawyers “opening statement”, in other words pure conjecture and designed to deflect attention away from the facts and truth.

You still failed or refuse to provide the applicable written policies for both the “SFA Legal Funds” and “Distressed Member” funds criteria, restrictions and management.

The SFA get on with doing the business of supporting legitimate soldiers needs

It is clear with even minimum effort that both the SFA and SOA were provided false information regarding any allegation of Mr. Giduck alleged claims of serving in either SF or Rangers, as an LEO or inferred a relationship with our Association (SFA).

To date there is no written record of this and none was provided by either the members of SOCNET.com or MSG Clouse.

Both Associations (SFA & SOA) may need to review their policy on member’s knowingly providing false and misleading information to the governing bodies and causing these bodies to take action

Any other question concerning his certifications and or qualifications as related to his lecturing on Terrorism is out of the jurisdiction of either SFA or SOA.
These issues will be settled in a court of law.

The actions taken by the SFA NBO in giving away SFA membership funds $2000.00 is in my “professional opinion” without any foundation and can be rectified.

Please feel free to list the following along with this letter, as this information is being included in my response packets for the Chapters and individuals.

All of our communications to include your incomplete responses to specific direct questions, and your contradictory statements.

The SOCNET.com distortions and outright lies.

The SOCNETLIES.com analysis

Both  letters supporting Mr. Giduck from the two highly respected military retirees (CSM & LTC) (See above)

All of our communications documenting the actions taken and not taken by the SFA NBO with who ever wants to contact me.

We both know that as of this date neither MSG Clouse, the SOCNET.com nor the SFA NBO produced one repeat one single piece of paper in which Mr. Giduck claimed service in:

Special Forces
Rangers
Law Enforcement Officer (LEO)
or inferred a relationship with the SFA.

Please include all my contact information when attributing communication to me.
 
Charles Berg
SOAKVA@aol.com
707 326 4425 (MST)
 
Remember a breach of fiduciary duties usually only indicates the failure of the individuals/bodies to act primarily for the benefit of another in maters connect with his/their undertaking,
In the majority of cases of failure to exercise reasonable care it is related to the degree of care which under the circumstances would ordinarily or usually be exercised by or might be reasonably expected from an ordinary prudent person.
 
REMEMBER SOMEONE LIED TO THE SFA NBO

****

Further Background

A little history, relative to the above letter. Dr John Giduck has never been a SFA member nor has he ever claimed any relationship with them. He was the guest of SFA at the annual reunion in Fayetteville two years ago. The Archangel Group, Inc., Board of Directors – largely through SF SGM (ret) John “Andy” Anderson and Dr Giduck donated $5,000 donated to SFA in 2008.  Upon learning of that donation MSG Clouse and others began demanding that then SFA president SF Command Sergeant Major (ret.) Ronnie McCan give that money donated to SFA to one Mary Shantag who owns and operated the website pownet.org. It is worth noting that both she and that web site are now under-siege and allegedly under-investigation by federal authorities. 

We have to ask how and why this small rogue group of individuals, who clearly have their own agendas with regards to Dr Giduck and have made no secret of their desire to destroy his personal and professional reputation, think that they had the right to force a non-profit association to simply give up thousands of dollars. And further why they feel they have the right to force them to give a not insignificant amount of money to someone who is now facing her own legal issues for mismanagement of a supposed charitable organization.

In our opinion, rather than pursuing the agenda certain individuals involved in SOCNET.com’s vendetta against Dr John Giduck, his family, friends and associates perhaps this is the question that SFA president Tobin should have asked.

Lawsuit filed against SOCNET.com by Dr. John Giduck

Dr John Giduck (via his lawyer Lawrence G Katz) has filed a civil lawsuit against SOCNET.com and those certain individuals who have been perpetrating the ongoing vendetta against him, his family and business Archangel Group.

The suit was filed in District Court, Park County, Colorado on June 11, 2012.

The defendants listed in the lawsuit include those listed over the past months on this site as well as numerous other perpetrators:

  • SOCNET.com
  • Joe Niblett – aka Rgrjoe175
  • Michael Kirk – aka Kirk an
  • Jay Harrison – aka jdogonroad
  • Jonathan G Clouse – aka Gavin
  • Philip D. Martin – aka Ranger5280
  • Jerrod Barentine – aka DeepC
  • Edward D Clark – aka thefatguy
  • Barry Slant – aka Tooslow
  • Tracy-Paul Warrington – aka Tracy
  • Matthew Longbottom – aka Wandera
  • Laura Stanford – aka Girl with a glock
  • Patrick Mcaleer – aka sniper111
  • DF Behr – aka velociMorte
  • Jason Ole – aka HighSpeedLowDrag
  • Patrick Sloan – aka Hooahmedic
  • Daniel Hammond – aka Papa Smurf
  • Joshua Garmon – aka Charlie Waite
  • Sean Allen Whittenton – aka Steelbreeze
  • and
  • John Does 1–30 – aka: JTK317; RGR Montcalm; Sharc 1; Johan; FMedic; Jimbo; Joe723; Iraqgunz; Silverbullet; KidA; GPC; Magician; Concerned Citizen; Massgrunt; Fubar; Mixed Load; oldcrusty bastard; Chairborne Stranger; Remington Raider; Justaclerk; Rhockibkk; SOTB; Matchanu; MakeZeroSixty; CCo275; Kmonger

The defendants are required to respond within 15 days (35 for those out of state). They will now have to answer for their actions in person, absent their anonymity and alias identities. 

