|
|
|
View in RTF format
VÌ SAO BÁO ĐẠI CHÚNG VÀ ÔNG HOÀI THANH
KIỆN CHỊ EM BÀ NGÔ THỊ HIỀN VÀ NGÔ NGỌC HÙNG, ỦY
BAN TỰ DO TÔN GIÁO CHO VIỆT NAM, ĐÀI PHÁT THANH TIẾNG NÓI VIỆT NAM HẢI NGOẠI,
v.v
Kính thưa quí đồng hương,
Các đoàn thể hoạt động chính trị,
Các tổ chức tôn giáo,
Quí văn thi hữu cùng quí độc giả bốn phương.
Trong suốt bốn năm qua, sau khi báo Đại Chúng viết những bài về vấn đề tiền
cứu trợ nạn nhân lũ lụt Miền Trung và Miền Tây, Việt Nam của chị em bà Ngô Thị
Hiền, chủ tịch Ủy Ban Tự Do Tôn Giáo Cho Việt Nam và Ngô Ngọc Hùng, giám đốc đài
Tiếng Nói Việt Nam Hải Ngoại để yêu cầu bà Hiền và ông Hùng làm sáng tỏ vấn đề
nầy; nhưng bà Hiền và ông Hùng chẳng những đã không thèm trả lời mà còn kiện báo
Đại Chúng, cá nhân tôi Hoài Thanh bút hiệu Vân Nam qua 4 vụ kiện mang số:
224653-V, 235988-V, 242835-V, và 240210-V tại tòa án Montgomery County thuộc
tiểu bang Maryland với các tội danh: có ác ý phỉ báng, mạ lỵ, làm thiệt hại tài
sản, tổn thương đời sống. Tất cả 4 vụ kiện của chị em bà Ngô Thị Hiền và Ngô
Ngọc Hùng đã được tòa phán xét và phần thắng lợi của 4 vụ kiện nêu trên tòa đã
dành cho báo Đại-Chúng, và Vân-Nam Hoài Thanh.
Mục đích của chị em bà Hiền và phe nhóm của họ là lợi dụng tòa án để làm kiệt
quệ tài sản của bất cứ ai lên tiếng phản đối và nói rõ sự thật những việc làm
sai trái phe nhóm của họ, hầu bỏ cuộc để họ bành trưởng thế lực, lạnh đạo quần
chúng, khuynh đảo các lực lượng và thu góp tài lực bằng cách bôi bác, hăm dọa,
khủng bố tinh thần những ai lên tiếng nói rõ sự thật những việc làm sai trái phe
nhóm của ho.
Để làm sáng tỏ trước công luận trong và ngoài nước trước vấn đề Chụp mũ cọng
sản, Vu khống, Mạ lị, Hăm dọa, Khủng bố, Kiện cáo vô cớ, v.v... của chị em bà
Ngô Thị Hiền và phe nhóm của họ. Hôm nay báo Đại Chúng và cá nhân tôi Hoài
Thanh, bút hiệu Vân-Nam chính thức gởi đến quí đồng hương, các đoàn thể hoạt
động chính trị, các tổ chức tôn giáo, quí văn thi hữu, quí độc giả cùng quí thân
chủ quảng cáo trên báo Đại Chúng "Vụ Kiện Chị Em Bà Ngô Thị Hiền, Ủy Ban Tự Do
Tôn Giáo Cho Việt Nam, Đài Phát Thanh Tiếng Nói Việt Nam Hải Ngoại và Đích danh
cá nhân và phe nhóm của chị em bà Ngô Thị Hiền" trước tòa án Liên Bang, thành
phố Greenbelt, tiêu bang Maryland, với các tội danh được lược kê trong đơn khới
tố đính kèm dưới đây:
In The UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
For The DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Southern Division
DAI CHUNG NEWS MEDIA INCORPORATED
]
d/b/a DAI CHUNG BIWEEKLY NEWSPAPER ]
10515 Summit Avenue ]
Kensington, Maryland 20895,
]
]
and
]
]
HOAI THANH
]
2820 Poag Street
]
Alexandria, Virginia 22303
]
as an individual, as the owner of an ]
enterprise engaged in Interstate and
]
foreign commerce, as a member of the ]
Vietnamese speaking community in America, ]
on behalf of himself and others similarly ]
situated,
]
]
Plaintiffs,
]
v.
] CASE No: AW 05 CV 3420
]
HIEN THI NGO
]
8001 Bradley Boulevard
] JURY TRIAL
Bethesda, Maryland 20817,
] DEMANDED
]
HUNG NGOC NGO
]
2304 Westmoreland Avenue
]
Falls Church, Virginia 22096,
]
]
VIETNAMESE PUBLIC RADIO, INC. ]
900 S. Washington Street, Suite 302
]
Falls Church, VA 22046,
]
Serve registered agent Hung Ngo
]
2304 Westmoreland Street
]
Falls Church, Virginia 22046,
]
]
]
COMMITTEE FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN VIETNAM INC ]
8001 Bradley Boulevard
]
Bethesda 20817,
]
Serve registered agent
]
Ngo Thi Hien at the corporate address,
]
]
NGUYEN HONG THAI
]
11525 Dragonfire Way
]
Germantown, Maryland 20876,
]
]
THANG DINH NGUYEN
]
6400 Arlington Blvd, Suite 640
]
Falls Church, Virginia 22042,
]
]
BOAT PEOPLE S.O.S., INC.
]
6066 Leesburg Pike
]
Falls Church, Virginia 22041,
]
Serve Registered agent
]
Nguyen Dinh Thang
]
6400 Arlington Boulevard, Suite 640
]
Arlington, Virginia 22042-2336
]
And serve also same registered agent
]
at above address for corporation;
]
]
TRAN NGHI HOANG
]
8552 Tyrolean Way
]
Springfield, Virginia 22153,
]
]
LE PHAI, INC.
]
d/b/a Le Phai Newspaper
]
8552 Tyrolean Way
]
Springfield, Virginia 22153,
]
Serve registered agent
]
Tien Van Tran
]
at the above address,
]
]
and
]
]
JOHN DOES as follows:
]
]
JOHN DOE #1
]
Whose real name is presently unknown, but
]
who, under the pen name LE MINH NGOC,
]
writes in the Le Phai weekly newspaper
]
articles that defame the plaintiffs and cast
]
the plaintiffs in a false light that are then
]
broadcast on the programs of defendant VPR,
]
]
JOHN DOE #2
]
Whose real name is presently unknown, but
]
who, under the pen name LE TAM writes and
]
publishes articles on the website internetyahoo/thaoluan ]
that defame the plaintiffs and cast them in a false light ]
that are then broadcast on defendant VPR’s programs,]
JOHN DOE #3
]
Whose real name is presently unknown, but who ]
broadcasts and hosts on VPR programs under the ]
broadcast name HUY DUC matter that defames the ]
plaintiffs and casts them in a false light in such
]
manner as to stir up members of the audience and ]
threaten the plaintiffs with threats that include violence, ]
]
JOHN DOE #4
]
Whose real name is presently unknown, but who ]
broadcasts and hosts on VPR programs under the ]
broadcast name HOANG LAN matter that defames the ]
plaintiffs and casts them in a false light in such ]
manner as to stir up members of the audience and ]
threaten the plaintiffs with threats that include violence, ]
]
JOHN DOE #5
]
Whose real name is presently unknown, but who ]
broadcasts and hosts on VPR programs under the ]
broadcast name LE THI matter that defames the
]
plaintiffs and casts them in a false light in such ]
manner as to stir up members of the audience and ]
threaten the plaintiffs with threats that include violence, ]
]
JOHN DOE #6
]
Whose real name is presently unknown, but who ]
broadcasts and hosts on VPR programs under the ]
broadcast name THANH TIN matter that defames the ]
plaintiffs and casts them in a false light in such
]
manner as to stir up members of the audience and ]
threaten the plaintiffs with threats that include violence, ]
]
JOHN DOE #7
]
Whose real name is presently unknown, but who ]
broadcasts and hosts on VPR programs under the ]
broadcast name HONG HANH matter that defames the ]
plaintiffs and casts them in a false light in such
]
manner as to stir up members of the audience and ]
threaten the plaintiffs with threats that include violence, ]
]
Defendants.
