PDA

View Full Version : Judge Rules Stolen Valor Act Unconstitutional



Rocky C
07-17-10, 03:33 PM
WTF ???:evilgrin: <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
By Dan Elliott - The Associated Press <br />
Posted : Saturday Jul 17, 2010 10:18:16 EDT <br />
&lt;FORM id=hidden&gt;&lt;/FORM&gt; <br />
DENVER — A law that makes it illegal to lie about being a...

hbharrison
07-17-10, 03:39 PM
The Fed judges are all Libs I kinda was thinking it was not going to be good everything is 1st amendment and until someone in a higher court over rules this jackA it will stay that way but I belive the Ligion,VFW and others are already working on that I hope I am sending a letter to all of them say do not stop

Wyoming
07-17-10, 04:04 PM
Another dupe?

foreverproud
07-17-10, 08:59 PM
Hummm .... seems to me that dangerous lines are being crossed. I guess lying is one thing, but how about impersonation, what if this lie led to impersonation and actual wearing of medals/ribbons (obtained illegally or ... say from family who were legitimately in the military) at a special function or even at a Memorial Day or Veterans Day event. Would they still let someone lying about military service go unprosecuted if they actually wore service medals/ribbons?

What about claiming falsely past military service on a resume or application for obtaining work ... wouldn't that be fraud? How can that be OK? Just the lie is fraud all on it own.

It's illegal to claim you are a police office when you are not, isn't it? Or is there no offense if there is no impersonation of a police officer. Point is if it is illegal and punishable for lying that one is a police officer, then it ought to be the same for lying about serving or having served in the military.

Well, I do not know enough about the laws, but this caught my attention and this judge's ruling bothers me ... a lot.

hbharrison
07-17-10, 11:28 PM
Hummm .... seems to me that dangerous lines are being crossed. I guess lying is one thing, but how about impersonation, what if this lie led to impersonation and actual wearing of medals/ribbons (obtained illegally or ... say from family who were legitimately in the military) at a special function or even at a Memorial Day or Veterans Day event. Would they still let someone lying about military service go unprosecuted if they actually wore service medals/ribbons?

What about claiming falsely past military service on a resume or application for obtaining work ... wouldn't that be fraud? How can that be OK? Just the lie is fraud all on it own.

It's illegal to claim you are a police office when you are not, isn't it? Or is there no offense if there is no impersonation of a police officer. Point is if it is illegal and punishable for lying that one is a police officer, then it ought to be the same for lying about serving or having served in the military.

Well, I do not know enough about the laws, but this caught my attention and this judge's ruling bothers me ... a lot.

Yes in a lot of states it is illegal to say your a cop and not be one this is a case of this judge does like the Military or he is just one more Lib Judge that needs to be removed from the bench for allowing his feelings get in the way of good legal work. But one saving grace is that there are judges over him that can turn this around and I pray that they do so.

Georgiadawg1
07-18-10, 12:27 AM
Here's a link to the judge's actual opinion if anyone wants to read it: http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B4aOmucPTb-IOTM4NjA4MGQtZDdjZC00MjNjLTlmMWUtMTY4N2I3MmY5NzA4&authkey=CMeB_bwO&hl=en&pli=1

It's a pretty nuanced argument on the freedom of speech issue. While I don't like the conclusion, it does have some basis in First Amendment law. I understand his point that the statute on it's face is not designed specifically to curtail fraud and that the Gov't didn't allege this particular defendant (who was pretending to be a Marine officer no less) actually committed fraud. If it were actual fraud then that is of course not constitutionally protected speech. I just don't think there's much, if any, value in preserving this type of speech. I would support Texas v. Johnson (the flag-burning case), which the judge cites in support of his position, before I would support this decision. At least in Texas v. Johnson there was a political message to the action. Here it's just some moron who thinks he's special. Oh well, I certainly expect and would hope the DOJ appeals this.

Agent Johnson
07-18-10, 12:50 AM
Hummm .... seems to me that dangerous lines are being crossed. I guess lying is one thing, but how about impersonation, what if this lie led to impersonation and actual wearing of medals/ribbons (obtained illegally or ... say from family who were legitimately in the military) at a special function or even at a Memorial Day or Veterans Day event. Would they still let someone lying about military service go unprosecuted if they actually wore service medals/ribbons?

What about claiming falsely past military service on a resume or application for obtaining work ... wouldn't that be fraud? How can that be OK? Just the lie is fraud all on it own.

It's illegal to claim you are a police office when you are not, isn't it? Or is there no offense if there is no impersonation of a police officer. Point is if it is illegal and punishable for lying that one is a police officer, then it ought to be the same for lying about serving or having served in the military.