The Following are claims against the defendants as listed in the suit:

  1. Slander per Se
  2. Slander per Qoud
  3. Trespass
  4. Assault
  5. Invasion of Privacy
  6. Intentional Interference with Contract
  7. Tortious Interference with Prospective Business Advantage
  8. Extreme and Outrageous Conduct
  9. Civil Conspiracy
  10. Aiding and Abetting Tortious Conduct
  11. Preliminary and Permanent Injuction
  12. Violation of Colo. Rev. Stat. 18-17-104, Colorado Organized Crime Control Act

A trial by jury has been requested on all issues.

* * *

In our opinion those who have carried out this ongoing vendetta against a good and patriotic man deserve nothing less than to be held to account for their actions under the full weight of the law – and likely that still won’t be sufficient to attone for the injustice they have wrought.

Dr John Giduck has maintained from the beginning that he has nothing to hide and that the misinformation, lies and attacks were being perpetrated with deliberate malice and reckless indifference. His filing of this suit and the accompanying scrutiny that a trial by jury will bring is testament to this.

 

While it will be up to the courts and jury to determine the punishment of those responsible, it is up to all those of us who support Dr John Giduck to continue to step forward and speak up on his behalf.

 

UPDATE SUNDAY JULY 15:

Correction of Information
An error in the initial research into the identity of the person who writes on SOCNET under the alias “Mitchell, Esq.” has been identified. “Mitchell, Esq.” is NOT Robert B Mitchell (his name has been removed from list above and has been removed from the lawsuit that has been filed).

Mitchell is in fact Mitchell Isaac Lake.
 
Mitchell Isaac Lake, was licensed in Connecticut as an attorney in 2006 and practices in Bridgeport, CT.  He seems to spend an quite a bit of time not only writing on SOCNET, but also across numerous other tactical, martial arts and gun ownership and 2nd Amendment sites, where he offers his opinions on the legal and tactical realities of gun ownership and use. 

Of course, what a 30 year old attorney, who is just starting out, who appears to do primarily personal injury cases and who admits to having no tactical experience whatsoever could have to offer is a valid question, particularly given the amount of time he has dedicated to attacking Dr Giduck as opposed to actually practicing law.

 

 

 

SOCNET – What are they trying to cover up this time?

It has been reported to us that posts containing information previously posted on the SOCNET.com site related to Dr John Giduck is being removed from that site.

* * *

The comment to this site alerting us to the removal of posts was made by “Mel” and said the following:

I think it is important to met [sic] everyone know that socnet has once again removed posts that were on the site for days.

Specifically, one of many posts written by the so called attorney, that obviously does not have any clients, Robert B Mitchell intimating that he or someone called the Fontana Police department. Then of course there were other posts that followed about actually contacting the police department, but they had not heard back as of yet. Then there were those stating they would show up.

Why does this concern us?

Last time posts were removed was right before the attack on John Giduck’s property in response to post by DeepC aka Jerrod Barentine to commit felony vandelism in a failed attempt by administrator Silverbullet to cover up the solicitation.

So what are they trying to cover up this time?

Do they have something planned they don’t want to tip people off to? Do they have something planned that if it goes ahead will make them complicit if those posts stay? Are they planning to disrupt an upcoming training or is it something more serious being planned?

Given past actions we believe these are legitimate questions to ask.

Belsan School Siege Photographs ??? Response from Dr John Giduck

FROM THE EDITOR:

The following letter was sent to us by Dr John Giduck with a request that we post it regards an accusation made about photographs used in the book Terror at Beslan. The letter will also be posted on the sites where the original accusations occured.

Background Overview
Photographer Dmitri Belyakov has accused Dr Giduck of unauthorized use of his photos from the Beslan School siege. His accusation was first posted on lawofficer.com and from there was copied and posted to the Russian site reyndar.org

In addition certain members of SOCNET.com picked up the accusation and further spread it across their site as part of their continued attacks on Dr John Giduck. Once again, no one from SOCNET.com tried to contact Dr Giduck to verify the validity of the accusations.

Given we know SOCNET members are also visitors to this site we will be interested to see if Dr Giduck’s response to the accusation is also taken and posted on the site. 

