Jackie Singh / Jacqueline Singh / Jacqueline Anne Stokes / Jax / @find_evil / HackingButLegal / @HackingButLegal / piggytomlinson - Cybersecurity "expert," wannabe journoscum, former "hacker"; gunt guards Patrick Tomlinson, currently picking a fight with ONA Forums, GNAA Groupie

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
bortherman said:
From the OnA site:

Alleged Mental status evaluation from Army:
Click to expand...

Does this evaluation even fall under conventional medical protections? This is a decade before the Brandon Act which did specifically focus on mental health protections, so that's out. Was this somehow part of a FOIA request, or just sitting on a server somehow available? I just want an actual origin for it, instead of taking someone at their word. Discharge papers can be found sure, but medical information?
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: SpiceyHuman, Haloperidol, Not a bee and 8 others
YarrBlueballs said:
Does this evaluation even fall under conventional medical protections? This is a decade before the Brandon Act which did specifically focus on mental health protections, so that's out. Was this somehow part of a FOIA request, or just sitting on a server somehow available? I just want an actual origin for it, instead of taking someone at their word. Discharge papers can be found sure, but medical information?
Click to expand...
Brandon Act or not I would think HIPAA still applies so this shouldn't be part of routine paperwork available to the public. We got three takes from this: a) someone fucked up and released it by accident, probably some kinda HIPAA violation (law kiwis..?); b) someone got it somehow and has released it maliciously; c) it's bullshit.
 
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Agree
Reactions: SpiceyHuman, Haloperidol, Not a bee and 9 others
Mikoyan said:
This is a presumably real but model 699-R (same revision but from ca. 2009) taken from a DoD document:
View attachment 6937414

Materially similar, but different in form and without-typos. It could be explained by 'aw crap out of the nutcase forms, hey can you remake this' while in country but that would be irregular and keeps the doubt going for me.
Click to expand...

If there are blank versions of this form available with a fairly straightforward search, why would someone bother recreating a whole-ass form for the purposes of faking one, and making a typo? The typo being evidence that the form is fake doesn't pass Occam's Razor.

Ace888Ace said:
I was just about to upload that myself. You can make the argument that this document is from 2005, which is after the form we're looking at was issued so it may have changed between now and then, but my thinking was that "May 99" in "MEDCOM FORM 699-R MCHO MAY 99" indicates the last date the form was revised, and as such this is what the form should look like. Coming up with an approximation of the form would explain the typos, I feel. If we could find something from (preferably immediately) prior to February 2004, that would be strong evidence for or against.
Click to expand...

Ace888Ace said:
The most notable discrepancy between the two forms is the mention of Army Regulation 635-200 in the Remarks section of the one you posted, which is absent in the other version (which is just a blank box). That regulation has been revised twice in the timeframe we really care about, on July 15 2004 and June 6 2005. This might mean the form you posted is genuinely a different one, as the updated regulation might well mandate its inclusion on Form 699-R
Click to expand...
So if I'm reading this correctly, this form was revised to include a regulation from 2004/5, yet maintained "MAY 99" in its title. In other words, May 1999 can't be the most recent update of the form because it was updated at least once 6 years later, yet it keeps its designation. An update to correct the typo therefore wouldn't change the "MAY 99" thing either.

I'm not saying this is genuine, because there's no way to tell without more information. But I am saying that the differences between these two versions are not evidence that it is fake.

Presumably the person at O&A didn't say how they obtained it? I would say the fact that this hasn't surfaced before may be evidence that it is fake or obtained illegally, but the fact that the earlier documentation relating to her rank and discharge wasn't found before now (and was presumably legal seeing as I've seen similar documents FOIA'd in Stolen Valor cases before) may suggest that it was part of the same document release. I'm not familiar with American data regulations. This would be super-illegal to release in the UK or EU, but I know American data privacy standards are much looser. But then again it could be someone deciding that the other documents aren't spicy enough and concocting their own post-script. But then again, again, it could mean that ALL the recent documents are fake.

I don't think it's possible to make a determination on this document's authenticity without more context.
 
  • Agree
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
Reactions: SpiceyHuman, Not a bee, Bill Evans 45 and 9 others
Maori Kiwifruit Growers said:
uhh how do we have this?
Click to expand...
That's my biggest concern, and it leads me to think it's not real, and if it is, it's infohazardous because someone breached military confidentiality. Not that i's the first time people have broken the law to make fun of a cow.

