Speaker 1: I'm Brandon Webb, former Navy seal and founder of Craig Club,
Speaker 1: the number one tactical and survival gear subscription box in America.
Speaker 1: Being prepared matters, So choose military grade handpick gear by
Speaker 1: special ops professionals. Gift create club today at craig club
Speaker 1: dot com. If it doesn't work, you're just not using enough.
Speaker 1: You're listening to soft web radio special operations military news.
Speaker 1: I'm straight talk with the guys and the community. Yeah.
Speaker 1: We are joined by Fred Galvin, a retired brin radar
Speaker 1: officer of Marsock Fox Company, Fame Philip Stackhouse, the attorney
Speaker 1: of Ghanny Drager and bull Garfine, CEO of United American
Speaker 1: PLATINUS and Legal Defense Fund for Military personnel accuse of
Speaker 1: war crimes. Good affinion, gentlemen, Fred, let's speaking with you.
Speaker 1: Can you please tell us about your experience with Fox
Speaker 1: Company and the military legal system. Probably very brief situation
Speaker 1: came where we were the first Marine Special Operations Task Force.
Speaker 1: We were deployed to Afghanistan. Case happened in March of
Speaker 1: two thousand and seven and we were on a patrol
Speaker 1: in a border village right near the Afghanistan Pakistan border
Speaker 1: and thirty of our marine raiders were attacked with a
Speaker 1: vehicle explosive device, a van that detonated and impacted against
Speaker 1: the front of our patrol. Then, uh we had Jihadis
Speaker 1: attack us from both sides of the road in this
Speaker 1: small village which is a known Taliban stronghold. We were
Speaker 1: going in there that morning to do a key leader engagement.
Speaker 1: All of a sudden we had ended up in a
Speaker 1: complex coordinated ambush with multiple elements of Jihadis firing fully
Speaker 1: automatic weapons. Another position that was elevated sniper position from
Speaker 1: high ground, and they dragged a vehicle across the road
Speaker 1: and had mobs were trying to capture us in the
Speaker 1: kill zone. Our marines did exactly what we were trained
Speaker 1: to do, which reminds me of this situation here. Although
Speaker 1: I didn't involve a firefight in our case this ambush
Speaker 1: against us, we we killed the enemy that morning. There
Speaker 1: was nothing but military age men in the town at
Speaker 1: that time. We killed the ones that were advancing towards
Speaker 1: us with weapons. Particularly one there was driving a vehicle
Speaker 1: sports utility vehicle which he had us hanging out the
Speaker 1: side of it shooting at us, and it was coming
Speaker 1: down an unapproved trail with nothing behind it too. You know,
Speaker 1: some people think that we were, you know, alleged firing wildly.
Speaker 1: There is reports from the locals that we were drunk
Speaker 1: and that we dismounted, we went door to door, and
Speaker 1: as crazy as that sound, stop ros. That's what the
Speaker 1: military leadership believed. When my commanding officer first met us
Speaker 1: after we were expelled out of Afghanistan, he asked us,
Speaker 1: is it true? Is it true that we're drunk? So
Speaker 1: those reports from the Afghan locals, senior military leadership wanted
Speaker 1: to believe those And you know, as far as Marines, sailors, airmen,
Speaker 1: soldiers wanting to fight, when your leadership doesn't have your
Speaker 1: back at all, that's it's a bad place to be in,
Speaker 1: especially if you're in this type of position where these
Speaker 1: frontline foot soldiers are going back to one combat deployment
Speaker 1: after the next, and you don't have it in your
Speaker 1: brain that if something happens in this gray area that
Speaker 1: is going to be questioned. And sooner or later, enough
Speaker 1: of these deployments and all these missions on the deployments,
Speaker 1: some things are going to arise in generally they do
Speaker 1: with the enemy because we're dealing with terrorism, and they
Speaker 1: like to operate in that gray area. So it is
Speaker 1: very important for our leadership two be able to walk
Speaker 1: a mile in our shoes and understand what it's like
Speaker 1: at that front line foot soldier level. And in my case,
Speaker 1: there were numerous officers. And I'm not talking about I'm
Speaker 1: not condemning the military at large at all. I love
Speaker 1: the military, served twenty seven years, is a great organization,
Speaker 1: especially in the United States Marine Corps. I'm talking about
Speaker 1: it is certain individuals, and these individuals in this case,
Speaker 1: with these three Marsak personnel, some of the same, very
Speaker 1: same personalities we're talking about here. I'm gonna get into
Speaker 1: depth with that. But these people wouldn't give us the
Speaker 1: benefit of the doubt. So the American Constitution, which everything
Speaker 1: that we learned in America about having the presumption of innocence,
Speaker 1: and just like it says under the apex of the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court, equal justice under law, that's our society is
Speaker 1: based on the laws, These go out the window. And
Speaker 1: why the military is so dangerous and so different than
Speaker 1: a civilian court system in the United States is that
Speaker 1: the jury these people are picked and they in most cases,
Speaker 1: in my case, it was these people report, they make
Speaker 1: the final report to the convening authority, which as a
Speaker 1: senior Marine officer, and in the Marine Corps it's a
Speaker 1: it's a closed loop system. So if you want to
Speaker 1: get promoted, if you want to get assigned, you know
Speaker 1: you're you're gonna give your boss. Marine Corps taught instant
Speaker 1: obedience to orders. That's the that's the definition we call
Speaker 1: in the Marine Corps discipline. So there's this ideology to
Speaker 1: please your commanding officer, you're commanding general, who the convening
Speaker 1: authority is. That's totally different than in a civilian court
Speaker 1: system where the jurors they don't they don't have any
Speaker 1: influence from the convening authority, the one that's gonna make
Speaker 1: the final decision, they don't have any influence by him
Speaker 1: at all. So this is a really gotten toxic over
Speaker 1: the years. And how I first met Phil Stackhouse is
Speaker 1: he defended a marine when he was an active duty
Speaker 1: Marine lawyer. It was one of the very very first cases,
Speaker 1: a law of war case that arose in Iraq. And
Speaker 1: in that situation, you know, a young Marine second lieutenant
Speaker 1: who is you know, they're on the battlefield and in
Speaker 1: Fallujah had to Iraqi terrorists that turned and charged towards
Speaker 1: him and he shot them. And this got referred very
Speaker 1: swiftly up to you know, military trial at the article
Speaker 1: thirty two hearing that Phil was the defenders, which was
Speaker 1: then Second Lieutenant Laio Pantano, and that's uh, when our
Speaker 1: case happened three years later, Lario Pantano had heard and uh,
Speaker 1: you know connected us and Phil Stackhouse did defend one
Speaker 1: of our marines. And I can't tell you enough good
Speaker 1: things about Phil bees he did all pro bonently said
Speaker 1: he's not gonna even take any any fees, which is
Speaker 1: extraordinary in these cases. Our cases lasted, the investigation last
Speaker 1: almost a year, and the three and a half week trial.