* * *

LETTER TO DMITRI BELYAKOV

This post is being made directly to Dmitri Belyakov.  My name is John Giduck.  As you know, Mr. Belyakov, on 28  April of this year you made a post on this site that accused me of having “stolen” your photographs from the Beslan school siege.  While I believe that you know that what you wrote is absolutely false, I will go to the trouble of educating you and the readers of this site as to the circumstances under which I was given the legal authorization and license to use those photos in my book “Terror at Beslan,” and just who the proper owner of those photos was, or at least who the proper co-extensive owner was.

Upon the tragedy that was Beslan, I and a colleague from our group, Archangel, traveled there.  In addition to doing our field research in Beslan and at the school, we traveled to Moscow where we began a series of interviews of spetsnaz officers who had been there, others who had not been there yet who obtained information on the event, and numerous government officials.  This included Vityaz Col. Sergei I. Liyuk.  As you know, Col. .Lisyuk is a recipient of the Gold Star – Hero of the Russian Federation medal, was the long term commander of the Vityaz spetsnaz group, the head of the “Training Center ‘Vityaz’ ” at the Balashikha base ( http://center-vityaz.com/contacts/.), and the president of the Association of the Brotherhood of the Red Berets, which also published Brateeshka, a magazine dedicated to highlighting the training, operations and men of Russian spetsnaz.  I have known Col. Lisyuk for a number of years, and he has even traveled to the United States to speak at a conference my organization hosted.

I returned to Russia to continue this research in November, and then again in February-March 2005.  At a certain point my board of directors made the decision that the After Action Report (AAR) that I had been preparing on the event should be published as a book in order to see that important information from that event got to certain critical people in our country who otherwise would not have had access to it, including local law enforcement and school officials.  On this last trip to I was accompanied by two colleagues, one a native Russian speaker.  As I had not been at Beslan during the siege and battle (claims I have never made), we were interested in having some photos from the battle and its aftermath included in a photo section.  People from Archangel began to search for appropriate photos, and upon locating ones we were interested in the “owner” of those photos was contacted in every case and appropriate licenses purchased for their use.  You will not in that section of my book, that with regard to all of these photos appropriate attribution is made.  You will also note that the vast majority of the photos in the book were taken by me.

Having seen photos you took from that event published in the news media, I had asked Col. Lisyuk how we could get in touch with you for the same purpose.  He had previously informed us that you had been an employee of the Association and Brateeshka, that you worked for him, and that he was the one who had – as his employee – sent you down to Beslan and arranged for you to be embedded with snipers from the spetsnaz units, specifically Alpha and Rus.  These seem to be facts that you have somehow left out of your attack on me.  Nor have I ever heard you publicly admit this.  We were further informed that having used this situation to your advantage, which resulted in you being situated to take photos that others would have been denied the opportunity of, that you immediately resigned your position with the Association and Brateeshka, and began marketing yourself as an “independent photo journalist”, including doing television interviews and attempting to sell the pictures to major news media outlets.

I must say that when we met with various spetsnaz officers, all of whom seemed to know this story, you were quite unpopular with them.  One officer even went so far as to say that if he ever saw you on the streets of Moscow that he would kill you.  While I took this to be hyperbole, it goes far to demonstrate the degree to which these men felt that your behavior was inappropriate and self-promoting.

Col. Lisyuk informed me that the Association and Brateeshka owned the rights to the photos, as you were in their employ when they were taken, and were acting on the orders of your employer in doing so.  He asked me which photos I was interested in.  I told him, and during my final trip to Russia to finalize our investigation and research I met him at the Association offices in Moscow.  He provided me exactly eleven hard copy color photographs printed on 21 x 29.5 cm paper.  We were not provided any of these electronically.  I have the original photos that he delivered to me.

That the Association and Brateeshka would own the rights to these photos, or at least own co-extensive rights to them, was also consistent with United States law.  When I asked Col. Lisyuk what the cost was to use the photos in the book he said that he would grant us the right to use them solely upon us making a donation to a fund that had been established for the families of those soldiers who had died during the battle.  I provided Col. Lisyuk US$500 for that purpose, whereupon he signed a receipt for the money and a legal document providing us the right to use those photos.  As you also know, of the eleven photographs that you took, each and every one of which I and Archangel have the right use in perpetuity, we selected merely three.  I also asked Col. Lisyuk how he wanted us to “attribute” the photos, that is, whose photos should we indicate they were.  I asked if he wanted us to use your name, state that they were provided by the Association, or Brateeshka.  He said that he did not want us to put any attribution at all and that if anyone ever questioned the source of them that they should get in touch with him.  Therefore, those three photographs that you took as an employee of the Association and Brateeshka have been included in my book since its release in March 2005.  This was all done in the presence of my two colleagues, and several representatives of Vityaz, the Association and Brateeshka, including one fluent English speaker.

