The Hack returns
You may remember David Hack, the guy who accidentally fell into a uniform and couldn’t get out of it before someone took a picture of him and he’s been victimized by the valor vultures ever since. Well, his lawyer, and I use that term in it’s loosest sense, sent a threatening letter to Mary who refuses to remove her profile of Hack;
I’ll address his three points;
1) Although he never claimed to have graduated from Ranger School, he was wearing a Ranger tab – the symbol of graduating from Ranger School.
2) He wasn’t a “Ranger trainer” – he drove a landing craft. Although it’s possible, I very much doubt Ranger School support wienies wore Black Berets in those days.
3) Hack had a figurine made with the uniform in the picture for public display. He might not have said the words that it was his uniform, but making a figurine in that uniform is kind of like saying it.
And the whole thing about borrowing a uniform from someone because he doesn’t have one is ridiculous. He sells uniforms and accoutrements for a living and he didn’t have one laying around the warehouse? For Pete’s sake.
I’m a little upset that the lawyers haven’t threatened me with their empty threats. TSO is just chomping at the bit for one of these slam dunks.
Category: Phony soldiers
What, no “Esquire”?
What self-respecting ambulance chaser would send that kind of letter without an official looking letterhead?
In the lawyers defense, I also abhor “Esq” but no letterhead is just dumb looking.
I read in the article I found at POWNET that he had filed a lawsuit against a TV station and 25 “John Does” last year.
Please add me as a “Doe” Mr Hack, Ohio isn’t that far, and I would love to be there at y’alls expense once the frivolous nature of this lawsuit is exposed.
I’m curious what else was attached to this letter… From what I see, I am fairly confident that the writer either does not practice this area of the law or is simply not an attorney. First, I see no letterhead. Second, this is a ridiculously crafted demand letter that misses many of the legal wickets generally required. I have a good amount of experience in this field and in my previous life would have been fired for churning out a demand letter of this sad quality. Third, I don’t see anything that identifies the writer as an attorney. I looked up the lawyers name on Martindale, and only one pops up, and that guy doesn’t seem to be the type to handle something of this low caliber. Maybe I’m just missing more of the attachment. For example, usually a demand letter identifies how the letter was delivered (certified is proper, email is usually a secondary means to go along with the certified mail).
If the good folks at TAH or POW Network want any additional free thoughts from the legal peanut gallery, etc on this or any future shenanigans, please let me know and I’ll send you an email with my documented details and experience. It’s the least I can do for all the good work you guys do.
Seems like I remember reading that _threatening_ to file a lawsuit as a form of intimidation is actually “Felony Assault” in some jurisdictions…
I take it back… I think the lawyer I thought was legit is of counsel of a small probate and estate planning firm in Hack’s neighborhood. Bean is of counsel, meaning he likely does not really do much for this small practice, hence no letterhead with the firm. But bottom line is he does not know this area of the law.
There is a letterhead on the first page, I was just too lazy to post the first page. So…now I’ll post the first page since I’ve rested up from posting the second page.
JAGC- I would like your email if you wouldn’t mind, so on some of my posts dealing with legal issues I can bounce them off someone with actual experience, as opposed to my law school education which prepares you about as well for the practice of law as watching Hoosiers does at preparing you to play in the Indiana State Championship.
TSO… I’ve seen plenty of lawyers who practice law based on their knowledge of Law & Order and A Few Good Men.
Email is incoming.
Yes, but can they handle the truth?
You better watch out, he may run you down while he drives the Hack Mobile.
Between his explanation that his records were burned in the 1973 St Louis fire, borrowed a friend’s uniform, and the ‘shopped pic, this adds to the doubt of his credibility….. His forum on SOCNET is interesting to say the least. He says in his book he’s a Ranger, described his Vietnam and life experiences, and then turns around and sues everyone who debates him with the truth. I also like how he’s “trained Rangers.” Support staff is not the same as training Rangers. His bio book is free for anyone to read on the US Wings website – I find FakeWarriors.org to be more truthful.
He probably did have a black beret. I’ve seen a bunch of old photos from 6th and everyone was wearing a black beret. They even had a female S1 wearing it, but those were fairly recent photos. I think the old Morgan’s platoon from 4th had black berets and they weren’t tabbed either. But that just proves that he had to deliberately remove his RTB flash to put on the 75th flash as opposed to just ‘borrowing’ someone elses. I wonder what he was saying to himself as he took off the flash of a unit he could honestly be proud of to replace it with a fraudulent one so he could…sell more air force jackets? I just dont get it…
If she gets sued let us know so that those who want can contribute to a defense fund. Thanks.
Well, well, well. This is at least a slight improvement on the standard lible/slander lawer thing. Not exactly lible/slander lawer on steroids, but maybe about a half rung above?
I thought operators from Alpha co., 1st Bn., 91st Special Space Shuttle Regiment wore mauve berets!? He’s closing in on dullA$$!!! (Sorry guys, I’m always gonna a soft spot for that lying coward.)
Dear Mister Lawyerman;
Be advised that I represent the English language.
In your recent letter you used the words “in tact” when your apparent meaning was “intact.” Additionally, your phrase “photo snapped photograph” is confusing; perhaps you intended to say “Photoshopped photograph.” a perfectly understandable, although amateurish error.
Kindly retract your letter post-haste and resubmit when you have developed at least rudimentary proof-reading skills.
Regards,
Merriam-Webster, esq.
I’m a lawyer and I don’t use Esq. (because, seriously why make attorneys more douche-tastic)or any sort of official letterhead. Just because a letter looks like crap doesn’t mean the author isn’t an attorney. Not all of us work for firms with resources, or in this guy’s case, resources and basic standards.
Just finished reading Hack’s letter of why he was wearing the uniform with all of the neat stuff. I would attach that letter in my response to the lawyer and I would respond “Really?”. The letter has every excuse except “the sun was in my eyes” and “the dog ate my homework”. What a moron.
I’m just a “dumb” grunt, but I think that even I could have drafted a better letter than this “lawyer”.
Sorry Ben, but if your gonna act in the role you need to dress the part, which includes using letterhead. Even if your letterhead is simply your name with ‘Attorney at Law’ bellow it it should be there on official or professional correspondence. Also your cost argument doesn’t hold water as if your using any sort of modern word processing software, you can add it into a document template for, wait for it.. FREE. Nothing says you must have gold inlay on fancy specialized paper, just as long as the product you are producing looks professional in the and consistent with accepted practices for your chosen field, in this case the law.
-Ish
Isnala –
That I use. I just don’t think of my Word template as “letterhead.” To me, letterhead is pre-printed paper already loaded into a printer tray, generally with content printed into the margins and such.
Ben, if you use any of the software like Elite ELBS or Elite Whitehill for your client charges, it can be set up to print your letterhead with both your letters and your invoices.
Just ask me how I know. SWAK.:)