Speaker 1: I means this is something extraordinary. And thank god that
Speaker 1: you have people who empathize and want to help and
Speaker 1: support and they don't really count the cost financially. And
Speaker 1: that's a long time to represent somebody and a lot
Speaker 1: of manners when there's literally twenty pages of evidence to
Speaker 1: review and understand. So but what we have is a
Speaker 1: situation right now where the same leadership. So when during
Speaker 1: my investigation, you know, they put me in the penalty box,
Speaker 1: they pulled me from my task force, they will leave
Speaker 1: me a command and they sent me to work at
Speaker 1: the Marine Corps Special Operations Command headquarters in the Operations Section,
Speaker 1: and I were reported directly to a gentleman at that
Speaker 1: time was the Assistant Chief of Staffer Operations from Marstock
Speaker 1: named then at that time was Colonel Dan You now
Speaker 1: he's actually the commanding General of Marsock. He's the convenient
Speaker 1: authority in these men's case. Several things that happened during
Speaker 1: that time and experience while the investigation was going on,
Speaker 1: where the entire G three section, every officer had complained
Speaker 1: to the Inspector General at Marstok and they launched an
Speaker 1: official investigation for Command Climate. I as well as every
Speaker 1: single officer was brought in rooms in groups. And I've
Speaker 1: never in my seven years military history heard people event
Speaker 1: and give examples of how he just went off on them,
Speaker 1: diminished their character just outright, you know, created this toxic
Speaker 1: environment where I've never seen that type of thing. But
Speaker 1: I have seen a lot of situations that have gone
Speaker 1: to Command Climate investigations over something very minor small and
Speaker 1: then it usually leads to the relief of you know,
Speaker 1: that commanding officer. So this time it was surprising. He
Speaker 1: didn't got to pass, he didn't get relieved, was quickly
Speaker 1: shuffled out of the command, but then ends up getting
Speaker 1: command of the fourth Marine Regiment over in Okinawa. And
Speaker 1: after I left, Marstak went to Okanawa myself and he
Speaker 1: told the commanding officer over there at the time, he's like,
Speaker 1: do not and this is effort star Wars. This is
Speaker 1: after I was cleared in court in a in a
Speaker 1: military trial, the longest trial Marine Corps history. He said,
Speaker 1: here you had my old boss telling commanding officer of
Speaker 1: Marine Reconnaissance betime, don't have anything to do. What he
Speaker 1: did was a disgrace to the Marine Corps. Him and
Speaker 1: his guys got away with murder. They killed all these
Speaker 1: women and civilians. And so after, I mean, this trial
Speaker 1: went on while he was my direct boss. For him
Speaker 1: to not know the facts of the case, that's you know,
Speaker 1: that's illogical. He did know everything about this, but here
Speaker 1: he is character assassinating me. And And why this is
Speaker 1: important is this guy right now is the convening authority.
Speaker 1: This guy when he was a young captain in his
Speaker 1: formative careers, he got a d U I when he
Speaker 1: was a young captain going through school and he got
Speaker 1: a second chance. And that's what we're really asking is
Speaker 1: how about these young enlisted Marines and listen Corman, they
Speaker 1: were involved in this case. I mean, it's Phil will
Speaker 1: talk about this specific details of this case because he's
Speaker 1: defending one of these marine writers. This isn't something that
Speaker 1: people are just deciding on this one through an investigation
Speaker 1: went in an article fifteen Dash six preliminary investigation, went
Speaker 1: to a article two trial, and you thought that people
Speaker 1: would make sense of this because this is this a
Speaker 1: guy defending himself, and then it went straight. Now it's
Speaker 1: going to a court martial for these three men with
Speaker 1: charges of manslaughter. So this isn't something that's kind of
Speaker 1: going away or losing steam. These charges lead to people
Speaker 1: serving the potential to people serving in the Leavenworth Discipline
Speaker 1: Mary Barracks for the rest of their lives. I personally
Speaker 1: know from the men of my task force that were
Speaker 1: false accused. I can tell you about Navy seals, all
Speaker 1: these different people who over the years I've met, Even
Speaker 1: if they get off and you know they're proven innocent,
Speaker 1: the destruction that happens to their health, their core rears,
Speaker 1: their finances. It is the worst thing that can happen
Speaker 1: to you in while you're serving your country. Not just
Speaker 1: that you've been betrayed, but I've seen people get health
Speaker 1: their cancer, diabetes, ruin their finances, their divorce, people get severe,
Speaker 1: severe forms of cancer, and it happens more often than not.
Speaker 1: And that's what's going on right now, and that's why
Speaker 1: we're asking the listeners to get involved in this case.
Speaker 1: Get online www dot Congress dot dov backslash directory, contact
Speaker 1: your congressman after you listen to this full podcast and
Speaker 1: let them know the facts of this case and that hey,
Speaker 1: why in the hell is this going to a court
Speaker 1: martial for these guys who defended themselves against some guy
Speaker 1: who was attacking them. I don't want to get into
Speaker 1: the facts of phils want him to explain the specific
Speaker 1: details of what happened. But here's a guy who over
Speaker 1: the years had all these backs, and I'll let him
Speaker 1: describe some of his cases and how this has evolved
Speaker 1: where it's it's the vogue trend for commanders too, you know,
Speaker 1: throw their guys under the bus, not given the benefit
Speaker 1: of doubt, for the benefit of their career. I've never
Speaker 1: seen after some of these cases, like the Pat Tilman case,
Speaker 1: where it was friendly fire and people they wanted investigations.
Speaker 1: Now it's senior commanders. It's investigations gone wild. They will
Speaker 1: always you can't hurt to investigate, So take the responsibility
Speaker 1: off me. I will launch an investigation, and I'll be disciplined.
Speaker 1: I'll be hard, that's the mindset. But I'll have fill
Speaker 1: from the legal perspective, talk about the case and in
Speaker 1: this trends, this evolution of the law of war cases.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Fred, and you listen how if anyone is
Speaker 1: wondering how can how he can help in this case?
Speaker 1: You heard them. Man, Phil, Can you please tell us
Speaker 1: what happened on your New Year's Day that doesn't mainteen?
Speaker 1: I will and and thanks for having us on your show,
Speaker 1: and I will tell you as the you know, the
Speaker 1: talk goes on here. As you described the introduction, I
Speaker 1: represent gunn Resurgeant Danny Dreyer. I don't represent you're going
Speaker 1: to Resurgeant Negron. I don't represent Chief Filmett. I only
Speaker 1: represent gun Resurgeant drey So I just want to make
Speaker 1: sure that that's you know, put put out there for
Speaker 1: folks that are listening, So I think what's important is
Speaker 1: to to let the listeners hear a little bit about
Speaker 1: what was presented at the article thirty two hearing for
Speaker 1: these three. And you know, I'm going to speak to
Speaker 1: as objectively as I can about what was presented during
Speaker 1: that hearing because I think I think it's really important
Speaker 1: for everybody to know. For those who don't know, can
Speaker 1: you please explain what's an article Yeah? Yeah, So it's
Speaker 1: it's loosely the equivalent of the military version of a
Speaker 1: grand jury investigation. Before a case is allowed to go
Speaker 1: to a general court martial, which is again loosely the
Speaker 1: equivalent of a civilian felony court, you have to go
Speaker 1: through what's called an Article thirty two investigation. It's a
Speaker 1: little bit different than a grand jury, and that the
Speaker 1: accused gets to be present, we get to present some
Speaker 1: evidence in the case, We get to cross examine witnesses
Speaker 1: that are called to provide evidence in the case. So
Speaker 1: it does, in fact look like a mini trial. And
Speaker 1: that's what happened just a couple of months ago at
Speaker 1: Campbell June, North Carolina, and they did they did a
Speaker 1: joint hearing, so all three of the co accused were
Speaker 1: present and all of their counsel were present as well.