I made every attempt to ensure the legal use of those photographs and, as an attorney, I remain certain of my legal rights to have done.  I also believe that you are aware of these facts.  Despite the issues that had arisen between you and your employer, I learned some time later that they had been resolved and that you were back working for the Association and Brateeshka.  As well, and as this website and others even in Russia attest, the existence of this book has been well known, and obviously the existence of those photos in the book equally well known.

Therefore, I must inquire as to exactly who and what has precipitated your tortious (unlawful) libelous attack on me now, seven years after the book’s release?  I believe you are aware that I did not “steal” anything from you, and I believe you know or should have known of the circumstances in which I came to have the rights to use them.  If not, then you failed completely to use reasonable and appropriate steps to investigate this, even with your own employer, before making false and outrageous accusations against me on the global platform of the internet.

You may quibble with some of the facts as I reported them in that book, but the simple truth remains that after three trips to Russia, and having made every attempt to interview as many of the people involved in that operation as possible, that I simply reported those facts as they were presented to me, including by your former employers.  My book was released six months after the event, and the information contained in it is the best information that was available at the time.  Since then, with two major, official commission investigations having been conducted, as well as the trial of Kulayev and other efforts by others to investigate the matter, there has, of course, been more information made available publicly.  My recently released book, “When Terror Returns: The History and Future of Terrorist Mass-Hostage Sieges (www.archangelgroup.org or Amazon.com) attempts to track the evolution of jihadist terrorist tactics in mass-hostage sieges as one form of strategic terror attack methodology.  This includes detailed presentations of all four of Russia’s major attacks.  In an effort to ensure that the information presented is as current and factual as possible, I accessed and analyzed both the North Ossetian Parliamentary and Russian Parliamentary Commissions’ reports, other detailed accounts of these events by spetsnaz operators, reviewed at least one other government report, sent 100 questions to spetsnaz commanders, including Alpha commanders, and received written responses back on all of them, and brought another spetsnaz colonel to the United States, who had led teams at three of the four events. 

In this book, as to every aspect of the attacks that have seen contradicting reports, I present all of the conflicting accounts, the sources of those accounts, attempt to analyze those conflicts and present the actual – or most likely – version.  In this effort, although some like you have attempted to attack my original book, this most recent effort has proven that the vast majority of the information I was given in the six months after the Beslan attack was accurate.  Where some minor facts were incorrect, I openly acknowledge it in the new book, even citing my previous book and where it was in error.

Therefore, if you deny having knowledge of how I came to be granted the license to use these subject photos, I demand that you contact Col. Lisyuk immediately and upon verifying everything I have written, immediately withdraw your post and post a public apology to me.  You should also be aware that we are in the process of determining whether or not to do a second edition of the Beslan book, including a presentation of facts and information that have become known since its original release in 2005.  If you would like to have your photos omitted from that second edition you must contact me immediately and inform me of that, and explain the reasons why.  While I may consider your request, do not lose sight of the fact that I continue to have the right use all eleven of the photos that I was provided.   You may contact me via email at info@archangelgroup.org or by telephone at 1-303-215-0779, all facts I am certain you are aware of. 

These photos have been used in this book for seven years.  In fact Col.  Lisyuk has at least one copy of it, and I know that you are a fluent English speaker.  At no time was I or Archangel ever difficult to find, and a simple internet search would have provided you this contact information.  At any time in the past seven years you could have contacted me to discuss this in an honorable and professional manner.  Instead you chose to wait an extreme period of time and then conduct yourself in the worst manner possible, libeling me on the internet.  If you were so certain of the validity of your claims why would you have not contacted me directly?  I seriously question your motives here, but am giving you an opportunity to correct your malicious actions and discuss this with me.  I will wait to see if I hear from you.

John Giduck, Ph.D.
Attorney-at-law     

 

SOCNET – A New Face at the Liars Picnic

With all the SOCNET.com liars we have unmasked they could have a hell of a picnic. And it appears we’ve got another one to join their ranks.

* * *

But first let’s take a quick walk down memory lane of just a few of the others already unmasked.

Tracy Paul Warrington claims to be a deputy commander of an ultra elite Army special forces counter-terror unit that never existed when he was in the military.  

Laura Stanford lies constantly about her credentials and position within DHS/ICE saying she was a federal agent and a DHS intelligence analyst, yet was never employed by the federal government.. 

Sean Allen Whitenton who is an unemployed, nurse wannabe who posts pictures on facebook of himself smoking pot. 

Matt Longbottom who has also frequently attacked John Giduck’s lack of career military service is nothing more than an ad executive who likes to play war video games. 

Joe NIblett wanted everyone to think he was in the Delta Force but never was. 

And let’s not forget Edward Clark who likes to make calls saying that he’s an investigator for the National Security Agency, and when caught out tried to claim on this site that he was someone else.   
AND NOW…….