]
COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs, Hoai Thanh and Dai Chung, Incorporated, allege as
follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
- For years, and continuing to date, the individual defendants, working
through the defendant purported non-profit organizations named above, also
as defendants, as instrumentalities, have engaged in a conspiracy to
mislead, deceive, and obtain money from the plaintiffs and other things of
value, such as public relations from Vietnamese language media such as the
plaintiff newspaper, by communicating to the individual plaintiff and others
like him in the Vietnamese-speaking community in America, as listeners to
the defendant Vietnamese Public Radio, Inc.’s broadcast system who are
solicited to wire and mail money and property by U. S. mail or on line
communications (all interstate) to the corporate defendants under false
pretenses and a pattern of deception and misrepresentation over the wires
and airwaves in interstate broadcasts. This is done through programs put on
by the defendant Committee for Religious Freedom in Vietnam, Inc., and also
participation in and the conducting of programs by the defendant Boat People
S.O.S. Inc., programs over the defendant VPR’s system.
- The individual defendants and their organizations claim to be
raising funds for charitable causes which benefit the victims of floods,
disasters and repression in communist Viet Nam and that "almost all" of the
funds that they have so raised go for such purposes. But in fact they have
only devoted a small fraction of what they have raised to such purposes and
divert the vast bulk of the funds that they thus solicit and raise to
purposes other than those which they hold out.
- The individual defendants and their organizations commingle
the funds and use them for their personal inurement and for their personal
purposes and for harming those who are so bold as to question their use of
funds. They do this harming also through programs over their radio system
into many states and cities which encourage and threaten violence and harm
to any who ask for accountability or even question the individual
defendants’ and their organizations’ use of funds.
- Anyone who so questions the individual defendants’ and their
organizations’ use of funds, particularly any persons such as the
plaintiffs, who have, however small by comparison, any Vietnamese-language
media presence, then becomes the target of further deceptions of the
Vietnamese community and its members in which the individual defendants and
their organizations purport to be using the courts to harm "communists,"
which is what they label those who question them through worthy lawsuits
which are in fact part of the deception and misrepresentations. In a
continuing pattern which has lasted for years the individual defendants and
their organizations solicit funds over the wires and airwaves in broadcasts
to be mailed to them or wired to them through credit cards which funds they
then transmit in interstate commerce for the purpose of putting on further
programs, which include and encourage threats of violence against any who
dare to even question the individual defendants and their organizations, the
accuracy of their representations in the broadcasts and on their websites or
that the motives of the individual defendants are anything other than what
the defendants represent or that the individual defendants in any way obtain
any inurement, even salaries, from the hundreds of thousands of dollars that
they obtain from individuals such as the individual plaintiff in the
Vietnamese community.
- In order to make the intended targets of these interstate wire
campaigns to threaten violence seem worthy of this "law of the community"
lynching held out as worthy of being above the American law, state and
federal, the defendants engage in ruthless campaigns of misrepresentations
about those who question them, such as the plaintiffs, in order to cast
their intended targets in a "false light," all funded by the defendants’
solicitation and obtaining of funds through wire and mail fraud campaigns in
interstate commerce.
- As a further part of the campaigns funded by mail and wire
fraud which they direct against those who question their use of the
solicited and raised funds obtained through the use of these interstate wire
programs, the defendants conduct systematic meritless law suits against
those such as the plaintiffs who do so question their use of funds. In order
to fund these law suits against their intended targets such as the
plaintiffs, the defendants compound their use of mail and wire fraud in
interstate commerce by misrepresenting the merit of the law suits over the
interstate wire system in order to raise funds to fuel the meritless law
suits which they direct. Defendant members of the associated-in-fact
enterprise such as the defendant Nguyen Hong Thai, are lawyers and
participants in the management of the associated-in-fact enterprise who
conduct the meritless suits for the purpose, which defendants acknowledge in
their interstate programs as part of their wire fraud, are intended to
economically damage, harm and hurt those who dare to question the
defendants’ use of funds without any regard for the merits of the suit. The
intended targets, such as the plaintiffs, are then the object of on-air
boasts by defendants such as defendant Thang Dinh Nguyen, that they will be
"hurt" and destroyed for offending, in the opinions held out by the
defendants, the "Vietnamese community."
- These misrepresentations, these threats of violence, and this
laundering of funds and transporting of goods illegally taken in interstate
and even foreign commerce are planned and directed by the individual
defendants Thang Dinh Nguyen, Hien Thi Ngo, and Hung Ngoc Ngo and the other
individual defendants acting as an enterprise-in-fact which is directed by
the three thus named and led particularly by Thang Dinh Nguyen, with the
other participants in the structured and continuing enterprise in fact led
by those three as they too participate in the pattern of racketeering
activity as participants in the associated-in-fact enterprise.
- The defendants have known for years that their broadcast
representations to the Vietnamese language public were misleading and
deceitful and that they have been misusing and failing to account for the
funds which they solicit and obtain through the United States mail or
through electronic interstate communications, according to the admissions of
the defendant Nguyen Hong Thai. Yet the defendants continue to enable and
stir up threats of violence over the interstate wires and airwaves in
broadcasts that they originate against the plaintiffs and any others who
dare to question the misrepresentations of the defendants, question the
defendants’ misuse of funds, and to ask for accountability from the
defendants. They continue to launder funds and use and transport their funds
illegally obtained through the mail and wire fraud as set out herein in
interstate and foreign commerce for the stated purposes.
- Each year thousands of Vietnamese-speaking Americans like the
individual plaintiff are bilked and deceived by the defendants through their
fraud in the use of interstate wire, airwaves and mail out of a cumulatively
large sum of money which the defendants then use for both their private
inurement and invest in their enterprises to stir up and incite threats
against those such as the plaintiffs who dare inquire about the defendants
and their ways and their use of the funds they solicit from the Vietnamese
community in America. Numbers of small Vietnamese-language media such as the
plaintiff bi-weekly newspaper are similarly deceived and give support in
their publishing as a result of these deceptions and misrepresentations. The
defendants’ conspiracy and scheme continues and will continue and be ongoing
indefinitely unless they are made to answer for their liability to the
plaintiffs and others similarly situated in the Vietnamese community in the
U.S.
- Plaintiffs seek both economic damages and injunctive relief
for the conduct alleged in this complaint. Among other things plaintiffs
seek temporary and then permanent injunctive relief against the stirring up
of and enabling of threats of violence, the filing of the malicious and
baseless law suits accompanied by threats (all of which the defendants
lose), the use of the airwaves and wires in Interstate Commerce to
misrepresent and deceive the Vietnamese-speaking public with false
representations of charitable purposes, the use of the airwaves and wires to
raise funds pursuant to deceit and misrepresentation for the purpose of
bilking the individuals of the Vietnamese community such as the plaintiffs,
the laundering of funds and the transporting of the funds illegally obtained
in interstate and foreign commerce and for other such relief under pendant
state counts.
THE PARTIES
- Plaintiff Hoai Thanh is a member of the Vietnamese-speaking community in
the U.S.. He owns and operates and has owned and operated over the years
auto and service station, car-wash and similar businesses, having been
trained by U.S. oil companies in retail operations. He also owned and
operated for a number of years the plaintiff Dai Chung Bi-Weekly Newspaper.