Speaker 1: And during that hearing, what it showed was that the
Speaker 1: three Raiders were allowed to go out on liberty while
Speaker 1: they were stationed in for deal iraq Uh. They were
Speaker 1: allowed to go out and have dinner and socialize with
Speaker 1: the folks and for beal. Most of the folks that
Speaker 1: they would socialize with were fellow service members from the
Speaker 1: base they were signed to, or they were contractors that
Speaker 1: were assigned to the base. And that's what happened over
Speaker 1: New Year's Eve. New Year's Eve, the three Raiders went
Speaker 1: out to have dinner and after they finished dinner, right
Speaker 1: after the New Year's they went to a restaurant called
Speaker 1: the T Bar like the letter T dash b a
Speaker 1: R in our bill. And once they got there, they
Speaker 1: saw a bunch of folks from the base. And not
Speaker 1: long after they arrived this Mr Rodriguez approached Chief gil
Speaker 1: Met And there's video of this that was shown at
Speaker 1: the article thirty two hearing. And you can tell the
Speaker 1: establishments kind of loud because they're kind of uh, you know,
Speaker 1: leaning over and talking into each other's ear. Uh. There's
Speaker 1: a handshake, there's some pats on the shoulder, they speak
Speaker 1: for a few minutes. After they After they talked for
Speaker 1: a few minutes, they part ways and it was later
Speaker 1: communicated to the other two from Chief gil Met that Mr.
Speaker 1: Rodriguez had approached him and is questioning him about why
Speaker 1: he doesn't respect him and why he doesn't come talk
Speaker 1: to him about medical issues on on the base. And
Speaker 1: if we didn't say it early on, Chief fiel Mets
Speaker 1: an independent duty corman, so he's a very highly trained,
Speaker 1: very skilled corman in the Navy, assigned to the Marine
Speaker 1: Raider Unit. The video shows sometime after that, maybe an
Speaker 1: hour or so after that, that Mr Rodriguez approaches gil
Speaker 1: Matt again and is in an extremely agitated state. And
Speaker 1: you can see clearly in the video that Chief Gilmet
Speaker 1: is trying to deescalate whatever is causing the agitation with
Speaker 1: Mr Rodriguez, but Mr Rodriguez is very animated. Chief Gilmet
Speaker 1: is very calm, but but Mr Rodriguez is animated so
Speaker 1: much so that the security at the t bar kind
Speaker 1: of come in between him and asked Mr Rodriguez to leave.
Speaker 1: You can you can tell why they you know, there's
Speaker 1: no sound on it, but you can just tell by
Speaker 1: his motorisms that he's he's upset that he's being asked
Speaker 1: to leave, and about half of the folks that he
Speaker 1: showed up with leave with him, and they kind of
Speaker 1: stand around outside the bar for a little bit at
Speaker 1: T Bar. Well, one of his colleagues goes back in
Speaker 1: and gets the rest of the people that came with him.
Speaker 1: There was probably between seven and nine folks that were
Speaker 1: with his party that all showed up, and after they
Speaker 1: left the restaurant, they kind of stood around outside and
Speaker 1: the way that it was described from the security folks
Speaker 1: there at the restaurant was like they were waiting for
Speaker 1: Danny and his colleagues to come out to sort of
Speaker 1: confront them or fight with them. And the way it
Speaker 1: was described it was kind of like somebody waiting for
Speaker 1: somebody outside of high school to fight him after class
Speaker 1: or something. And it was, you know, it was time
Speaker 1: for the evening to end for the Raiders, and they
Speaker 1: started to the part the T bar, and the security
Speaker 1: guys held him up so that there wasn't gonna be
Speaker 1: any any confrontation out in front of the bar until
Speaker 1: Mr Rodriguez and his colleagues, you know, took off down
Speaker 1: the street, and they did so probably five or six
Speaker 1: minutes after that, Gunny Dreyre and and Chief Gilmet and
Speaker 1: Gunny Negron departed the t bar and headed towards their truck.
Speaker 1: And this is where it really becomes important. And gun
Speaker 1: Resurgeant Dreyer Dany Dreyer Uh spoke about this, made a
Speaker 1: statement about this during the Article thirty two hearings. After
Speaker 1: they left the t bar and had walked down the
Speaker 1: street a little bit, he saw Mr Rodriguez and the
Speaker 1: the six or eight people that he was with, because
Speaker 1: again there was seventy nine of them all together, and
Speaker 1: they're stationed on a very small base and and Gunny
Speaker 1: Dreyer has some leadership responsibilities on that base, and so
Speaker 1: he thought he would go over and kind of, you know,
Speaker 1: quashed the situation, whatever the agitation was that Mr. Rodriguez
Speaker 1: had with Chief Gilmett and kind of get things back
Speaker 1: on track. And so as he described, he approached Mr
Speaker 1: Rodriguez and just six or eight people that he was with.
Speaker 1: And this is all on video as well, or security
Speaker 1: video that that shows all of this, and we go
Speaker 1: through it frame by frame and the Article thirty two
Speaker 1: hearing and we've won through a frame by frame and
Speaker 1: in great detail that Gunnery Sergeant drey Or approaches Mr
Speaker 1: Rodriguez and the sixth or eight people that he's with,
Speaker 1: and Chief Gilmet's a little ways behind him, and Gunning
Speaker 1: Negrons a little ways behind that. And as he's approaching him,
Speaker 1: his hands are down by his side, his palms are out,
Speaker 1: and Mr Rodriguez says words to the effect of going
Speaker 1: to dre hey, you coming to finish what was started inside,
Speaker 1: so which Gunnery Sergeant Dreyer responded, why does it have
Speaker 1: to be like that? Again, his hands are now by
Speaker 1: his side, his arms are open. Mr Rodriguez approached him
Speaker 1: in a you know, an agitated state, and you can
Speaker 1: tell on the video that he's, uh, he's yelling at him.
Speaker 1: And he takes his left hand and lifts it up
Speaker 1: and and pokes Mr Cooke's Gunn Resurgeant Dreyer in the
Speaker 1: in the chest, in the right hand side of his chest,
Speaker 1: and again you can you can tell that he's, you know,
Speaker 1: speaking in a very animated manner to Gunn Resurgeant Dreyer.
Speaker 1: Gunny Dreyer's hands never come above his waist, his hands
Speaker 1: down by his side, probably four or five seconds after that,
Speaker 1: Mr Rodriguez kind of comes to Gunny Dreyer again with
Speaker 1: his head, looks like he's gonna head butt him or
Speaker 1: he's getting ready to hit him, and Gunner Resurgeant Dreyer
Speaker 1: pushes him back with both hands, you know, again not
Speaker 1: a punch in any way, just both open hands against
Speaker 1: Mr rodriguez chest and pushes him back about two steps
Speaker 1: or three steps, and his hands come straight back down
Speaker 1: to his side. And as he told the hearing officer,
Speaker 1: he was trying to get some space between him and
Speaker 1: Mr Rodriguez because he thought Mr Rodriguez was going to
Speaker 1: hit him. Mr Rodriguez immediately closes that distant distance back
Speaker 1: to Gunny Dreyer and with his right hand, and I
Speaker 1: mean from way back with his right hand, takes a
Speaker 1: wild swing at Gunny Dreyer. And Gunny Dreyer's hands are
Speaker 1: still down by his side when he gets hit, but he,
Speaker 1: you know, he hits Gunny Dreyer and the left hand
Speaker 1: side of his face with his right hand, and that
Speaker 1: pushes Gunny Dreyer back about three steps. And Mr Rodriguez
Speaker 1: is continuing to come adam in a violent way, and
Speaker 1: his hand is all the way back again his right
Speaker 1: hand and another huge round house punch is coming in
Speaker 1: at Gunny Dreyer's face. I mean, the swing is already
Speaker 1: in action. He's almost connecting with Gunny Dreyer's face. And
Speaker 1: you can see on the video that Gunnery Sergeant Negron
Speaker 1: from the side comes to gunn Resurgeant Dreyer's defense and
Speaker 1: hits Mr. Rodriguez one time again. Mr Rodriguez was sort
Speaker 1: of surrounded by sixth or eight other guys and it's
Speaker 1: you know, the three raiders there with him. The Chief
Speaker 1: gilnuts off to the side, but Gunny Negron comes in
Speaker 1: to Gunnery Sergeant Dreyer's defense. Is gunn Resergeant Dreyer's quite
Speaker 1: frankly on his way to the grounds. It's one hit
Speaker 1: and from that hit, Mr Rodriguez goes down to the ground.