Chris Veritan, best known to us as a frequent commenter on this site. He told us that he was using his real name and not a screen alias so it should be easy to check out who he is – so never wanting to disappoint, we did.

Mr Vertian’s LinkedIn page claims he has spent many years working for the US Government that he went to the United States Military Academy at West Point. He now claims to be retired and living in Arlington, Virginia. 

Unfortunately there appear to be more than a few holes in his story.

First, there is no record Chris Veritan in Virginia that we can find. 
There also doesn’t appear to be any record of a Chris Veritan even graduating from West Point. 
Or any records of him being an officer in the US Army.

Now to be fair, we are certainly happy for Mr Vertian to explain these discrepencies. We will even publish any response he makes without the derision and continuing attacks favored by SOCNET when he hands them the responses from this site answering their claims against Dr John Giduck.

* * *

And so we are forced to once again point out the hypocrisy of those who fraudulently inflate their own credentials while engaging the spread of lies and misrepresentations about Dr. John Giduck.

These people who like to hold themselves up as some kind of paragon of truth seem to be the biggest liars of all. As Laura Stanford has written on SOCNET.com, it’s easy to create a fake email.  It seems it’s just as easy to create a fake LinkedIn page.

 

SOCNET – Fake Russian Email and Continuing Attacks

FROM THE EDITOR:

In the past we have been willing to entertain and even respond to certain emails and comments we have received merely to set the record straight in the face of the countless acts of libel, threats, outright lies and even criminal conduct of certain members of SOCNET.com. 

It appears they continue to conduct ever more research and investigation into Dr. John Giduck, his friends, family members and associates who support him, in their ongoing to attempt to discredit and indeed destroy their personal and professional lives – all from behind their aliases and fraudulent names.

* * *

And so here today we are drawing our own line in the sand.

If anyone (whether from SOCNET or not) truly desires to have comments containing a question, an attack, an accusation or what they try to present as new information approved and responded to, it will have to be accompanied by a name and substantiation of the information and/or source (and no we don’t consider SOCNET.com a substantiating source). We will still approve and post regular comments.

Why today?

In comments we received yet another from a “John Williamson” who claims to be former US Army Special Forces, providing a supposed cut and paste from an email from someone in Russia, again challenging Dr. John Giduck’s association with Russian special forces. 

Comment:

Thank you for the e-mail.We have confirmed the information on John Giduck – he has visited us (about 5 years ago)… Since then, we have not been in touch with him. He is not and has never been a member of the Association. Besides, any member of the Association who does not keep in touch with the Association without valid excuse for more than half a year, is automatically excluded. Therefore, he has no right to represent the Association and “Vityaz” in the territory of the U.S.A.

“He is also a member of the Russian Special Forces Brotherhood of the Red Beret Association ” – this phrase is a lie.

Respectfully,BKB

We note the following:

  • No information in the way of a return email address of this Russian person was provided
  • There was no name at the bottom of the email that supposedly came from a Russian official of some kind. 
  • The email section provided is in English with no reference or proof of any original Russian text. 

Only Laura Stanford aka “GirlWithaGlock” has insisted that she had the Russian language skills and expertise to get through the Russian bureaucracy to communicate with someone about Dr. John Giduck. So is this supposed email more of her obsessive handiwork, provided even as she undergoes investigations by DHS for her conduct and her own company. If you have not read about the dangerous and obsessive behaviour of Laura Stanford you can click here.

As has been noted previously on Johngiduck.com, any Russian official would have provided his official email address, name, rank and unit/agency affiliation. If the email is legitimate why was none of this provided?

In our opinion this is clearly nothing more than another weak attempt by those on SOCNET.com to discredit Dr John Giduck and cast doubt on his reputation and credentials.

So, to everyone out there who continues in this ongoing vendetta and conspiracy to – as those on SOCNET.com have stated, “destroy John Giduck and Archangel financially and destroy anyone who supports him.” Before we will consider allowing this site to be used to present your “information” (and we use that term loosely) for response, you will first need to provide your own real name; exactly what your credentials are; and sufficient information for them to be verified.

If you think it’s fair game to do this to others, demonstrate some honor and integrity and put your name to it. 

So why don’t we name ourselves?

Simple – Certain members of SOCNET.com‘s history of attempting to destroy any person who has the temerity to support Dr John Giduck, his family, friends and associates. In fact, we are quite certain that by now they would like our head on a metaphorical platter, and in fact we have received threats via email and in comments, so you can hardly blame us for wanting to maintain a small shield (and despite what others think they know, we are NOT John Giduck).

 

Military Needs More Disruptive Thinkers

One of the attack points of certain members of SOCNET.com, is that because Dr John Giduck as never served behind enemy lines he is unqualified to provide useful analysis and instruction to military and law enfocement.

The impacts and lost opportunity that underlies that outdated view are explored in detail in the following article from Small Wars Journal. 