He brings this action to obtain declaratory and equitable relief and
restitution. He seeks to recover the property in the form of donations taken
from him by the defendants through their fraud and deception and to recover
for the damage done to him for years thereafter up until last Christmas by
their campaign of threats and intimidation using the wires and mail in a
fraudulent and deceptive manner and their attempts to prevent him from going
into court and bearing witness against them as well as by their use of
interstate and foreign commerce to fund their enterprise with money obtained
by fraud and deceit to damage him and destroy his businesses, and for their
fraud and deception against all like him and their similar campaigns against
the readers of his newspaper who sought to inform and assist him in
questioning the fraud and deceit of the defendants and for using their
fraud, deceit and intimidation, including threats, to drive away his
customers in his auto businesses and his readers, subscribers and
advertisers of, in and for his newspaper.
- Plaintiff Dai Chung Incorporated is a corporation duly
incorporated in the State of Maryland that did and does business as the Dai
Chung Bi-weekly Newspaper. It also seeks declaratory and equitable relief
and restitution for the harm done it by the defendants through their wire
and mail fraud, threats, including threats of violence and the use by the
defendants of interstate and foreign commerce to damage its business and
circulation, drive away and steal its advertisers through fraud, deception
and threats of violence and their systematic attempts to prevent it, like
the individual plaintiff, from being able to access the courts, including
federal courts such as this to obtain redress.
- Together, Hoai Thanh and Dai Chung Incorporated are referred
to as "plaintiffs."
- Defendant Thang Dinh Nguyen is the president and chairman of
the defendant Boat People S.O.S., Inc. and his and its offices are in the
Commonwealth of Virginia at 6066 Leesburg Pike, in the Tysons Corner area of
Fairfax County with a Post Office Address of Falls Church, Virginia. He is
also the principal architect and functions as the CEO or head of the
association-in-fact enterprise comprised of himself and the defendants Hien
Thi Ngo, Hung Ngoc Ngo as principals and chief operators with the other
defendants as knowing and willful participants and lesser operators and
participants. He is on the board also of the defendants Vietnamese Public
Radio and Committee for Religious Freedom in Vietnam or functions de
facto as a director in a situation where the board is not formally
maintained or disclosed. With the two defendants next listed and alleged he
organizes and controls the "command system" of the associated-in-fact
enterprise, with its patterns of racketeering activity, some of which, as
set out herein, affect the plaintiffs, and others of which, such as illegal
immigration schemes and defrauding the government on contracts, do not
affect the plaintiffs directly.
- Defendant Hien Thi Ngo is one of the top three operating
people and managers of the associated-in-fact enterprise whose actions are
complained of and is, or holds herself out as, the president and chairman of
the defendant Committee for Religious Freedom in Vietnam, Incorporated. Her
offices are at 8001 Bradley Boulevard, Bethesda, Maryland, where she
operates out of her home. She functions also as a board member or director
of the defendant Vietnam Public Radio, Inc. in a situation where the
selection of directors, if it exists, is not transparent and the
corporations operate as non-stock operations where there are not formal
rules or procedures. She is the sister of defendant Hung Ngoc Ngo and both
work closely with defendant Thanh Dinh Nguyen in the operation of his
enterprises as well.
- Defendant Hung Ngoc Ngo is one of the top three operating
people and managers of the associated-in-fact enterprise whose actions are
complained of and is the president and chairman of Vietnamese Public Radio,
Inc. His offices are at 2304 Westmoreland Avenue, Falls Church, Virginia. He
also functions as a director of defendant Committee for Religious Freedom in
Vietnam, Inc.
- Defendant Nguyen Hong Thai operates and participates in the
associated-in-fact enterprise of the defendants to assure that the campaigns
of intimidation and violence that are designed to prevent those such as the
plaintiffs from questioning and exposing the fraud and deceit practiced upon
them through interstate and foreign wire and mail by taking away their
property through baseless law suits which he directs and participates in
that are used to deprive those such as the plaintiffs of the resources to
combat the campaigns of intimidation which include threats of violence. He
is a director of defendant Committee for Religious Freedom in Vietnam or
functions as such de facto, as he does of the associated-in-fact
enterprise of the defendants.
- Defendant Tran Nghi Hoang joined and became an operator and participant
in the association-in-fact enterprise when it was formed to carry out a
campaign of intimidation with threats of violence in interstate and foreign
commerce by using his newspaper, the Le Phai (Vietnamese which translates to
English: "The Right") weekly newspaper, of which he is the owner and
operator, to publish articles and letters designed to cast the plaintiffs in
a "false light" and by doing so to stir up violence against the plaintiffs
which articles and/or letters then, under the direction of the heads of the
association-in-fact enterprise, would be read on the programs of the
defendant Vietnamese Public Radio, Inc., to target the plaintiffs and to
inflame the desire on the part of the Vietnamese language listeners and
readers to harm the plaintiffs in 22 states and the District of Columbia in
order to threaten the plaintiffs and others like them. He has continually
used his newspaper to echo the campaign of the defendants to defame the
plaintiffs and cast them in a false light before the public and will
continue to do so unless stopped by this action or other legal action.
- Defendant Le Phai, Inc., is a duly incorporated and
registered Virginia corporation that, under the ownership and control of the
defendant Tran Nghi Hoang, owns and publishes the Le Phai weekly newspaper.
It participates actively in the pattern of racketeering activity and other
torts alleged herein under the direction of the said defendant who in turn
reports and is directed by, in matters of the associated-in-fact enterprise
complained of, to the defendants Thang Dinh Nguyen, Hung Ngoc Ngo and Hien
Thi Ngo.
- Defendant Committee for Religious Freedom in Vietnam Inc.
("CRFV") is a corporation duly incorporated in Maryland but presently not in
good standing for failure to file a required annual form. It is both a
defendant in its own right herein and an instrumentality used by the
associated-in-fact enterprise complained of to further its pattern of
racketeering activity in interstate and foreign commerce. The defendant Hien
Thi Ngo is the president and chairman of the board of CRFV to the extent
that can be determined in non-transparent non-stock corporation. The
defendants Hung Ngoc Ngo, Thai H. Nguyen and Thang Dinh Nguyen are on its
Board of Directors and/or are held out to the public as so being on its
Board of Directors and/or are directors of CRFV’s affairs de facto.
This organization was not founded by the defendants, but rather by one
Reverend Nguyen Huu Le, a minister and monk. He and other religious monks
participated in CFRV at its outset, but then the defendants Thanh Dinh
Nguyen and Hien Thi Ngo took it over as part of the defendants’ pattern of
racketeering activity, in order to use the funds as they wished for their
private inurement. When Reverend Le began to question the use funds, the
defendants caused him to have to leave. He continued his activities on
behalf of religious freedom in Vietnam from Tampa, Florida with a new
organization, the International Committee for Religious Freedom in Vietnam,
whereupon the defendants, lest there be real help for the cause of religious
freedom in Vietnam, rather than their ersatz control of the issue, sued the
Reverend Le and launched a campaign of intimidation against him.
- Defendant Boat People S.O.S., Inc. (Boat People) is a
corporation incorporated in Virginia. It is both a defendant in its own
right herein and an instrumentality used by the associated-in-fact
enterprise complained of to further its pattern of racketeering activity in
interstate and foreign commerce. Defendant Thang Dinh Nguyen is the Chairman
of the Board and President of this corporate defendant as it is held out to
the public and so far as it can be determined.