Speaker 1: But the momentum from that big swing that he was
Speaker 1: taking kind of takes his body around and and he
Speaker 1: clearly hits his head on the street and everybody there
Speaker 1: thinks he's knocked out. So everybody kind of checks on
Speaker 1: him a little bit, especially Chief Gil Matt and one
Speaker 1: of the fellas that was with Mr. Rodriguez, and they
Speaker 1: kind of check him out, rolom onto his left side,
Speaker 1: and at that time, all the people that are with Mr.
Speaker 1: Rodriguez they kind of start to disperse away. I mean
Speaker 1: it very clearly appears that they're going to leave him there.
Speaker 1: And Gunny Dreyer goes and gets their truck because they're
Speaker 1: not going to leave a fellow American laying on the
Speaker 1: streets of Reveal, Iraq, after midnight on New Year's Day,
Speaker 1: and he and Gunny Dreyer backs his truck up and
Speaker 1: they put Mr one of one of Mr. Rodriguez colleagues,
Speaker 1: and the other three guys put Mr. Rodriguez into the
Speaker 1: back seat of the truck they were in, and they
Speaker 1: drive him back to base and they go through a
Speaker 1: couple of different security checkpoints to get back into their base,
Speaker 1: and they take him back to his quarters he's living in,
Speaker 1: you know, one of these one of these cans, one
Speaker 1: of these container units, you know. They take him back
Speaker 1: to his UH billeting area and they put him to
Speaker 1: bed and Chief gil Met, I think at the time
Speaker 1: he was the number two medical person on the on
Speaker 1: the base, you know, checks him out, make sure that
Speaker 1: he's breathing okay, that you know, he's responsive, to moving.
Speaker 1: You know, he's uh, you know, shifting in his own bed.
Speaker 1: Our recollection is that Gilmant has somebody go get his
Speaker 1: bag just to make sure and check his blood pressure.
Speaker 1: And when Mr Rodriguez hit the U to the ground,
Speaker 1: there was a you know, a I guess miner is
Speaker 1: probably the best way to say. At every minor laceration
Speaker 1: on the back of his head. Wasn't bleeding profusely or anything,
Speaker 1: but he had, uh, you know, an insignificant laceration on
Speaker 1: the back of his head, and Chief Gilmet patched that
Speaker 1: up with some new skin. Didn't need stitches or anything,
Speaker 1: just some some of that medical superglue. Still still breathing,
Speaker 1: still alive. Everyone figured he had just you know, was
Speaker 1: was super intoxicated and and had passed out and was
Speaker 1: previously knocked out. And Chief Chief Gilmet stays with him
Speaker 1: for hours. One of Mr rodriguez his co workers comes
Speaker 1: over and kind of takes over watching them and and
Speaker 1: really what they're doing is they're just making sure that
Speaker 1: he doesn't ask for it on on vomit if he
Speaker 1: throws up, because he had been drinking and uh, you know,
Speaker 1: Chief Gilmet went to I think gets unbeat and get
Speaker 1: cleaned up, and and he received a call from the
Speaker 1: fellas that were just watching over him while he was sleeping,
Speaker 1: and again he had he had rolled on his side,
Speaker 1: he had you know, was moving okay, Chief go and
Speaker 1: had received a call that he was in to rest,
Speaker 1: and they immediately you know, went to him, started uh
Speaker 1: performing medical care on him. And then all of that
Speaker 1: got estialated up until they transferred him to the medical
Speaker 1: facility on base, and then not too long after that,
Speaker 1: Mr Rodriguez was transported to Launch School for uh you know,
Speaker 1: higher echelonic care. And I think one of the important
Speaker 1: things is is, you know, when when this immediately got
Speaker 1: reported at the talk that Mr Rodriguez was in some
Speaker 1: medical to recipe, what what they told him to do was, hey,
Speaker 1: go get Chief gil Met letting, you know, so he
Speaker 1: can get some medical care. Woman. You know, that's the
Speaker 1: one who checked him out, That's the one who was
Speaker 1: providing the care. I mean, you know again, Chief got
Speaker 1: was one of the senior guys on the base. And
Speaker 1: the real unfortunate part about this is, as a result
Speaker 1: apparently of his head hitting the street much earlier in
Speaker 1: the morning, he had what appears to be sustained an
Speaker 1: injury to his brain, and ultimately, and unfortunately and tragically
Speaker 1: he ended up passing away several days later. As Fred
Speaker 1: had described, an investigation was conducted. You know that that
Speaker 1: led to the investigation being turned over to the Marine
Speaker 1: Special Operations Command, who, after consulting with I guess some
Speaker 1: legal advisors, made the decision to bring charges against these three.
Speaker 1: And you know, as it was described in this uh
Speaker 1: this article thirty two hearing, there's an absolute right to
Speaker 1: defend yourself. There's an absolute right to defend someone else
Speaker 1: who needs help, as Nny Negron did for for Gunnery
Speaker 1: Sergeant Dreyer. It's the unfortunate circumstance that Mr Rodriguez possed away.
Speaker 1: But as we argued and presented during that article thirty
Speaker 1: two hearing, he was the aggressor that evening from from
Speaker 1: early on and throughout the evening until and and and
Speaker 1: I don't think that I am coloring this in any
Speaker 1: way that would not be objectively seen on the video
Speaker 1: until he savagely attacked gun Resurgeant Dreyer, and gunn Resurgeant
Speaker 1: Negron hit him one time in defensive of gun Resergeant Drayer.
Speaker 1: And that's you know, that's what was presented and and
Speaker 1: that's what was shown at the article thirty two here.
Speaker 1: And if I'm not mistaken these obstruction of trustees, why well,
Speaker 1: you know, what they're trying to say is is that
Speaker 1: they didn't have as much authority as they believed they
Speaker 1: had to be able to be out that night or
Speaker 1: out as late that night as as the otherwise might
Speaker 1: have thought they would. And so what they what they
Speaker 1: have alleged is that instead of taking him to a
Speaker 1: medical facility, they took him back to his billeting. And
Speaker 1: the reason why they did that was because they didn't
Speaker 1: want anybody to know that they had been out late
Speaker 1: that night. That's the basis upon which they've charged the obstructions.