It should be noted that the author is not in any way related to either this site, or so far as we know, to SOCNET.com. We are presenting the article as a point of interest for our readers only

The article is presented in part with a link to the full article. All copyright of the article remains with the original author and publisher. To view the original article please visit The Small Wars Journal

* * *

The Military Needs More Disruptive Thinkers
by Benjamin Kohlmann

Journal Article | April 5, 2012 – 4:36am

For my generation, there is one profession that captures our imagination more than any other: Entrepreneur. This is especially true of those leaving the military and going to business school. It would seem logical for the military to find ways to blend the best of entrepreneurial and combat cultures in ventures like a joint Harvard Business School/Naval War College degree program. 

Yet, in reality, the very word entrepreneur is met with blank stares by career servicemembers- and in some cases, viewed as an anathema. This is primarily because entrepreneurs see a need and without consulting higher authority, simply go ahead and try to solve it. Their very nature inclines them to disrupt the status quo. And of course, the one thing a vertically integrated organization like the military hates most is change. Or at least, change that wasn’t decreed from on high.

Part of this stems from an antiquated, 1950s career model. A large bureaucracy thrives best when it can promote the average individual in a one-size fits all ascension program. This, however, necessitates sloughing off the highly talented instead of promoting them in accordance with their ability. For example, a younger, Marine reservist friend of mine can be a Vice President of Goldman Sachs, overseeing their Hong Kong branch by the age of 31, but would barely be commanding a Marine rifle company at the same point.

To be frank, and to use the words of Joshua Cooper Ramo, “we’ve left our future largely in the hands of people whose single greatest characteristic is that they are bewildered by the present.” This is mostly because our senior leadership grew up in a time when the internet was still a twinkle in DARPA’s eye. The only flag officer I know of that consistently and effectively uses social media is Admiral James Stavridis. He also created cells of innovation among his subordinates, and implemented their suggestions rather frequently. 

The future lies with those individuals who can see connections across a myriad of professions and intellectual pursuits. To continue reading please click here…

Orson Scott Card noted that “every officer learns how to function within the system that promoted him.” So we get officers who think small, don’t understand the importance of broad understanding, and miss the trends that are shaping our world. 

SOCNET – Marine Lt. Col. Pulled into their Quagmire

In follow up to our post revealing the identity and actions of Laura Stanford as “girlwithaglock” it appears that there is more to this story.

Recap

For those who may not have read the original post, Laura Stanford, posting as “girlwithaglock” has devoted hundreds of hours of what appears to be predominantly work time (work that includes DHS government contracts) in her endeavors to destroy the personal and professional lives of Dr. John Giduck, his family, friends and associates. Her twisted obsession even led her to (by her own admission) contact two different divisions of a foreign government, the Russian Ministry of the Interior (MOI) and the Russian Consulate, most likely under the guise of being a federal agent with DHS. This has been confirmed by sources including Russian spetsnaz. 

* * *

Since our post, Laura Stanford, aka “girlwithaglock” has been noticably absent from her favorite stomping ground of SOCNET. We had to wonder if she had finally run out of lies, misrepresentations and threats to post. However further investigation has revealed that there is perhaps another reason for her silence.

A detective by the name of Ken Jackson with a small town North Carolina police department in Swansboro, N.C. (910-326-5151) has been making calls as part of an investigation that they are (supposedly) doing with regard to allegations made about Laura Stanford.

Now, you might ask just what a small town NC police department is doing getting involved in a matter which has seen cases opened with two offices of the FBI, numerous other police departments, NCIS and the Department of Homeland Security, not to mention the internal security division of Laura Stanford’s own company (HSSI)?  

Well, it appears that despite Laura Stanford living and working in the DC-area of Virginia, that her husband Robert T. Stanford lives in North Carolina. That is, he is Marine Lt. Col. Robert T. Stanford, Provost Marshal of the Marine base at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. 

That makes him the highest ranking law enforcement officer on that base, answering only to the base commanding general. Camp Lejeune is one of the biggest and busiest marine bases in America. (We guess now we know why we were warned not to go after “girlwithaglock” because of who her connections were.)

But here is the twist. It appears that rather than investigating Laura Stanford, Det. Jackson is actually making enquires on behalf of Laura Stanford, but perhaps more accurately, on behalf of her husband Provost Marshal Lt. Col. Robert Stanford. Our information compels us to conclude that Lt. Col. Stanford has asked this local police department to start making some calls to check the seriousness of his wife’s situation under the guise of it conducting its own investigation. 

We believe that these calls are being made for Col. Stanford and Laura Stanford to gather information about what investigations have on Laura Stanford and how good any cases against her might be. An underlying reason for the calls also appears to be to intimidate people (such as Dr. John Giduck, his wife and Commissioner Joe Bail) from going forward with legitimate investigations and litigation.  

