William Charles Foreman; another phony special operator

The folks at Military Phonies sent us their work on this “Chuck” Foremen fellow who is the founder of Center for Search & Investigations. He claims to be a “highly decorated combat-wounded Special Operations veteran;

Well, the only thing true about that is that he is a veteran. He served in Desert Storm, but there is no “highly decorated” or “combat wounded” about him;

He was a 31C radio operator and maintainer. It looks like he did a stint with the Joint Communications Support Element at MacDill AFB and he filled an airborne slot, but I don’t see any jump school or parachutist wings in his records. He probably could get away with the “special operations” label, but not the way the most people would understand it, and he went too far with the “combat wounded” thing.

If you can stand to listen to 19 minutes of his bullshit here;

 

 

TSO Adds:

Unsurprisingly, Mr. Foreman now claims to be suing us.  A word of advice to those arguing whether you should be on the list 1) don’t be a dick, and 2) don’t immediately throw out the lawyer card.  Because then Jonn won’t talk to you, I have to do it.  And even though I am easier to you, I don’t make the determination.  It’s his blog, he wrote it.

Nonetheless, Mr Foreman takes issue with three statements he believes are defamatory.

1) That he is a “phony operator.” Well, he did operate a radio, but that’s not what the common use of “operator” is when referring to Special Operations. To the other 99.9 percent of us, an operator is the 18 series guy who is beating down doors and killing bad guys. Not the guy with the phone, not the S4 issuing sleeping bags, and not the S1 making sure you get paid. If you have the Special Forces Tab, and you’re in an Special Forces Team, you are an operator. Everyone else, you are assigned.  (Especially you Civil Affairs Guys, if you claim to be special ops, I will kick you in the nuts.  And yes, I know you are assigned to them, but come on.)

2) Highly Decorated. This one clearly isn’t defamatory, because “highly decorated” is not something which is susceptible to the facts. Especially given that his sole actual award was a Joint Forces Commendation Medal. Certainly no one in my world thinks a Good Conduct Medal ushers you into the upper echelons of Badassdom. He’s free to say he’s highly decorated, and we are free to say “no sir, try again.” That’s how opinions work.

3) Combat wounded. This contention is even more insane. According to him he was wounded in combat, and subsequently had to leave service and was deemed 100 percent disabled. Good for him. Whatever his personal ailments are, he earned his disability presumably. But “combat wounded” means something quite specific. And since he served in the navy about 10 years after this egregious injury, whatever it was, and since he has no purple heart, I’m hard pressed to see how that is a “combat wound.” I have pretty bad insomnia. It started in Afghanistan. If I ever claim I have a combat wound of insomnia, someone should beat me with a brick.  Likewise my back.  Yes, I was in a combat zone, no it was not a combat injury.

Had Mr. Foreman not started immediately with the lawyer card, he might have had better luck. Or, you know, providing some documentation that he’s a special operator with combat wounds and medals that don’t appear on his FOIA.  Either way, this appears to be the Gidduck case all over again:

The statements by Defendant Warrington that Plaintiff Giduck was a liar, fraud, scammer and imposter because he misrepresented his credentials are not actionable. Opining that someone is a liar, a fraud or was untruthful about his or her background, is, perhaps unfortunately, a common implement in American discourse. Such epithets are obviously statements of opinion and are protected under the rules enunciated in Milkovich and Burns….

Defendant Niblett’s statement that Plaintiff Giduck is a “piece of shit” or, a “fool,” a “fraud,” a “poser civilian,” and a “clown” are patently Niblett’s opinion and are not actionable. If every statement along these lines formed the basis for a libel or slander case, the courts of this country would be entirely devoted to the litigation of defamation claims. These are statements of opinion and are protected under the rules enunciated in Milkovich and Burns…

The statements attributed to these Defendants regarding Giduck were blunt, uncomplimentary, and probably “rhetorical hyperbole.” But they were also privileged statements of opinion protected by the First Amendment as applied in a litany of Supreme Court and Colorado appellate cases.

Category: Phony soldiers