Speaker 1: So they obstructed the investigation by taking him back to
Speaker 1: his barracks room or as his chewe the container housing
Speaker 1: Unity was living in, instead of a medical facility. And
Speaker 1: all I can tell you is is is it wasn't
Speaker 1: just the three raiders that were out that night. There
Speaker 1: was I mean, if you had the opportunity to see
Speaker 1: the video of the T bar, there were dozens of people,
Speaker 1: dozens of US individuals, Westerners that were in the T
Speaker 1: bar that night and several marines and including the three raiders.
Speaker 1: So that's the you know, that's the reason that they've
Speaker 1: tried to charge this obstruction. That is to say that
Speaker 1: they're trying to make something more out of it than
Speaker 1: what it really was. So the case goes to a
Speaker 1: court martial. Do you think that the churches will stant
Speaker 1: or the fall apart? Well, it's you know, it's hard
Speaker 1: to say. You know, I won't go in any great
Speaker 1: detail until it our defense will be in the case,
Speaker 1: but I don't I don't think it's any great secret.
Speaker 1: The investigating officer, the pretrial hearing officer, you know, reported
Speaker 1: on the very significant self defense issues that are going
Speaker 1: to be present in this case. And self defense is
Speaker 1: exactly what happened, and and that is what we articulated
Speaker 1: to the hearing officer. The problem is self defense is
Speaker 1: an affirmative defense, and that's what the hearing officer addressed
Speaker 1: to General you. He clearly set out in that report
Speaker 1: that he wrote, how difficult the case it's going to
Speaker 1: be given that there is a significant self defense issue. President.
Speaker 1: So you know, well, will the case get to a jury?
Speaker 1: It may, you know, in my opinion, it should have
Speaker 1: never got to the charging process because the self defense
Speaker 1: issues are fairly present in the objective videos if you
Speaker 1: watch them. Do you think that stuff starting Melgar's murder
Speaker 1: back in two seventeen in Madley negatively influencing the case.
Speaker 1: I can speak on that a little bit only because
Speaker 1: I represent one of the seals that is involved in
Speaker 1: that case. Mr. Rokey, who who represents Chief gil Met,
Speaker 1: also represents one of the other Marines that's one of
Speaker 1: the marines that's involved in that case as well. And
Speaker 1: I can tell you that certainly the press that has
Speaker 1: swirled around the Special Operations community in general has led
Speaker 1: the Special Operations leadership to make very public statements about
Speaker 1: their disappointments and the and the goings on inside of
Speaker 1: the Special Operations community. Now, a lot of their disappointment
Speaker 1: is clearly based upon not giving their operators the benefit
Speaker 1: of the doubt in you know, combat situations in a
Speaker 1: combat zone. So you know, I don't I don't know
Speaker 1: that I would tie anything specifically to the case that
Speaker 1: involved the again unfortunate and tragic death of Logan Melgard.
Speaker 1: But I think that there are some very eye profile
Speaker 1: cases that are swirling around the Special Operations community right now,
Speaker 1: and that the leadership is been publicly embarrassed by the
Speaker 1: allegations that have swirled around without consideration as to whether
Speaker 1: the allegations were to or not, or what the context
Speaker 1: or circumstances of the allegations are. Um And you know,
Speaker 1: I'll give you just one example if you if you
Speaker 1: were to go back and and read the Daily Beast
Speaker 1: sort of right up on the allegations involving the again
Speaker 1: very unfortunate and tragic death of Logan Melgard. That had
Speaker 1: to do with, you know, discovery of larsity of of
Speaker 1: special operations funds and and all those kind of things.
Speaker 1: And you know, as the investigation was completed and as
Speaker 1: the article thirty twos were completed in those lines of cases,
Speaker 1: none of that's true. So it came across this very
Speaker 1: you know, this very sinister plan for you know, stealing
Speaker 1: money and and uh, you know, quieting people up about that.
Speaker 1: And it had nothing to do with that. I mean,
Speaker 1: it literally had to do with you know, guys playing
Speaker 1: jokes on other guys and and things went very tragic
Speaker 1: that night. So is the Special Operations community right now
Speaker 1: in the public eye in a way they wouldn't like
Speaker 1: to be I would say sure, and is that impacting
Speaker 1: decisions that are being made in these types of cases?
Speaker 1: It has to, And I think that goes back to
Speaker 1: what Fritz said at the beginning about officers wanting to
Speaker 1: please their superiors. Let's go to you. Can you please
Speaker 1: tell us about your organization and how it helped insights cases.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. I appreciate you having us UH
Speaker 1: and and have me on alongside both Phil, Phil Stackhouse
Speaker 1: and Fred Gallvin. I mean, these two individuals, their outstanding.
Speaker 1: As the CEO of United American Patriots, we've got a
Speaker 1: pretty diverse mission. You know. Primarily, we're responsible for informing
Speaker 1: the President, Congress and citizens, funding legal representation, and supporting
Speaker 1: reintegration for US warriors who are wrongfully accused and unjustly
Speaker 1: convicted of war crimes. And primarily we're doing this to
Speaker 1: preserve the presumption of innocence and protect against unlawful commanding
Speaker 1: influenced prosecutorial misconduct and investigator abuse. So we see all
Speaker 1: of these different cases, and what's interesting is, you know,
Speaker 1: we've been able to work with Phil Stackhouse, you know,
Speaker 1: as the CEO of UAP. You know, I've been able
Speaker 1: to see and also support bills commitment to ensuring that
Speaker 1: service members rights are not being violated by you know,
Speaker 1: this complex and sometimes convoluted and sometimes skewed process known
Speaker 1: as this uniform Code of Military Justice. I'm really thankful
Speaker 1: to see that we've got someone like phill out here
Speaker 1: fighting for people, and he's willing to step up and
Speaker 1: make sure that these overzealous prosecutors and these commanders who
Speaker 1: sometimes act in what we call, you see I unlawful
Speaker 1: command influence, that they're they're being kept in check. And
Speaker 1: it's really important that we have these civilian attorneys who
Speaker 1: have extensive military background, who understand the military system, but
Speaker 1: at the same time are not controlled and constrained by
Speaker 1: it and have the freedom to do the right thing
Speaker 1: at the right time. I think that that's that's really critical.
Speaker 1: So everything that fills doing out here is absolutely imperative
Speaker 1: for the justice for the warrior. That's key. And where
Speaker 1: where we've seen this go astray. And we'll talk about
Speaker 1: our Morrisack warriors right now, but we see it time
Speaker 1: and again and and and I'll just step back and
Speaker 1: talk a little bit about when I was working on
Speaker 1: Capitol Hill and my job was representing the stand up
Speaker 1: of Marsk. The Marine Special Operations Command. I saw the
Speaker 1: challenges both the you know, the political challenges and the
Speaker 1: sibling rivalries played out as Marsk was being established, and
Speaker 1: it was quite obvious when Fred's company, you know, these
Speaker 1: these guys are some of the most highly trained and
Speaker 1: professional warriors that mar SOCK or the Marine Corps ever
Speaker 1: deployed into combat. It was the first combat deployment for
Speaker 1: these raiders that that they were gonna face some serious
Speaker 1: potential threats to specifically in Afghanistan. The first we're gonna
Speaker 1: be the bombs and the bullets that we're gonna be
Speaker 1: directed towards them, trying to test this new unit see
Speaker 1: if they had the merit, the ability, that the courage
Speaker 1: to stay in and engage. And so they came at
Speaker 1: him with everything they had, and all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: the Afghans were like, oh my god, these warriors are
Speaker 1: not stepping back and and Fred led these guys in
Speaker 1: a serious firefight to where the Afghans realized this was
Speaker 1: something different. This was a unit that had something to prove,
Speaker 1: and they were gonna do the right thing at the
Speaker 1: right time, and we're destroy the enemy. They were so
Speaker 1: scared that they immediately started elevating this alarm and saying,
Speaker 1: get these freaking, crazy devil dogs out of here. And
Speaker 1: so this is where it played into the second threat.