Under what authority would Swansboro PD be making these enquiries?

It is our understanding that Laura Stanford lives and works in Virginia. Her posts and calls were made from Virginia. Other acts taken for the purpose of causing harm against John Giduck and others have happened in Colorado and Pennsylvania. So this North Carolina police department has no authority or jurisdiction whatever to be conducting any investigation. Unless, of course some of Laura Stanford’s actions actually did take place in their jurisdiction – in which case they should be investigating her, not others!

Swansboro is only 31 miles from the gates of Camp Lejeune and with all of the marines in the area it is a foregone conclusion that Lt. Col. Stanford and Swansboro PD would have had to work closely together on numerous cases. 

Many of us will have been in situations where a loved one has engaged in something we don’t condone, something we believe is morally wrong. Some of us even when they have done something illegal. We can sympathize that Lt. Col. Stanford may have wanted to do what he could to help his wife out of the situation she has created. As noted above, Laura Stanford is facing a number of investigations into her conduct. 

That said, in our opinion, it appears that at best, Lt. Col. Stanford may have used his high level military law enforcement status to influence others in civilian law enforcement to look into a matter to ascertain exactly how bad things are for his wife. At worst he has done same with intent to pervert the course of those same investigations.

Unfortunately Laura Stanford has now drawn her husband Lt. Col. Stanford into the quagmire of her making. We believe this raises some legitimate questions:

  • Are his actions inappropriate given his rank and influence?
  • What might Laura Stanford’s contacting the Russian government on multiple occasions mean for his career?
  • Did he know she had made those calls?
  • Did he know she was engaged in actions that amount to criminal libel?
  • Has Lt. Col. Stanford alerted his superiors or appropriate authorities of the compromising position he is now in?
  • How would he have handled this situation if one of his subordinates had found himself in the position he now finds himself in?
  • How many times in the past has Laura Stanford abused the position of power her husband holds to avoid accountability for her actions?

Lt. Col. Robert Stanford has had a distinguished military career. In our opinion it is unfortunate that the actions of one woman and her twisted obsession now casts a shadow on it. However good men have fallen for less, and as the saying goes, love is blind.

You can click here if you would like to see a photo of Lt. Col. Stanford and read about some of the good work he has done.

 

SOCNET – Lies and Misrepresentations about Terror at Beslan

Today we want to address the misrepresentations, falsehoods and outright lies about Dr John Giduck’s book Terror at Beslan propogated by certain members of SOCNET.com.

In addition to other lies and threats, the trumped-up claims about Terror at Beslan appear to constitute another major line of attack in their ongoing and unwarranted vendetta. We have to wonder how many of those commenting and questioning the validity of the book have even read it?

So here are the facts about Dr John Giduck’s trip and Terror at Beslan:

Going to Beslan

In his own words, here is a quote given to us by Dr John Giduck about what prompted the trip:

“I woke up at 4:30 am Mountain Time on the morning of Sept 1, 2004.  That made it 2:30 pm in Beslan and the school siege was on the news, having been going on since 9 am in Russia that morning.  Later that afternoon, as evening came to Russia, it was clear that it was not going to resolve quickly.  I talked to Andy (Special Forces Sgt Major John Anderson (ret.) and Archangel Group Chairman) about it and he said that he thought I needed to go, that with our contacts that we could obtain information from the spetsnaz that would be useful to the US government, law enforcement and military that we knew wasn’t coming from the media. Igor Livits (Soviet special operations veteran) had already been in contact with people in Russia we knew (spetsnaz) learning what he could, and it wasn’t jibing with the media reports.

I immediately got a visa application expressed through Fed Ex to the Russian consulate in NY.  I paid the extra money for same day processing and pre-paid Fed Ex for its most expedited delivery, which meant it should have arrived here in the morning of Sept 3.  It did not.  Yuri, as a Ukrainian citizen did not need a visa.  My visa ended up on some guy’s desk in Madison, Wisconsin.  I had Fed Ex people, including a friend’s wife, calling all over trying to find it.  It finally arrived late that day, and Yuri and I flew out immediately.”

For further context regards the trip here are the events as told in the Prologue of Terror at Beslan:

Arriving in Beslan

The following information has been confirmed by Dr John Giduck, Yuri Ferdigalov and John Anderson, Sergeant Major Special Forces (ret.), who was the Archangel board chairman.

At 11:20 pm on Sept 3 the last terrorist was killed in the basement of the Belsan School . At 11:45 pm the spetsnaz declared that the building was under control by government forces; however, the fire engulfing the south wing was not extinguished until 3:10 am on Sept 4. Throughout Sept 4 bodies were removed, the school searched and weapons and IEDs removed. This information is confirmed by spetsnaz intereviews, the Russian Parliamentary Commission Report and the North Ossetian Parliamentary Report.