- Defendant Vietnamese Public Radio, Inc. (VPR) is a
corporation incorporated in Virginia. It is both a defendant in its own
right herein and an instrumentality used by the associated-in-fact
enterprise complained of to further its pattern of racketeering activity in
interstate and foreign commerce. Defendant Hung Ngoc Ngo is the President
and Chairman of this corporate defendant. His sister, the defendant Hien Thi
Ngo, and the defendant Thanh Dinh Nguyen participate heavily in the
operation and planning of VPR’s activities and function as its directors,
along with others, such as defendant Nguyen Hong Thai. VPR is the primary
instrumentality of the associated-in-fact enterprise whereby the defendants
commit wire and mail fraud, incite and enable interstate threats, including
threats of violence, use the funds illegally derived from their racketeering
activity to engage in further illegal activity and predicate acts to harm
those such as the plaintiffs who dare to question the defendants’ use of the
funds that they solicit and to launder funds and otherwise commit illegal
acts.
- Defendant John Doe #1 is the individual, real name not
presently known to plaintiffs, who, under the pen name Le Minh Ngoc, wrote a
letter to defendant Le Phai newspaper dated May 25, 2002 (or so defendants
claim) as part of a planned predicate act in which the letter was then used
as the basis for a broadcast on defendant VPR to attack and threaten the
plaintiffs, whic letter was then reused repeatedly in programs, week after
week. For example, on September 2, 2004, it was used in a broadcast again
with different call-ins and embellishments. And this repeated on or about
December 23, 2004. This particular letter, ostensibly of May 25, 2002, was
first sent to plaintiffs, who invited the writer to talk the matter over or
meet with them, but the writer did not respond to the plaintiffs’ invitation
and refused to meet with the individual plaintiff. The letter was merely a
pretext for the defendants to then use in their fundraising wire and mail
fraud with the plaintiffs as target, for their threats in interstate
commerce against the plaintiffs as a target and their use of their funds
illegally gained to "hurt" and target the plaintiffs.
- Defendant John Doe #2 is the individual, real name presently
unknown to the plaintiffs, who, under the pen name Le Tam, writes and
publishes articles, as part of the plan of the defendants, on the website
internet yahoo/thaoluan that attack and stir up threats against the
defendants, defame them and cast them in a false light before the
Vietnamese-language audience and public, which articles are then broadcast
on VPR as part of the pattern of racketeering activity of the defendants.
- John Doe defendants numbers 3 through 7, under the pen names
Huy Duc, Hoang Lan, Le Thi, Thanh Tin, and Hong Hanh, are participants and
operators in the associated-in-fact enterprise complained of. They are the
announcers and hosts on the broadcasts of defendant Vietnamese Public Radio
who encourage and incite listeners and callers in to participate in
intimidation of and threats of violence against the plaintiffs and work with
the other defendants as voices and/or guests on the broadcasts to many
states and the District of Columbia to that end.
- Defendants Huy Duc, Hoang Anh, Le Thi, Thanh Tin, and Hong
Hanh, are principals and operators in the pattern of racketeering and
conspiracy complained of as hosts and announcers on VPR programs attacking
the plaintiffs who participate in the inciting of threats of violence that
are then acted upon against those who question the fraud complained of.
- Together these defendants are referred to collectively as
"defendants."
- As used in this complaint, the term "defendant" includes all
predecessor and successor entities to the named defendants.
- Each defendant corporation is sued individually as a primary
violator and as an instrumentality participating and operating in the
racketeering activities of the associated-in-fact enterprise of the
individual defendants. In so acting and operating as a primary violator and
in the racketeering activities of the associated-in-fact enterprise of the
individual defendants each defendant acted with an awareness of the fraud
and the threats of violence against the plaintiffs and the other wrongful
conduct complained of. Each defendant nonetheless rendered substantial
participation in carrying out the operation of the fraud, threats of
violence and other wrongful conduct and was aware of its overall
contribution to the conspiracy, scheme, and common course of wrongful
conduct alleged in this complaint, namely the deceit and misrepresentation
in soliciting funds and other things of value from the plaintiffs and others
similarly situated among the American Vietnamese community, the threats of
violence against the plaintiffs, the illegal use of illegally gained funds
to harm the plaintiffs through the instrumentalities of interstate and
foreign commerce and the operation and maintenance of their
associated-in-fact enterprise to harm the plaintiffs and others similarly
situated.
- Each individual defendant is sued individually as a primary
participating and operating in the racketeering activities of the
associated-in-fact enterprise of the individual defendants. In so acting and
operating as a primary violator and in the racketeering activities of the
associated-in-fact enterprise of the individual defendants each defendant
acted with an awareness of the fraud and the threats of violence against the
plaintiffs and the other wrongful conduct complained of. Each defendant
nonetheless rendered substantial participation in carrying out the operation
of the fraud, threats of violence and other wrongful conduct and was aware
of its overall contribution to the conspiracy, scheme, and common course of
wrongful conduct alleged in this complaint, namely the deceit and
misrepresentation in soliciting funds and other things of value from the
plaintiffs and others similarly situated among the American Vietnamese
community, the threats of violence against the plaintiffs, the illegal use
of illegally gained funds to harm the plaintiffs through the
instrumentalities of interstate and foreign commerce and the operation and
maintenance of their associated-in-fact enterprise to harm the plaintiffs
and others similarly situated.
- Each individual defendant is sued as a co-conspirator. The
liability of each individual arises from the fact that each entered into an
agreement with the other individual defendants and third parties to pursue,
and knowingly pursue, the common course of conduct to commit and participate
in the commission of all or part of the unlawful acts, plans, schemes,
transactions and artifices to defraud and to intimidate, including the use
of violence and threats of violence, the laundering and use of funds alleged
in this complaint.
- Defendants did and continue to commit their acts of
racketeering against the plaintiffs and the other members of the Vietnamese
language community in America and defraud and threaten violence and launder
funds in the stream of commerce and pose a continuing threat that they will
continue into the indefinite future unless stopped by legal actions such as
this. They have performed such acts as were intended to and did defraud,
misuse interstate commerce, stir up and promote violence and threats of
violence and improperly and illegally launder funds. They have continually
caused tortious injury to the plaintiffs and others similarly situated in a
pattern interwoven with such actionable predicate acts.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
- This Court has jurisdiction over this subject matter under the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1964 (a)
and (c), 1965(a) and the Constitution of the United States.
- This Court has venue because one of the plaintiffs is located
in this jurisdiction, and the other was doing business here during pertinent
times; a number of the defendants are located in this jurisdiction, many of
the acts complained of took place in whole or in part in this jurisdiction,
including particularly the baseless law suits against the plaintiffs and
others similarly situated, and all of the acts complained of extended into
this jurisdiction over the wires and airwaves in the broadcasts complained
of. Many witnesses are located in this jurisdiction and many others are in
neighboring jurisdictions. The scheme and pattern of racketeering activity
complained of was devised in major part in this jurisdiction and in
substantial part executed in this jurisdiction as one state among the many
in which it was executed. This jurisdiction has, over all more connection
with that activity than any other single state. All defendants have
transacted their business and acts complained of in this District for the
purposes of the venue provisions of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1965(a).
COMPOSITION OF VIETNAMESE LANGUAGE MEDIA MARKET AND INDUSTRY
IN THE UNITED STATES
- At all relevant times, the individual defendants Thang Dinh Nguyen, Hien
Thi Ngo, and Hung Ngoc Ngo, and those working with them in their
associated-in-fact enterprise, have sought to dominate the narrow market for
Vietnamese language media in the United States through the use of the
instrumentality of the defendant Vietnamese Public Radio, Inc.