Speaker 1: And the second threat was that we were going to
Speaker 1: see a bunch of senior leaders from other services with
Speaker 1: these prejudicial or over critical scrutiny of the Marines, who,
Speaker 1: on the one hand, we're sitting here saying, hey, they're
Speaker 1: they're kind of stepping into our special operations lane, which
Speaker 1: you know, on a tactical level, you know, they're sibling
Speaker 1: rivalry here, which is healthy, but on a strategic and
Speaker 1: a political level, now all of a sudden, they're gonna
Speaker 1: be competing for funds. So certainly there was a sense
Speaker 1: of you know, who's this new kid on the block,
Speaker 1: and maybe perhaps even secretly assuming they would fail or
Speaker 1: hoping they would fail. And so the first indicator, Oh, look,
Speaker 1: something went wrong. These guys they're not trained up to do.
Speaker 1: You know, these high speed missions we do, they don't
Speaker 1: handle it. Boom. All of a sudden, it played right
Speaker 1: into it, and it kicked them out of the country.
Speaker 1: And just to put this in perspective, I don't know
Speaker 1: of a unit in the history of conflict in the
Speaker 1: United States, it's ever been kicked out of a country.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's absolutely insane. It played right into the
Speaker 1: enemy and the Afghans must have been dancing and laughing
Speaker 1: in us in a humdah. Thank god we were able
Speaker 1: to trick the Americans into getting these warriors out. I
Speaker 1: think it's important to kind of put that into context
Speaker 1: and perspective with that case, because now we roll over
Speaker 1: into you know, the cases that we're seeing right now,
Speaker 1: as we're seeing with Gunn restarted, Danny Drar Gunn Restarted,
Speaker 1: Josh and the Groan and Chief Eric Gilmitt. I mean,
Speaker 1: these are three of the most highly trained warriors again
Speaker 1: MARSOC warriors, and yet there's still a stigma within the
Speaker 1: Marine Corps even that you know, these special operators are
Speaker 1: somehow cowboys and they kind of live outside the rules
Speaker 1: that are formally accepted by you know, the well disciplined warriors,
Speaker 1: the that will you know, the incident, willing respect for authority.
Speaker 1: It just it's just not true. But there's that that stigma,
Speaker 1: and as such, when all of a sudden an incident happens,
Speaker 1: there's a knee jerk reaction by the senior leaders like, whoa,
Speaker 1: we gotta get these crazy cowboys in line. You know,
Speaker 1: these guys are loose cannons. I'm gonna show everybody I'm tough.
Speaker 1: I I don't I don't put up with these guys,
Speaker 1: you know, breaking the rules. And and so this is
Speaker 1: what exactly happened here with our warriors, and uh, you know,
Speaker 1: as Fred talked about and as Phil talked about, you know,
Speaker 1: they came out and and you have these over zealous
Speaker 1: prosecutors over charging. I mean, it is a bar fight.
Speaker 1: Let's keep this into perspective. It's a freaking bar fight.
Speaker 1: If you're a warrior and you haven't been in a
Speaker 1: bar fight where you're probably not out there on the
Speaker 1: front lines, because you know what, there's always gonna be
Speaker 1: somebody who thinks they're bigger, bad or tougher than you,
Speaker 1: and they're gonna test you. They're gonna try and stick
Speaker 1: a beer bottle in your face, they're gonna try and
Speaker 1: prove their manhood. And so it's to all of a sudden, say,
Speaker 1: all right, here's a bar fight in which the aggressor
Speaker 1: was the one that unfortunately lost unfortunately lost his life.
Speaker 1: And I say unfortunate because I'm certain that this guy,
Speaker 1: when in a normal situation where if he was putting
Speaker 1: chat in a in harm's way as a former Special
Speaker 1: Force Forces warrior, as a contractor, probably did his job
Speaker 1: and did it well. And here, unfortunately, he was intoxicated,
Speaker 1: he wasn't thinking properly, and one thing happened, you know,
Speaker 1: one thing led to another. One punch hit him, caught
Speaker 1: him and knocked him out. That happens. Okay, welcome to
Speaker 1: the life of a warrior. That happens. But then to
Speaker 1: have some prosecutors who probably have never been in a
Speaker 1: bar fight, who you know, the whole concept of thinking
Speaker 1: and of getting into some fisty cuffs is probably beyond
Speaker 1: the scope of what they can even imagine. Now, all
Speaker 1: of a sudden they want to come along and they
Speaker 1: want to well, not only do they want to make
Speaker 1: sure they keep these tough guys in line. You know,
Speaker 1: they come out with these overcharging of manslaughter, which even
Speaker 1: all of the video recordings show this was certainly not manslaughter.
Speaker 1: It was it was absolutely self defense, so it was
Speaker 1: nowhere near manslaughter. But this is where you know, they
Speaker 1: want to try and get a big kill. Why because
Speaker 1: these prosecutors if you put things into perspective, these are
Speaker 1: individuals who said, you know what I want to go
Speaker 1: to I want to go to law school, but I
Speaker 1: can't afford it, but oh, the government will do that. Well,
Speaker 1: what I got, what I've gotta go sixteen weeks, learned
Speaker 1: how to wear a uniform nine from fork school and
Speaker 1: then you know, go and serve for a couple of years.
Speaker 1: Is uh an attorney pretending to be in the military.
Speaker 1: And next thing, you know, if I get a prosecution,
Speaker 1: I get a big paying job because get more trial
Speaker 1: time in the military that I will working for some
Speaker 1: big law firm and sign me up. And to be clear,
Speaker 1: we've got some great jags out there who are doing
Speaker 1: the right thing at the right time. But when you
Speaker 1: get caught with these guys who are not doing the
Speaker 1: right thing, that's when all of a sudden they have
Speaker 1: to be brought back in. And the challenges that, for
Speaker 1: the most part are jags, they have to act with
Speaker 1: their own sense of self discipline to do the right thing,
Speaker 1: because for the most part they act with impunity. What
Speaker 1: do I mean by that that in the history of
Speaker 1: the Uniform Code of Military Justice, there has never been
Speaker 1: one prosecutor that has ever been held criminally accountable for
Speaker 1: criminal activity. That sounds bizarre. So what it means is
Speaker 1: that if I want to win a case, and I
Speaker 1: do because it's gonna affect my career, and it's gonna
Speaker 1: affect my future career when I get out as an attorney, well,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna do everything I can't I mean everything to
Speaker 1: make sure I win this case. And guess what if
Speaker 1: I crossed the line, Well, what's the worst that's gonna happen?
Speaker 1: And maybe administratively they'll pull me off the case, but
Speaker 1: nothing really is gonna impact me in a negative way.