Plus, do we really need a document to be told Jackie Singh is mentally unwell, prone to moodswings, delusions, and is incapable of being a mother to her only off-spring with the possibility she cuts herself? Honestly that explains a lack of full body pictures, melinated skin has a high chance of developing keloids.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Not a bee, Helvetia and AmateurComedicTaxidermist
Pizdec said:
Plus, do we really need a document to be told Jackie Singh is mentally unwell, prone to moodswings, delusions, and is incapable of being a mother to her only off-spring with the possibility she cuts herself? Honestly that explains a lack of full body pictures, melinated skin has a high chance of developing keloids.
Click to expand...
I don't know about the authenticity of the document but if true, I wouldn't be surprised if the cutting aspect was overly exaggerated or complete fiction that Jackie was using at some point to manipulate a situation in the military and even if they didn't believe her, the military tossed it in like "Oh yeah and the dumb bitch cuts herself".

I don't think anyone here needs a form to be informed of Jackie's deficiencies as a human. They're on display every time people are remind of her. It's concrete documentation that we're not here just talking shit. It's proof that you can show anyone and say "Look, she's a liar and fraud. Explain this."

I don't care too much about what the psych doc says. I just hope it's not illegally obtained because then this will always be her cover story about how much she's hated and victimized online because SHE'S SO FUCKING CLOSE TO EXPOSING THE TRUTH.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Not a bee, Lord Xenu, Dean Pentel and 1 other person
Here's the OP now. They removed the doc.
Screenshot 2025-02-03 5.32.43 PM.png
 
  • Informative
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: SpiceyHuman, Lurka Derka, Not a bee and 23 others
Sammich said:
how the fuck are they getting this stuff. The dd214 was pretty wild, that's not a super easy thing to pull off, but this eval.. snacki can very easily fuck this person up legally.
Click to expand...
Not sure. This person had it too, but then deleted it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: SpiceyHuman, Not a bee, YarrBlueballs and 4 others
Maori Kiwifruit Growers said:
uhh how do we have this?
Click to expand...
That’s a good question. And in regards to the talks of it being fake, it really can be 50/50.

It’s not unheard of for people to get a document, be fearful of meta data, and reproduce the document. But since this is available online as a blank, why recreate the entire thing? Why not just print the blank one and copy the info? (Easiest strategy).

EDIT: btw, this would be a good way for Snackie to discredit the DD214. Create this doc, get it to the Pests, let them publish it. Then when people are tucking it up about the “military docs” she could just say “yeah it was so fake even they deleted it in shame”.

Remember that Snackie may be in close proximity to the same decades-long hoaxsters and conspiritard dipshits that helped Jim Stewartson get 100k followers with complete bullshit and tons of misinformation.
 
Last edited:
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
Reactions: Joe_Welch, Associate Rick, AirdropShitposts and 9 others
Sammich said:
how the fuck are they getting this stuff. The dd214 was pretty wild, that's not a super easy thing to pull off, but this eval.. snacki can very easily fuck this person up legally.
Click to expand...
DD214 is available by request, it can take time though, they also got Joe Cumia's.
As for the eval. It has been removed from the forum as stated above.
However the signatures are similar with the J and the S between the divorce documents to stokes and the psych eval. So speculate there

1738634068913.png

1738634093622.png


Due to the nature of the document its hard to get verification as its not something that should be released. I don't know how it was obtained so can't comment there I just reposted it. I would imagine for someone to be able to verify it, it would require some laws to be broken somewhere.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Not a bee, koos koets, Bagger 293 and 7 others
BoomerPrime said:
We got three takes from this: a) someone fucked up and released it by accident, probably some kinda HIPAA violation (law kiwis..?); b) someone got it somehow and has released it maliciously; c) it's bullshit.
Click to expand...
I can see Jackie being hated enough that someone was happy to take the risk and release it. But government incompetence is the odds-on favorite for me.
 
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Agree
Reactions: Not a bee, ConSluttant, koos koets and 5 others
I don't buy it.

A partially redacted DD-214 is super easy to get via FOIA, and is not considered privileged information. You just put in a tiny amount of paperwork, and then wait for it. You can do it all online now. They e-mail you the docs as PDFs.

But a psych eval, or any other medical shit? Something doesn't smell right. Either this is fake, or somebody likely broke the law.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Agree
Reactions: Not a bee, koos koets, Lord Xenu and 3 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back