- They operate through their instrumentalities, Committee for
Religious Freedom in Vietnam, Inc., headed by defendant Hien Thi Ngo, and
Boat People S.O.S., Inc., headed by defendant Thang Dinh Nguyen, as well as
Vietnamese Public Radio, Inc. to give a veneer of being solely for the
public good, with no profit accruing to themselves, with constant
solicitations for donations and funds over the multi-state broadcasting
system of VPR to create the impression of being solely for the good of the
community from which they receive no profit or remuneration. In reality they
reap large profits from a number of fraudulent schemes of private inurement
out of the donations that they solicit and receive through commingling of
funds, laundering of funds, diversion of funds from the stated purposes that
they use to raise the funds and otherwise use the funds to maintain and
operate their enterprises to harm any who dare to seek accountability from
them, verification of their claims, or even question what happens to the
proceeds of their solicited donations.
- The Vietnamese language media market in the United States is
small, perhaps 1.2 million nationwide. Even in an important metro area such
as this Washington, D.C. area, it numbers no more than seventy-five
thousand. It is a relatively isolated market for historic reasons: the
Vietnamese community here is by and large an émigré community comprised of
those who stood with us in the Vietnam War and then had to leave because
they did so. They remember how, starting with the Tet offensive, their and
our victories, fighting side by side, were cast by our media as defeats. The
Vietnamese community in America, therefore, looks to its own media for most
of its news, not trusting completely our main stream media.
- Yet there are a large number of Vietnamese language
newspapers in every Vietnamese metro area, all of them small, and mostly
surviving by paid advertising aimed at the Vietnamese language community. In
this metro area of Washington, D.C., for example, there are 13 Vietnamese
language newspapers.
- By reaching into many states through the defendant VPR the
defendants are able to dominate in such a narrow market as, in the days of
only three major nationwide regular broadcast networks, CBS, NBC, and ABC,
the mainstream networks could dominate. According to VPR’s website, it
broadcasts or relays in 20 cities nationwide and reaches at least 24 cities.
It reaches Washington, D.C., Maryland, including Baltimore, Virginia, and
has locations in Wichita, KS, Atlanta, GA, Tampa Bay, FL, Austin, TX, St.
Louis, MO, Kansas City, KS, Boston, MA, Portland, OR, Philadelphia, PA, New
Orleans, LA, Grand Rapids, MI, Denver CO, Oklahoma City, OK, Baton Rouge LA,
Louisville, KY, Biloxi, MS, Seattle WA, Dallas TX, and Lincoln NE. The VPR
broadcast system also reaches audiences in Arizona, California, New York,
Connecticut, and New Jersey. No other Vietnamese language media has this
kind of coordinated, nationwide reach and it is this reach upon which the
defendants impose their command structure.
- This market structure has enabled the defendants, in recent
years, and has facilitated them, in the planning, implementation, operation,
and funding, of a pattern of racketeering activity and conspiracy to conduct
the same, by posing as non-profit, do good entities while in reality reaping
large and handsome private inurements for the three principal heads of the
defendants’ associated-in-fact enterprise and engaging in the pattern of
racketeering complained of in this complaint.
NATURE OF CONSPIRACY AND ASSOCIATED-IN-FACT ENTERPRISE
ACTIVITY
- This action claims damages arising out of an ongoing conspiracy by the
primary actors and defendants Thang Dinh Nguyen, Hien Thi Ngo and Hung Ngoc
Ngo and the other defendants and third parties working with them as well as
out of the pattern of racketeering exhibited by their associated-in-fact
enterprise. The goal of the conspiracy is to dominate the market for
Vietnamese language media to serve as a vehicle for a massive fraud
involving purported fundraising for ostensible charitable and Vietnamese
patriotic purposes through a fraudulent plan, scheme, design and effort in
which the interstate wire and broadcast capabilities of VPR were used to
solicit money, public relations and other valuable items and services by
fraud and deceit, the money to be mailed and/or wired to them and their
controlled organizations in order that they might, as they have done,
commingle it and use it for their personal and other business purposes
without accountability.
- The named individual defendants have pursued a conspiracy of
deceit and misrepresentation against the plaintiffs and other
Vietnamese-speaking individuals and their businesses in the American
Vietnamese-speaking community. It is a conspiracy designed to deceive the
listening audience across America into giving money and other things of
value to the defendants and their defendant organizations for the ostensible
purpose of expanding religious freedom in Vietnam and contributing to
charities targeted at Vietnam in such a manner as to weaken the hold of
communism in Vietnam and to suppress those who are sympathetic to communism
and pose a threat to anti-communism. In reality the defendants are almost
completely ineffectual in achieving any of these purported goals because
they use the funds for other purposes than those they claim to espouse, such
as their own personal inurement, the capitalizing of businesses that they
own or that are owned by those with whom they are allied, to threaten those
who dare to question their use of proceeds or ask for accountability, and
for other illicit enterprises, such as fraudulent immigration assistance and
counseling, government contracting that does nothing to achieve what it
claims to achieve, and the like.
- Thus the conspiracy is two-fold. First they deceive the
public into giving them money and other things of value using their unique
nationwide status as having a network with reach into all the Vietnamese
speaking community in America and the mails, using the funds that they
receive for their personal inurement rather than the purposes they pronounce
in order to obtain it, then they use threats, including of violence, and
knowingly stir up violence against those who question them. They thus
deceive their fellow Vietnamese in America that they are doing something
against communism and the hated Vietnamese communist regime from which the
Vietnamese in America fled, and then, so strong is anti-communism, as they
know, amongst the Vietnamese language community here, that they falsely
accuse any who question them of being communist in order to willfully
provoke violence and a continuing threat of violence against any who so
threaten them.
- This constant campaign of misrepresentation on the one hand,
and intimidation and the promoting of anti-Communist feelings leading to
threats of violence and attempted violence by Vietnamese in America against
Vietnamese in America on the other is designed to deceive and confuse the
Vietnamese language audience in America and then to intimidate and confuse
them further about the use of the moneys which the defendants trick the
Vietnamese listening audience into giving by using the money to intimidate
those who question what happens to the money under the further deceit and
fraud of labeling those who question the use of proceeds as communists.
- The defendants count on the resulting public trust that the
create through their fraud and deception against the plaintiffs and those
similarly situated to misrepresent, suppress, and confuse accurate
information and reporting on who is actually helping the communists and
those who are actually seeking to do something to effectively combat the
communist government in Vietnam by seeking the truth about who is actually
doing something effective to help the people of Vietnam move out from under
Communism versus those who are only pretending to do something effective.
- These frauds, deceptions, and intimidations have the effect
of supplanting effective action and publishing by newspapers such as the
plaintiff newspaper and destroying competitive Vietnamese language media
such as the plaintiff newspaper by virtue of the fraud and deception taking
away readership and driving away the advertising on which most Vietnamese
language newspapers and other media depend.
- Thus, the retaliatory campaigns of intimidation, including
stirring up anti-Communist motivated violence against those who question the
use of funds raised by the fraud and deceit are themselves part of the
deceit. For those retaliated against are as anti-Communist as the rest of
the Vietnamese speaking community in America, but they are placed, through
the racketeering activities of the defendants, in the false light of being
Communist as part of the deception that the defendants are actually doing
something to bring about better, non-Communist government in Vietnam and
helping their fellow Vietnamese here through charitable efforts. To the
Vietnamese speaking community in America "Communist" is a concrete
defamation, not an abstract concept, and being placed in the false light of
being "Communist" when you are not is the most harmful thing that can be
done to you.
COUNT I
(Federal Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations
Act-Pattern of Racketeering Activity)
- Plaintiffs restate and incorporate all the preceding paragraphs of this
complaint.
- This claim for relief is asserted against each of the
defendants and arises under 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (c) as to all defendants and
also (d) as to the individual defendants among themselves as an
associated-in-fact enterprise.
- At all relevant times, each of the defendants was a "person"
within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1961(3), as each of the defendants was
"capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property."