Speaker 1: I'm certainly not gonna go to prison. And people say, well,
Speaker 1: are they doing anything that bad. Yes, they're violating the
Speaker 1: Constitution of the United States, and that's about as bad
Speaker 1: as it gets when you infringe upon individuals rights. Yes,
Speaker 1: that's a criminal offense and you should go to prison
Speaker 1: for it. Yet they don't. And so this is where
Speaker 1: our organization, the United American Patriots, as I said, we're
Speaker 1: trying to preserve the individual's rights, and when we see
Speaker 1: them getting trampled, we step in and we see this
Speaker 1: across the board, we see prosecutors, this is what we
Speaker 1: call prosecutorial misconduct, where prosecutors withhold evidence what's called sculpatory
Speaker 1: evidence or exonerating evidence, meaning information that would prove or
Speaker 1: at least lead to proving to the fact that this
Speaker 1: warrior did not commit a crime. Well, we see prosecutors
Speaker 1: hiding this information. Now, now that's not just like, well,
Speaker 1: that seems like a little unethical. That's criminal. It's illegal,
Speaker 1: it's against the constitution. They must share information they have
Speaker 1: with the defense so that the truth comes out. That's
Speaker 1: the whole concept of a trial, is that the truth
Speaker 1: comes out, not that the prosecution is able to destroy
Speaker 1: an individual. But we're seeing where the investigators have missed that.
Speaker 1: The investigators aren't necessarily looking for the truth anymore, nor
Speaker 1: are the prosecutors trying to say, hey, let's do the
Speaker 1: right thing. They're trying to get a win. They're trying
Speaker 1: to destroy these warriors, and they're over they're going beyond
Speaker 1: the bounds of what is proper and what is legal.
Speaker 1: We see them violating privacy. This is where if you
Speaker 1: look at recently in a Navy case against Chief Gallagher,
Speaker 1: where again people have different view is about that case,
Speaker 1: but at the end of the day. The one thing
Speaker 1: that's not in question is that the prosecutors used spywear
Speaker 1: spy where they spied on the defense attorney, invading the
Speaker 1: attorney client privilege. That's a criminal offense. You're allowed to
Speaker 1: tell your attorney whatever it is you want, and your
Speaker 1: attorney can discuss with you your strategy and all the rest.
Speaker 1: That's privileged information. And so if that's violated, well then
Speaker 1: the individual that violates that, the prosecutor that violates that,
Speaker 1: by God, they should be held accountable. What happened nothing,
Speaker 1: They were pulled off the case, but there was no action.
Speaker 1: As a matter of fact, they received medals. I mean,
Speaker 1: and this is where the president steps in says, hey,
Speaker 1: you're not getting medals, but no, Andy, when crazy? Why
Speaker 1: is the president stepping in first? Because he can. He's
Speaker 1: the ultimate convening authority, He's the commander in chief. He
Speaker 1: can move in whichever realm of the military he wants.
Speaker 1: That's why he's elected. He's an elected civilian individual to
Speaker 1: protect the constitution throughout the military. But quite frankly, he
Speaker 1: didn't go for enough. He should have held people accountable
Speaker 1: for these actions. We see prosecutors deliberately silencing forensic experts, well,
Speaker 1: forensic experts are saying, hey, guess what, and he understand
Speaker 1: in count that very You know, are's a lot of
Speaker 1: times you just don't even have the body. But in
Speaker 1: first Lieutenant Behenna's case, for example, you actually had the
Speaker 1: body personally had Tenant Behnna just so you know. It's
Speaker 1: one of the warriors that was pardoned by President Trump
Speaker 1: early on and everybody went crazy, oh, he's a murderer. Well,
Speaker 1: the forensic expert actually got a chance to evaluate the
Speaker 1: body and said no, they behn him, said that he
Speaker 1: acted in self defense and the wounds on the body
Speaker 1: are consistent with his story. Now this was the prosecutor's expert.
Speaker 1: What they do, well, they fired him. They fired that expert,
Speaker 1: and they hid the information. That's criminal. And when that
Speaker 1: information and that expert came forward and said hey, none
Speaker 1: of this information came to trial, the appeals court said,
Speaker 1: well it doesn't matter, because you know that he acted
Speaker 1: inappropriately and he no longer had a right to self defense.
Speaker 1: That's breaking insane. Our warriors never give up their right
Speaker 1: to self defense, period, even if they are acting inappropriate.
Speaker 1: You do not lose your right to self defense. But
Speaker 1: that still happened, and behind it was still found guilty.
Speaker 1: And it wasn't until the president came along to pardon
Speaker 1: of that that got fixed. We see enemy combatants were
Speaker 1: identified as civilians, where all of a sudden, there's a
Speaker 1: warrior that's held accountable for killing civilians. And yet our
Speaker 1: organization UEP dot org funds investigators going to Afghanistan looking
Speaker 1: into the government, the US government's databases to track down
Speaker 1: the biometrics, talking about bigger prints, talking about skin cells
Speaker 1: that are retrieved from I d s, talking about DNA,
Speaker 1: and all of a sudden, what happens whoa wait a second,
Speaker 1: those civilians their enemy combatants. And yet when that im
Speaker 1: ation is brought to appeal, the government says, oh, we're
Speaker 1: not going to dive into the quote abyss of biometric
Speaker 1: What do you mean? Watch crime scene c s I.
Speaker 1: This is how cases are frecking solved. And that's the
Speaker 1: irony is that if these warriors, these honorable individuals who
Speaker 1: stand up and raise their hand to support and defend
Speaker 1: the constitution of the United States, if those individuals who
Speaker 1: are now being accused of murder or whatever crime, if
Speaker 1: they happen to have been criminals with long standing rap
Speaker 1: sheets who are sitting on death row, and the Innocence
Speaker 1: Project or a c LU came along and said, oh, helloa, there,
Speaker 1: this individual's rights were violated. There was an infringement here.
Speaker 1: We found some DNA evidence that exonerates them. Guess what,
Speaker 1: you'd have people screaming from the left side of the
Speaker 1: aisle saying get that person off death row, and yet
Speaker 1: for some reason, we don't have those same individuals screaming
Speaker 1: it nearly as loud, or even paying attention or supporting
Speaker 1: the fact that our military should have those same rights.
Speaker 1: It's a bizarre phenomena that that are most trusted and
Speaker 1: respected entity to our United States military, our warriors aren't
Speaker 1: receiving the same defense of their rights that that a
Speaker 1: criminal with an extensive criminal record would have. What do
Speaker 1: you think that's a great question. I think we need
Speaker 1: to go into uh psychological evaluations of people who hate
Speaker 1: the military and it would probably find many different reasons
Speaker 1: for it. But at the end of the day, there
Speaker 1: is a a stigma against people who serve in the military.
Speaker 1: There's a perception that, you know, they couldn't have done
Speaker 1: anything else in their life, that's all they had to
Speaker 1: do so, or they were tripped into serving the mill
Speaker 1: in the military because you know, you get all these benefits,
Speaker 1: and you know, for example, I get these conversations all
Speaker 1: all the time, and then when people find out that
Speaker 1: I actually attended Harvard Business School, they're like, oh, wait,
Speaker 1: I thought you were in the military. Yes, and I
Speaker 1: served twenty five years as an officer of United States Marines.
Speaker 1: Like people have trouble making sense of that. When I'm
Speaker 1: back in New York, they can't fathom it. So the
Speaker 1: perception many times is that these military guys, you know,
Speaker 1: they're they're dumb guys anyway, and you know what, they've
Speaker 1: probably committed other crimes anyway, So now they just got
Speaker 1: caught and and and it's just there is one of
Speaker 1: the It's just this sad situation where we have in
Speaker 1: our country this divided perspective of our war fighters. And
Speaker 1: I wish I knew the answer as to why it was.
