> Thorn,
>
> Yes, vp can sue but Uncle Sam luagntxhi xwb os. Uncle sam will try to
> stall and delay and use all kinds of legal maneuver making sure vp's
> coffer is empty to the legal process and his lawyer(s), and making
> sure he is broke during the process. Go ahead but if vp choose that
> route, will just cut his own throat. I don't think he and his
> followers will be so thrill about doing that. Teev.. have already
> pointed that out sometimes ago.
>
> Noj

> for failing to stop him from doing resistance involvment to topal the
> lpd long time ago. Kuv yog vp mas hais tsis hais los yeej txhaum lawm
> ces kuv ho tig sue the us government vim lawv yog cov failure to stop
> my over sea kujxaj. Tej hauj lwm no tsis yog US government tsis paub,
> lawv yeej paub ntev lo lawm tias vp ua kas moos qab rooj mus tople ldp
> and collect money from the Hmoob ssi recipients since the 80s, in fact
> many senators and local politician even turn blind eye to supoort his
> activity, yog li ntawd vp yuav tsum sue lawv ib yam li cov smoker sue
> the tobacco company.

> On Jul 8, 4:03 pm, Nojnkhawb yahoo.com> wrote:
>

>> Thorn,

>

>> Yes, vp can sue but Uncle Sam luagntxhi xwb os. Uncle sam will try to
>> stall and delay and use all kinds of legal maneuver making sure vp's
>> coffer is empty to the legal process and his lawyer(s), and making
>> sure he is broke during the process. Go ahead but if vp choose that
>> route, will just cut his own throat. I don't think he and his
>> followers will be so thrill about doing that. Teev.. have already
>> pointed that out sometimes ago.

>

>> Noj

>
> I suppose VP can do that, but at the same time you may want to
> consider that by so doing VP will be implicating himself and proving
> his guilt. Better for VP to let the court process takes its course
> and see if he has a chance to get off. As for suing others, I have no
> doubt there were high-ups that pushed him to pursue a democratic Laos, ...

> On Jul 8, 7:45 pm, yaj vam xeeb yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

>> On Jul 8, 4:03 pm, Nojnkhawb yahoo.com> wrote:

>

>>> Thorn,

>

>>> Yes, vp can sue but Uncle Sam luagntxhi xwb os. Uncle sam will try to
>>> stall and delay and use all kinds of legal maneuver making sure vp's
>>> coffer is empty to the legal process and his lawyer(s), and making
>>> sure he is broke during the process. Go ahead but if vp choose that
>>> route, will just cut his own throat. I don't think he and his
>>> followers will be so thrill about doing that. Teev.. have already
>>> pointed that out sometimes ago.

>

>>> Noj ...

> On Jul 8, 7:24 pm, teev...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

>> On Jul 8, 7:45 pm, yaj vam xeeb yahoo.com> wrote:

>

>>> On Jul 8, 4:03 pm, Nojnkhawb yahoo.com> wrote:

>

>>>> Thorn,

>

>>>> Yes, vp can sue but Uncle Sam luagntxhi xwb os. Uncle sam will try to
>>>> stall and delay and use all kinds of legal maneuver making sure vp's
>>>> coffer is empty to the legal process and his lawyer(s), and making
>>>> sure he is broke during the process. Go ahead but if vp choose that
>>>> route, will just cut his own throat. I don't think he and his
>>>> followers will be so thrill about doing that. Teev.. have already
>>>> pointed that out sometimes ago. ...

> I believe that VP should consider a counter lawsuit against the US.
> Sometime the best defense is a good offense. Let me explain. The US is
> charging VP with a violation of the Neutrality Act. Thirty years ago the
> a few men in the US government also violated the Neutrality Act by
> engaging in an arm insurgency in Lao. In the process these men also broke
> numerous other US and International laws.
>
> Article 6 paragraph 2 of the US Constitutions states that a violation of
> any International Treaty in which the US is a signatory is a violation of
> the supreme law of the land. The
> US should be charged with War crimes and Crime against Peace under the
> Principles of
> The Nuremberg Tribunal, 1950, and the Geneva Convention, which the US is a
> signatory. They violated these laws by engaging in a covert war.
>
> In addition, the US should also be charged for Violating of the War Crime
> act of 1996.
> 18 U.S.C. 118. This Act was passed by congress with the intention to
> prosecute the Vietnamese for war crimes against US servicemen. This Act ...

> I believe that VP should consider a counter lawsuit against the US.
> Sometime the best defense is a good offense. Let me explain. The US is
> charging VP with a violation of the Neutrality Act. Thirty years ago the
> a few men in the US government also violated the Neutrality Act by
> engaging in an arm insurgency in Lao. In the process these men also broke
> numerous other US and International laws.
>
> Article 6 paragraph 2 of the US Constitutions states that a violation of
> any International Treaty in which the US is a signatory is a violation of
> the supreme law of the land. The
> US should be charged with War crimes and Crime against Peace under the
> Principles of
> The Nuremberg Tribunal, 1950, and the Geneva Convention, which the US is a
> signatory. They violated these laws by engaging in a covert war.
>
> In addition, the US should also be charged for Violating of the War Crime
> act of 1996.
> 18 U.S.C. 118. This Act was passed by congress with the intention to
> prosecute the Vietnamese for war crimes against US servicemen. This Act ...