- At all relevant times, the defendants Thang Dinh Nguyen, Hien
Thi Ngo, and Hung Ngoc Ngo led and directed an associated-in-fact
"enterprise" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4) that was constituted
of themselves, the other individual defendants and also the three corporate
defendants as their controlled instrumentalities. This associated-in-fact
enterprise is ongoing and it has an ascertainable structure with these three
as its directors and Thang Dinh Nguyen functioning as its chairman and the
other defendants having assigned and ascertainable roles within it. The
three corporate defendants are also "enterprises" within their own right.
These enterprises are ongoing and have purposes beyond the scope of the
predicate acts alleged in this complaint and beyond the conspiracy of the
defendants in forming and operating and maintaining this associated-in-fact
enterprise. The purpose and function of the main associated-in-fact
enterprise is to maximize the defendants’ control of Vietnamese-language
media in the United States and dominate fundraising in interstate and
foreign commerce in the Vietnamese language media markets and
correspondingly dominate allegedly charitable giving in the Vietnamese
language community in America for anti-Communist and purportedly charitable
purposes in this country and for Communist-controlled Vietnam and also to
dominate contacts between the Vietnamese language community and the wider
American community in a public relations sense, especially with members of
Congress and the non-Vietnamese language media. The three corporate
defendants as sub-enterprises participate as instrumentalities in this
effort. Each enterprise engages in, and its activities affect, interstate
and foreign commerce.
- Each defendant has been associated with this
associated-in-fact enterprise and has conducted or participated in its
operations and activities, directly or indirectly, through a pattern of
racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c). The three
defendants Thang Dinh Nguyen, Hien Thi Ngo, and Hung Ngoc Ngo, have directed
the associated-in-fact enterprise and the corporate defendants, each of
which is headed by one of them in such pattern of racketeering activity.
Defendants’ pattern of racketeering activity dates from at least 1998 and
continues to the present and will continue into the indefinite future unless
halted as a result of legal action. Defendants’ multiple predicate acts of
racketeering include:
- Mail and wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1343.
Defendants engaged and are continuing to engage in schemes to deceive and
defraud members of the Vietnamese language public in the United States.
These schemes have involved fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions
reasonably calculated to deceive the Vietnamese language public that listens
to the broadcast system of the defendant VPR in 22 states, deceiving
individuals that are persons of ordinary prudence and comprehension. They
also involve "lulling" and the suppression of the truth about the fraudulent
activities of the defendants. They execute these schemes by wire and radio
transmission in Interstate Commerce and by the United States mail.
- Defendant VPR’s broadcasts of programs by and about the defendant
Committee for Religious Freedom’s activities supposedly in assisting the
victims of flood relief in Vietnam and in helping religious figures there in
such efforts, broadcasts in which the defendant Thang and his company, Boat
People SOS, participated, communicated over the VPR broadcast system, were
designed to and did solicit funds, which were paid to VPR and CRFV by the
use of the U.S. mail and interstate wire communications to transfer credit,
pursuant to deceptions about what the defendants had in mind to do with the
funds and what they did do with the funds, a deception which they still
continue.
- Defendants’ programs directed toward individual
Vietnamese-speaking Americans such as the individual plaintiff, and small
businesses in the Vietnamese media market, such as the plaintiff bi-weekly
newspaper, were designed to solicit funds and favorable public relations and
press mention under false pretenses, as alleged, and in doing so to create a
dominance by the defendants of Vietnamese public language media on a
national basis, in every state where there is a sizeable Vietnamese-speaking
population. These broadcasts containing these deceptions are broadcast every
week three or four times and have been so broadcast for many years.
- The plaintiff Hoai Thanh was favorably impressed by these
broadcasts and gave donations, writing checks and giving cash in 1997 and
then from time to time up through 2000, and to the end of the year 2001 and
for a while afterwards and continued to be favorably impressed with what he
was led to believe were the good and charitable works of the defendants to
which the claimed they devoted "most" of the funds that they solicited and
received for the promoted good purposes. Hoai Thanh’s bi-weekly newspaper,
the plaintiff Dai Chung Bi-weekly Newspaper, gave the defendants favorable
mention in the writings it contained. Some of the defendants advertised in
the Dai Chung newspaper, advertising their supposed good works as part of
the deception, placing ads over the interstate wires and using the mail.
- In the early spring of 2001, however, the plaintiff Hoai Thanh
began to wonder about the use of the proceeds that they were raising by the
defendants, particularly their claim to have transmitted large sums of money
to Vietnam for assistance to flood victims there through the liason of one
Father Ly, a well known Catholic priest in Vietnam. In issue number 68 of
Dai Chung Bi-weekly Newspaper, published March 1, 2001, plaintiff Hoai Thanh
and his plaintiff newspaper raised the question for their Vietnamese
language readership in the Washington, D.C. interstate metro area and
nationwide in states such as Pennsylvania, of what was happening to the
funds that the defendants were raising through the CRFV programs on VPR
several times every week in which the defendants Thang Dinh Nguyen and Boat
People participated. They did so merely in a questioning manner and for many
months thereafter tried to work with the defendants to try and make the
public understand what was going on, still trying to support the defendants’
efforts in the hopes of giving the public a clearer understanding, including
accepting documents from the defendants that the defendants claimed would
support the defendants’ representations.
- As a result of that questioning in the plaintiff Dai Chung
newspaper, the defendants began a campaign through the CRFV and Boat People
broadcasting over VPR of "lulling" in which they sought to convince the
plaintiffs and others similarly situated in the American Vietnamese-speaking
population and among the local Vietnamese language publications in the many
states to which their broadcasts were transmitted that the defendants could
account for their use of funds that they had solicited and obtained by means
of wire, radio transmission and mail in interstate commerce. Plaintiffs
tried to cooperate with these efforts and only after a year or more had to
reluctantly conclude that these representations were a further
implementation of the defendants’ pattern of racketeering activity. The
defendants never did and could not account for their use of the funds for
the purposes that they falsely and fraudulently claimed that they were for
and the representations made over the interstate wire and radio that the
defendants could and had accounted for their use of the funds were a further
fraud of deception and omission using interstate wire, radio and mail.
Continuing the deception and omission with this "lulling" against the
plaintiffs and others similarly situated in the Vietnamese-speaking
community in America, the defendants raised further funds which came in by
U. S. mail and wiring of credit to the defendants to, as defendant Thai Hong
Nguyen put it, "hurt" those such as the plaintiffs who dared to question the
defendants’ use of funds.
- Ultimately the defendants carried this "lulling" to further
fool the Vietnamese-speaking community in the United States through their
broadcasts to the extent of filing baseless lawsuits against the plaintiffs
and others who questioned the defendants’ use of funds and then further
fraudulently claiming that they were winning these lawsuits when they were
not, misrepresenting what was happening in the courts in order to
fraudulently raise further funds by fraudulent misrepresentations and
omissions in order to "lull" the audience into believing that their false
representations and omissions were being vindicated in the courts.
- Defendants made false and fraudulent statements under oath and
penalty of perjury in these law suits and then broadcast these false and
fraudulent statements nationwide through the VPR system. The defendants
affirmatively denied their fraudulent representations and their failure to
use the funds they solicited and raised as they had represented they would
use the funds.
- Interference with commerce by threats or violence in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1951. As the plaintiffs persisted in questioning the use of funds
by the defendants contrary to the defendants’ representations in the
defendants’ interstate radio programs, the defendants initiated a campaign
of threats of violence and intimidation against the plaintiffs in a pattern
of racketeering activity that the defendants knew full well would lead to
attempts of violence against the plaintiff Hoai Thanh, as it did do.