Speaker 1: But I've tried to get people left leaning to understand,
Speaker 1: and they will not get behind this concept that our
Speaker 1: warriors deserve to have their rights preserved as well. That's
Speaker 1: very unfortunate, and to be honest, at this craze because
Speaker 1: if you think it's a it's an irony. I mean,
Speaker 1: people who defend the constitution are treated, are perceived like that.
Speaker 1: You and I agree, Stavos, and and I'll tell you
Speaker 1: there's a lot of people that don't think like that,
Speaker 1: thank God. And as such, you know, we get donations
Speaker 1: from people across the country who they come out and
Speaker 1: they say, look, we must give our warriors the benefit
Speaker 1: of the doubt, especially when you look at these guys,
Speaker 1: when you look at Danny, Josh and Eric, these these individuals.
Speaker 1: First of all, they're highly educated, highly trained, incredible family
Speaker 1: people who you know, they everything about them. They're well
Speaker 1: balanced individuals. These are not guys who are looking to
Speaker 1: get into troubled as and as all the videotape show,
Speaker 1: they were looking for ways to stay out of trouble.
Speaker 1: They tried to avoid confrontations. They said, hey, I'm not
Speaker 1: gonna get into a fight in a bar. Then went
Speaker 1: outside and said, look, we don't want to fight. This
Speaker 1: is New Year's let's stop this ridiculousness. And then even
Speaker 1: after that, instead of walking away from the individual who's
Speaker 1: laying on the ground, said hold on a second, we're
Speaker 1: gonna do the right thing at the right time. Even look,
Speaker 1: this guy may have acted inappropriately, he may be a
Speaker 1: jerk in this time, but you know what, he's our
Speaker 1: jerk and we're not gonna leave them alone. That's an
Speaker 1: honorable individual. You try and find a gang banger in Detroit, Baltimore,
Speaker 1: or some other city across the United States who would say, oh,
Speaker 1: you know what, I just knocked someone out. I just
Speaker 1: we're playing a knockout game. I just knocked someone out.
Speaker 1: But you know what, we should might pick him up
Speaker 1: and make sure he's okay, not happening. That's not who
Speaker 1: we're talking about. We're talking about honorable individuals who do
Speaker 1: the right thing at the right time, for the right reasons,
Speaker 1: and unfortunately get caught up by over zealous prosecutors and
Speaker 1: commanders who do not have the strength to step up
Speaker 1: and do the right thing. As well. As a matter
Speaker 1: of fact, one of the leadership principles the United States
Speaker 1: Marine Corps to ensure that we look out for our
Speaker 1: warriors well being. It's lookout for your marines welfare. And
Speaker 1: this is where when something like this happens, you have
Speaker 1: to give the benefits of the doubt. Because all of
Speaker 1: these people have been screened from enlisting to going through
Speaker 1: all of their professional service schools on throughout into these
Speaker 1: special operations organizations. Our special operators are some of the
Speaker 1: best of the best. They deserve to have their the
Speaker 1: presumption of innocence, and it didn't happen with these guys.
Speaker 1: How can I can I readers support up? Thank you Stalbos,
Speaker 1: I appreciate you asking. There's a few different ways. The
Speaker 1: primary way is going to our website at u AP
Speaker 1: dot org learning more about the organization. Certainly, we're more
Speaker 1: than happy to take donations. We encourage donations. Every little
Speaker 1: bit helps. We have some donors that donate ten tho
Speaker 1: dollars a year. We have others that donate twenty dollars
Speaker 1: every month. Whatever anybody can do is obviously appreciated because
Speaker 1: we have a tough job of informing our elected officials,
Speaker 1: paying the exorbitant prices for all these legal expenses that
Speaker 1: come in for all these warriors, and then also helping
Speaker 1: with reintegration if somebody's gone from the battlefield in incarcerating
Speaker 1: them back out. But we also have a couple of
Speaker 1: events coming up. We've got a shooting event. As a
Speaker 1: matter of fact, we're gonna have two of our raiders
Speaker 1: out there teaching individuals how to fire fully automatic weapons.
Speaker 1: So people go to UAP dot org they can see
Speaker 1: this shoot full automatic weapons with our warriors, attend those events.
Speaker 1: We've got a NASCAR we're putting on the track. Uh,
Speaker 1: it's all the U A P. Nascar. If people want
Speaker 1: to get some sort of sponsorship on there for five
Speaker 1: dollars right now, people can put a sticker on there.
Speaker 1: We have all that information on our website and again
Speaker 1: any little bit helps. But following us on Facebook and
Speaker 1: seeing the information that we're putting out all the time,
Speaker 1: the more people are aware, better off and if I
Speaker 1: can stop us. Just to put this into a little
Speaker 1: bit of perspective, that it took this organization three years
Speaker 1: to get me on board, because you know, I mean
Speaker 1: United States Marine prior listed, I've served in combat a
Speaker 1: few times. And when one of the board members, who
Speaker 1: I've known since I was a second lieutenant, invited me
Speaker 1: to be involved and he started telling me about the organization,
Speaker 1: I said, there was absolutely no way that I would
Speaker 1: get on board and organization that's supporting murderers who committed
Speaker 1: war crimes. I mean, these guys were in my mind,
Speaker 1: they were a disgrace to all of us who served
Speaker 1: honorably in combat. And it took them three years and
Speaker 1: this one individual, Lieutenant Colonel Bob Winman, Great Warrior, to
Speaker 1: finally sit down and talk through the details of a
Speaker 1: case with me for me to actually get it. And
Speaker 1: once I got it, it's almost like the matrix. Once
Speaker 1: you see the truth, you can't turn away that these individuals,
Speaker 1: they're not warriors. They've been railroaded, they've had their rights violated.
Speaker 1: And that's the importance of this organization. And so I've
Speaker 1: been on board almost two years now and I'll tell
Speaker 1: you each case, I find out more and more, and
Speaker 1: I keep seeing things and you start seeing patterns, and
Speaker 1: this is where those patterns have to be addressed. So
Speaker 1: not only are we addressing them at the tactical level
Speaker 1: and at the operational level with the funding, but we've
Speaker 1: taken it to the st. TJIC level in that we've
Speaker 1: helped to establish a Rights for Warriors Caucus, which is
Speaker 1: now headed up by Congressman Louie Gomer and he and
Speaker 1: about seven other congressmen right now continue to fight for
Speaker 1: our warriors rights. So this is another way that those
Speaker 1: people who are listening right now. Contact your congressman and
Speaker 1: asked them why they're not on this board. Why aren't
Speaker 1: why they not on this caucus. Why aren't they helping
Speaker 1: to support the rights of our warriors and get them involved?
Speaker 1: And I think that's a broad scope on ways that
Speaker 1: people can actually get involved. You heard the man. You
Speaker 1: should go call your congressman and try change to change
Speaker 1: these and visit you AP dot org tell them on
Speaker 1: Thank you very much for coming on the boards. It
Speaker 1: was an honor on time on Target outstand it used
Speaker 1: in listening to self red Lada. New episodes up every
Speaker 1: Wednesday and Friday. Follow the show on Instagram and Twitter
Speaker 1: at so fret Radio.