When John Giduck and Yuri Ferdigalov arrived in Russia late on Sept 4 they were immediately briefed by a couple of ex-spetsnaz people they knew as to what had happened. Vladikavkaz airport had been closed and John Giduck and Yuri Federov were on one of the first flights into the area once the battle was over and the area secured.

John Giduck and Yuri Ferdigalov were in the School at Beslan on Sept 5. 

After gathering all information they could in Belsan. Dr. John Giduck and Yuri Ferdigalov returned to Moscow. From there they began a long series of interviews of spetsnaz, FSB, and other government officials who would meet with them, including negotiators, etc. This included their going to the Vityaz base east of Moscow and SOBR bases inside Moscow.  They would go back twice more to complete interviews by the following March 2005.

SOCNET Attacks Terror at Beslan on Amazon.com 

Not satisfied with posting their lies and misrepresentations on the SOCNET site, certain members also started an organised campaign to “trash” both the book and Dr John Giduck via the review section of the Amazon.com listings for the book.

We have covered those actions separately on this site in the post titled: SOCNET Attacks John Giduck Books on Amazon.com

There have been several other outrageous trumped up charges levelled against both Dr John Giduck and the book Terror at Beslan – and as usual SOCNET has used third party attributions as their “proof”. So to set the record straight.

1. Although Dr John Giduck was in the Beslan school on September 5th as soon as the end of major combat operations allowed for access, he was not the only American in the vicinity given that representatives of every major news organisation were present including reporters and photographers.

2. Dr John Giduck and Yuri Federov’s trip to Beslan was made at personal behest and funded by Archangel Group for their own research purposes.

3. While there are those who may disagree with Dr John Giduck’s findings or analysis of the Beslan School Siege, those counter opinions do not in and of themselves discredit his work. There will always be counter opinions, that is the nature of investigation and analysis. It is worth adding that in the many reviews of Terror at Beslan on amazon.com and other websites in the years since it was published and with only a couple of exceptions, written by what can only be cast as extreme left wing people who abhor Dr. Giduck’s presentation of realities involving terrorists, virtually every single review has been glowing. 

4. Dr John Giduck is not the only author who has written about the Beslan School siege and in fact a quick search of Amazon.com returns 4 books and a number of academic articles on the topic for sale. John Giduck was however the only author of a book on the topic who was on the ground when the siege ended, and who had the personal contacts within the Russian Special Forces to get first-hand accounts of the events.

When John Giduck and Yuri Ferdigalov began interviewing spetsnaz and others they were very clear that they were not supposed to be talking about it. They further stated that they were the only ones they had spoken to or would speak to at that time. (It should be noted that early on some magazine and newspaper articles also quoted people from the Russian military who were at Beslan we can make no comment about those quotes.)

Those interviewed by John Giduck and Yuri Ferdigalov chose to speak to them because they knew the information would be reported accurately and the purpose of using that information to keep something similar from happening in the U.S. and to help our forces be better prepared to respond. As time has passed since the Beslan Siege, including the completion of the trial of the one captured terrorist and two parliamentary commission reports issued, people were able to be much more forthcoming with information.

* * * 

Perhaps what is most galling to those members of SOCNET who have sought to discredit both author and book, is that tens of thousands of copies of Terror at Beslan are already on bookshelves and in libraries being referenced every day and that many law enforcement, government and even military people have referred to it as a Bible for terror prevention and response. 

To quote Lt Col. Dave Grossman from the foreword he provided for the book:

“Every day, millions of parents hug millions of kids, their most precious possessions, the most precious things on the face of the Earth, and they send those kids to school, trusting US to keep them alive. This is the most important thing any society can do: to protect our young. So don’t just read this book, study it. Study it and apply it. Be like the firefighter: put the risk in perspective, pray that it will never happen, know that it could happen, and work with all your heart and soul to prevent it from happening. It could be YOUR child’s life that you save.”

We have to wonder why SOCNET would seek to discredit something with such an important message. What possible motivation or purpose could it serve? In our opinion Terror at Beslan will continue to provide valuable insight and analysis that will help keep America safe and secure.

Don’t merely take our word for it.

We encourage you to read Terror at Beslan and decide for yourself if you find the information and analysis useful. Dr. John Giduck’s new book also contains a lengthy section about the School Siege. Six years after the Beslan siege took place, Dr. Giduck was still in touch with Russia’s elite spetsnaz commanders developing ever more information. In late 2011 his follow-on book, When Terror Returns: The History and Future of Terrorist Mass-Hostage Sieges, was released. 

This book is a complete analysis of the actual attacks and development of terrorist tactics and targeting throughout the entire Modern Era of Terrorism, and includes a great deal of new information on the Beslan attack as well as Russia’s three other strategic level hostage sieges with much of this new information coming directly from the spetsnaz commanders, including Russia’s Alpha Counter Terror Group, that fought out the battles.

If you would like to purchase a copy of either book you can do so here