- Repeatedly, week after week, month after month, year after year and
right up to the present, the defendants broadcast through the VPR system
indicating that the plaintiffs were communists. In the context of the
Vietnamese language community here in the U.S., this is not an abstraction
but a concrete defamation among those who fought communism, bled and died in
doing so, saw their country of birth taken over by a brutal communist regime
and have witnessed atrocities against their country and its people ever
since. The constant accusation of being a communist can cause intimidation
and violence as defendants well know.
- In one of a thousand examples, in a broadcast over VPR October 6, 2001,
while other defendants were still purporting to be working with the
plaintiffs to clarify matters for the Vietnamese public and support their
claims, the defendant Huy Duc set a tone, saying:
"You will see the communist flag in this newspaper.
As far as we know, it is probably copied from the Communist Quan Doi
Nhan Dan newspaper and a communist website. That’s why there is a
Vietnamese communist flag. Perhaps you will understand where the truth
is. Please read those pages.
These comments and others in the broadcast elicited
comments from callers in in the Vietnamese language such as: "To tell you
the truth, if those people [plaintiff Hoai Thanh and his newspaper
personnel] lived next to my house, I might have stabbed them to death."
Another comment was: "If I were you they would not get out of my house.
After their being knocked out in my house, I would have police pull their
body out." Defendant Hung Ngic Ngo and defendant Hien Thi Ngo participated
in this broadcast as the hosts also, prompting and eliciting these threats
of violence. A caller suggested not going after the plaintiff newspaper, to
which a host responded: "Do you think we should surrender or defeat
communism?"
- These representations were all false and known to defendants to be
false. In fact the plaintiff Hoai Thanh served in the Vietnam War against
the communists in the army of the late, lamented Republic of South Vietnam.
He was an intelligence officer working closely with the American military as
a liaison. The plaintiff newspaper, by any objective standard, has been
anti-Communist in its content throughout its existence.
- The aim of the defendants is to supplant and displace those
like the plaintiffs who are publishing and working against communism in
their work in the Vietnamese community with a fraudulent version of
anti-communist activities that is a cover for their personal power and
inurement.
- In a further attempt to stir up threats against the plaintiff Hoai
Thanh, the defendants also broadcast week after week, month after month,
year after year, purported documents setting out fraudulent
misrepresentations and omissions about the plaintiff Hoai Thanh in his
personal businesses other than the defendant newspaper. On September 2,
2004, for example, the defendants broadcast a purported letter saying that
plaintiff Thanh had defrauded and cheated innocent Vietnamese business
people in America of tens of thousands of dollars. The representations were
false, known to be false and were deliberately misleading. They repeated
this broadcast on or around December 23, 2005 and again shortly after
Christmas.
- Here is an actual broadcast transcript from some broadcasts:
Operator: Good evening, Vietnam Radio Overseas listeners. My
name is Ngo Ngoc Hung. [Defendant Hung Ngoc Ngo] Today we would like to provide
you with the correspondence response program, Sunday, October 21, 2001. Tonight
we have a lot of important things to share with you. Please stay tuned. First of
all, we sincerely thank audience members who have been donating to the station
and who offer continued support by sending us their comments. You will be
receiving a thank you letter from us this week.
UM1: About this daily newspaper, I think you already know
that there is only 1 part that we would like you take a look at: page 27, Print
No. 71. There is the list of the formal delegates visiting Vietnam with Mr.
Nguyen Tuan. You will see the communist flag in this newspaper. As far as we
know, it is probably copied from the Communist Quan Doi Nhan Dan
newspaper and a Communist website. That’s why there is a Vietnamese
communist flag. Perhaps you will understand where the truth is. Please read
those pages.
Sorry, please wait for a second.
The reason why we had some trouble responding to you is the
amount of money for flood relief in central Vietnam. Almost the whole amount has
been sent to the current leaders in Vietnam, who perform excellent social
activities as well as a very high merit of fighting. They are listed as follows:
First, farther Nguyen van Ly, Superior monk Thich Thai Hoa, farther Giai,
farther Loi and the sisters and the Buddhist charity groups. As you know, even
though people like farther Ly and farther Giai experienced some difficulties at
that time, they were still able to perform social activities. However, up till
now, their fighting has not been strong enough. Therefore, we also expected some
suspects in the flood relief issue. This was what we did wrong during the period
of flood relief. If you have the flood relief document, you will see page No.
T16. When opening this page, you will see the posted date of March 27, 2000. The
Committee of Freedom Religious (CFR) has sent to farther Ly (You will see:
Nguyen Van Ly, Hue, Vietnam and the account number) the amount of $31,000
(please open the document), which was wire-transferred from the bank of the CRFV
to farher. Ly’s bank account, which is Vietcombank, 46 Hung vuong, Hue, Viet
nam, and the account of farther Nguyen Van Ly as well. That was our mistake,
because in the United States of America when you sign an over-$10,000 check, the
check will be investigated. The reason for this law is that they want people of
notorious background, especially "money launderers", which means that they send
their money from one bank to another. Therefore any amount of over $10,000 must
be sent through this system. That was the mistake of the CRFV.
UF1: Hello.
UM2: Yes, I’m listening.
UF1: Hello, I have a comment. I live in Boston. I turned 70
this year. I have heard what you said on the radio about sabotage and I have a
question about the amount. It is said that "don’t let your left hand know the
charity done by the right hand" [a Vietnamese idiom]. How much did those people
donate while they keep sabotaging? Mrs. Ngo Thi Hien works for the community . .
. It is said not to share the same language. Most of the times they call the
radio station to ask for help in everything. I think those people could have
been sent here by Viet Cong to commit sabotage. "Receive benefit from the state
but worship the communism" [fixed expression]. You should not be dependent on
them. Vietnamese people living here are all anti-communists, not just a few
individuals. Therefore you don’t have to hold talks with them to be truthful and
upright. Being truthful and upright is a matter for hundreds or thousands of
people, not just for them. Put them aside. To tell you the truth, if those
people lived next to my house, I might have stabbed them to death.
Operator: Thank you very much.
UM2: My name is Minh. Good evening Ms. Ngo Thi Hien.
[defendant Hien Thi Ngo] I have been with the station for quite a long time and
I know that you have made a great contribution. I would like to make a
suggestion about bringing an action against Dai Chung newspaper. I think
you shouldn’t do that because what we did is for justice and Dai Chung
newspaper is the unfounded saboter, supported by the domestic Communists.
Mrs. Ngo Thi Hien: Mr. Minh, pardon me for interrupting you
here. Do you think we should surrender or defeat communism? In Vietnam, we can
surrender to communism because there is no law but the law of the jungle, but
here we need money. I don’t think it will become the second O.J. Simpson.
Mrs. Ngo Thi Hien: October 6, 2001.
What can we do while South of Vietnam is getting worse and
worse? Two difficult years have resulted in extreme poverty amoung the poor,
taking the lives of many innocent citizens, especially of ill-fated children. In
the spirit of "blood is thicker than water" [Literally, means "if the blood is
split, the gut turns soft"], we appeal to your charitable hearts, who wish to
mollify some of the poverty, misery and calamity descending to our
consanguineous people. You may wish to send a check to: Vietnamese Committee of
Free Religion, P.O Box 342111. MD 20827. All donations for flood relief to
Committee of Free Religion are tax exempted.
We really appreciate it.
Best regards,
UF3: Mr. Banh, from Maryland.
Mr. Banh: Good evening Ms. Hien, Ms. Hoang Lan and the
audience of the Vietnam Radio Overseas. Dai Chung newspaper has
criticized the donation of relief and has sabotaged the Radio of the Free
Vietnamese behind the radio announcer’s back, such as Ms. Ngo Thi Hien, has
barred our voice and jobs. I have told Dai Chung newspaper...this is an
application of the law of the jungle like that of the Viet Cong. Many people
complainted that Mrs. Hien is as gentle in her character as her name [Hien means
"Gentle" in Vietnamese]. What a pity that you are so courteous. If I were
you, they would not get out of my house. After their being knocked out in my
house, I would have police pull their body out. And this sabotage is to
stifle our voice and bar our relief fund in the future. From this, our
fellow-citizens can see the purpose of Dai Chung newspaper. I think the
fellow countrymen and the audiences will support the words of anti-communists.
