Re: To Tou Ly Canada, Re: your offer

Cha,

No matter how you try to spin it, and you're not very good at it, your
stink of purposeful malice is obvious. You even said that some of the
Lynhiavu members, including Ly Tou (TseemYeej) would be "court
martialled" had the Royal Lao Gov't won. For what reason(s) or
crime(s), I haven't got the slightest clue. Maybe you can elaborate
further on it.

Anyhow, forget about Quincy. He's just a guy that writes down nonsense
from uninformed people. You're more adamant about Lyteck's guilt than
he is. Why don't you put forth an effort to actually open the case? Go
ahead and bring in all the "witnesses," including yours. Create a
committee, tribunal, or whatever. The Lynhiavu family will be there.
This is your ultimate chance to undermine them, especially
TseemYeej... But as we know you won't. You'll just claim all sorts of
nonsense, like your brother. Now I know for sure my uncle's right
about Txam.

Tou Ly



On Mar 26, 1:31 pm, "Ncaimtseemnco" <gold3...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Nyob zoo tus tilaug Teev,

Hais txog lub topic no kuv twb muab tso tseg lawm kuv yuav tsis los
tham ntxiv lawm. Tab sis kuv thov los teb koj cov lus xwb.

Since Ncaimtsemnco claims himself a juror in the case

Teev, koj twb yog peb Hmoob ib tug muaj laj lim tswv yim, muaj kev
ntxawj ntsej thiab muaj business zoo thiab los siav cas zoo li koj ci
tsis twm kuv cov posts kom koj to taub tso es koj mam los teb mas.
Please go back to read my first post above. I have never claimed to
be a juror. To makeTouto understand my position, I simply put the
Hin Heup case as an example of a jury trial case where I would fall
into the jury position just to show him that I am a neutral person.

> allegedly involving LyTek at Hin Heup and as a juror he has
received overwhelming evidence in court testimonies to establish mea
culpae against Lytek

Teev, to get what I said, you have to go back to read all my posts
from the beginning. I have never said the overwhelming evidences and
witnesses were presented to me in court officially. When I talked
about evidences and witnesses, I referred them to those in Quincy's
books, the tape we just heard, the testimonies from the two witnesses
I personally interviewed and from many of the Hmong persons that we
have heard all along.

I would like you both to challenge
Ncaimtseemnco on the basis of (1) the evidence credentials

Teev, I am glad you brought this up. This holds the key to my
argument and my belief on this topic. Although I have never said my
evidences and witnesses were presented in court officially, I do have
my own belief (freedom of speech/belief by the law of this country)
that the evidences and witneses I have read about in Quincy's books,
the two witnesses I interviewed and the many testismonies from many
Hmong persons to be more credential than the words ofLyTeck's family
members alone. Why?
VALIDATION. Quincy wrote them down in his books and published them
and sell his books throughout the world without any offical
challenges. To me, this is validate. The testimonies of my two
witnesses and the testimonies from many Hmong persons out there are
not officially, but overwhelming.

Now let's look atLyTeck's side. Yes, all the family members did say
a lot, but where are their alibis and where are the official documents
published, notarized, or swore under oath. Nothing except words
themselves.

Now as far as your challenge goes, don't come to me. You need to
challenge Quincy. I have said this before and I say it again. If you
can make Quincy to write his books, then you don't need to say nothing
to me. I will simply and gladly change my belief.

Tso tseg li no xwb. Kuv yuav tsis tham ntxiv lawm.


.

Relevant Pages