Mrs. Ngo Thi Hien: Good evening.
Now Mr. Hien, please. Good evening, Mr. Hien.
Mr. Hien: Yes. Good evening Mrs. Ngo Thi Hien, Ms. Minh and
others at the station. I think that what Mr. Sinh just said was unfounded. Since
we are in Tesla, we don’t know what rag Dai Chung newspaper is. Honestly,
we did not know anything until we heard from the radio. Do you know which state
that newspaper is based in? The way they combat is quite a sabotage. According
to your station, they have strong support. perhaps they have a lot of money to
hire an attorney, as in Kim Xuan’s case. I would also like it if audiences would
support the station so that it can have an attorney bring an action against/sue
them. Otherwise they represent a group of people. It means that we fight against
communism and they are against us, so it means they are some force. We also
expect that the audience will support our legislation fund to bring them to
court. Bye.
Mrs. Ngo Thi Hien: Thank you very much. We think that if we
give our hands, we must believe that we will win.
Ms. Nam, please.
Ms. Nam: I’m Nam in Boston. Good evening, Mrs. Hien. Good
evening, everyone and all...
Mrs. Ngo Thi Hien:
Ms. Nam, turn off the radio please!
Ms. Nam: I think that Dai Chung newspaper did that one
purpose. It means that they have a strong support. That’s why they have done it.
If we sue them, will we win? What if they have a huge financial support from a
nation? They could prove black is white. We still don’t know their real ability.
What Mrs. Hien has done is right. But when black is proven to be white, it will
be clear who gave that amount to them. They are against the radio station,
meaning that they are against all Vietnamese nationals, but not only Mrs. Hien,
Mr.Ngo Ngoc Hung or anyone working at the station. That’s all I have to say.
Mrs. Ngo Thi Hien: Thank you Ms. Nam. Ladies and gentlemen,
honestly the comments sent to us are right. We believe that we have to contend
with a force, which is stronger than us. We have lost our country. If we want to
get it back, we must have resistance. Do not think that we can lose, just let it
be. We will try and we promise you that if you agree and support us, we will
bring glorious victory to stamp out the old shame. If we let them win, not only
will this committee of religion be wiped out but also hundreds of other people.
Then what will be our nationals’ voice? Next will be Mr. Minh.
Mrs. Ngo Thi Hien: My name is Minh. Good evening Mrs. Ngo Thi
Hien. I have been with the station for quite a long time and I know that you
have made a great contribution. I would like to make a suggestion about bringing
an action against Dai Chung newspaper. I think you shouldn’t do that
because what we did is for justice and Dai Chung newspaper is the
unfounded saboteur, supported by the domestic Communists.
Mrs. Ngo Thi Hien: Mr. Minh, pardon me for interrupting you
here. Do you think we should surrender or defeat communism? In Vietnam, we can
surrender to communism because there is no law but the law of the jungle, but
here we need money. I don’t think it will become the second O.J. Simpson. We
don’t think so. O.J. Simpson has been supported by those who have the same color
skin as them. But here, we must know that we are Vietnamese nationals. Communism
was lucky or indebted to some miscreants who took over our Vietnam. But someday
we must defeat them. We must defeat them completely. In the meantime we say that
we will lose, then, if we don’t take action, when we could get our country back.
Mr. Banh: Good evening, Mrs. Hien, Ms. Hoang Lan and the
audience of the Vietnamese Public Radio. I’m Banh, from Maryland State. Dai
Chung newspaper, criticizing the donation of relief and sabotaging the Radio
of Free Vietnamese behind the radio station’s back has barred our voice and our
jobs. I have told Mr. Hoai Thanh’s Dai Chung newspaper that this is an
application of the law of the jungle like the Viet Cong did. Many people
complained that Mrs. Hien is so gentle in her character as her name [Hien means
"Gentle" in Vietnamese]. What a pity that you are so courteous. If I were you,
they could not get out of my house. After their being knocked out in my house, I
would have police pull their body out. And this sabotage is to stifle our voice
and bar out relief fund in the future. From this, our fellow-citizens can see
the purpose of Dai Chung newspaper. I think the fellow countrymen and the
audiences will support the words of anti-communists. And Ms. Hien should help
our fellow citizens to fight for our future and for our unhappy people in
Vietnam. We should do something and Dai Chung Newspaper’s reporters
should do something for our unhappy Vietnamese in the home land. We have seen
clearly what Dai Chung Newspaper has done. That’s all.
Mrs. Ngo Thi Hien: Thank you Mr. Banh very much. Thank you to
all of you who want to express your comments. But it is getting late now. We
really appreciate those who called in to convey their accurate opinions and
comments. Though some of you thought that they were so strong while we are weak,
we should not bring them to court. We will leave this for you to comment. We are
in a weak position, so we must do something to improve our position...so that we
can win, do you agree? We have here some of you who can support, but those who
still have other issues to be concerned about, please spiritually support us. To
that extent we feel happy to continue our job in the future. See you again. Once
again, the address of the Vietnam Committee of Free Religion is: P.O Box 342111.
MD 20827. Thank you very much.
...it was so shameless to bang his fist on the table and ask
for the records. When we wrote a press release requesting you not to get close
to our house, you responded by writing an article with the title "Madam
President of the Vietnam Committee of Free Religion needs to study American
laws". At that time, you adduced a law. Since we are not aware of the
legislation system, we had to consult with some attorneys. It seems that none of
them know about your so called [...] law. We found that you are so aware of
laws. So we had to ask our attorney to bring actions against you and request the
court order you not to come near our house and office. We hope that you have a
chance to talk to the judge about your [Sunshine?] law.
Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Hoai Thanh forgot his law book at
home, so as soon as he got into the court, he asked the attorney to inform us
that he had surrendered and would comply with our requirements and never come to
our office.
Ladies and Gentlemen, let me raise a question: Is there
anything worthy of complaint in a case of having got what was wanted without
spending a minute in court? Our attorney still hadn’t agreed while Mr. Hoai
Thanh had stated conditions. Do you know what were the conditions? They were
that the Committee of Free Religion has to promise not to broadcast on air that
he lost this time. Yes, you did not hear by mistake. Mr. Thanh surrendered and
promised likely not to come to our house and office with the condition that we
have to keep this case confidential and not to talk on the radio so that people
can know that he surrendered.
UF5: Mrs. Hien, you have talked about Mr. Hoai Thanh so far.
I was wondering when you saw Mr. Hoai Thanh, were you afraid?
Mrs. Ngo Thi Hien: My impression was that he came here
without an appointment. My house is located in a relatively large area. The
distance between houses is wide, so an appointment needs to be arranged. Only
the postman or a ticket deliveryman do not need appointments. So the image of
him giving me a pile of documents and banging on my table to ask me to give him
this and that makes us feel scared everytime the doorbell is rung. This morning
when we met him at court, we did not dare to look at him. This fear can be
compared to Nam Anh’s fear of a caterpillar or a snake. For example, we are
scared of being bitten by a tiger, but a tiger is bigger and stronger than us,
we must say. In case we find that a caterpillar is so descpicable, but we are
still scared of it and we don’t want to get close to it. That’s what I am really
afraid of from now until the court date and when I see Mr. Hoai Thanh. This fear
will never be forgotten for the rest of my life. So to answer Nam Anh’s
question: I am really scared. But have you ever seen a caterpillar on your skin?
UF5: (Smile)
Operator:
Now, for the rest of our time, we would like t |