Well, I do not know enough about the laws, but this caught my attention and this judge's ruling bothers me ... a lot.
I believe if they were using the medals to try to get money from the government, access to government programs, a job, things like that then you can be prosecuted. But what I understand the judge is saying is that if you just decide to wear a uniform and medals/ribbons around town then that is your right under the first amendment. Because unless your using it to get into a base or for the circumstances listed above then it serves no other purpose other than some "atta boys" unlike a police officer who could arrest people, search, things of that nature.

fpdesignco
07-18-10, 08:06 AM
If someone can explain to me how to dosent fall into the same category as impersonating a federal agent, police officer, attorney, someone with a proffesional degree (DR), I am all ears, beacuse if that laws in question then I guess in a FBI Agent today.

ArtyOps
07-18-10, 09:06 AM
If someone can explain to me how to dosent fall into the same category as impersonating a federal agent, police officer, attorney, someone with a proffesional degree (DR), I am all ears, beacuse if that laws in question then I guess in a FBI Agent today.

Excellent point. With all of the moral issues aside veterans are entitled to benefits. Stolen valor is tantamount fo fraud, especially those who do use their lies for monetary gain. They lie to advance their social status, at least in the eyes of those who view veterans in a higher standing and just like you cannot impersonate a police officer because garners special favor so should someone not be allowed to impersonate a veteran.

:flag:

Georgiadawg1
07-18-10, 09:19 AM
The difference here is that the SVA criminalizes the mere possession of awards you didn't earn or telling people that you earned that award, whether or not they are actually misled by the lie or not. So basically, even if you get nothing out of telling people you won the Medal of Honor or whatever award, it's still a crime. That is a restriction on someone's freedom of speech and in order to restrict that you have to meet strict scrutiny - which means the restriction must be necessary to achieve a compelling government interest.

In the case of impersonating an officer, the courts have upheld restrictions on merely portraying yourself as law enforcement. The courts have said there's a compelling governmental interest in the general population knowing who is a police officer and who is not. Otherwise people would just disregard law enforcement because they wouldn't know if the person was really law enforcement or not, or people would go around saying they're law enforcement all the time to get what they wanted. It's therefore necessary to restrict your ability to claim that you're law enforcement to achieve that government purpose.

Here, the judge says that the government has not presented a compelling governmental interest in restricting people's ability to claim to be a war hero. The same issues that are at stake in impersonating law enforcement are not at stake here. The SVA could be probably be amended to criminalize using your false claims of awards to defraud other people. Fraud is not constitutionally protected speech. But as it is, the government doesn't have to actually prove that anyone was defrauded to get a conviction. This judge thinks that violates the First Amendment.

Georgiadawg1
07-18-10, 09:22 AM
FYI I don't believe in most states that it's actually a crime to claim to be a lawyer or doctor. It's a crime to practice law or practice medicine without a license, but probably not a crime just to tell someone you're a lawyer or doctor.

ArtyOps
07-18-10, 09:55 AM
I am no lawyer by any means but here is wikipedia's definition of fraud...

The specific legal definition varies by legal jurisdiction. Fraud is a crime, and also a civil law violation. Defrauding people or entities of money or valuables is a common purpose of fraud, but there have also been fraudulent "discoveries", e.g. in science, to gain prestige rather than immediate monetary gain.


One could say that Stolen Valor could be used to gain prestige. I do understand what the judge is saying though. The government should specify what criteria constitues Stolen Valor and how it is damaging to others. If not you risk opening the door on restrictions on free speech.

jetdawgg
07-18-10, 10:16 AM
Hey those chumps could find some RIGHTS over here:usmc::mad:

hbharrison
07-18-10, 10:27 AM
FYI I don't believe in most states that it's actually a crime to claim to be a lawyer or doctor. It's a crime to practice law or practice medicine without a license, but probably not a crime just to tell someone you're a lawyer or doctor.

Sir I do not know about other states but in Kansas yes it is against the law to say you are an Attorney or a Doctor and you do not have to do much else we just convicted two people here in Topeka within the last three months for just that they said they were Attornies we also convicted one last year for saying they were a Doctor they were both arrested during a sting over an unrelated event. And as a retired LEO (30 years) I have had the pleasure of arresting several others for the same thing. I know that in this state if you wish to be an Attorney have the degrees pass the bar a Doctor have the degrees pass the board.And for the Consitution it says speech nothing else it was lib judges on the Supreme Court who said it now meant things other than speech is it right NO but until we have the B*lls in this country to say to the Supremes NO MORE it is not going to change it will however get worse.;

Georgiadawg1
07-18-10, 11:24 AM
Sir I do not know about other states but in Kansas yes it is against the law to say you are an Attorney or a Doctor and you do not have to do much else we just convicted two people here in Topeka within the last three months for just that they said they were Attornies we also convicted one last year for saying they were a Doctor they were both arrested during a sting over an unrelated event. And as a retired LEO (30 years) I have had the pleasure of arresting several others for the same thing. I know that in this state if you wish to be an Attorney have the degrees pass the bar a Doctor have the degrees pass the board.And for the Consitution it says speech nothing else it was lib judges on the Supreme Court who said it now meant things other than speech is it right NO but until we have the B*lls in this country to say to the Supremes NO MORE it is not going to change it will however get worse.;

I looked up the Kansas law, and you are in fact correct that false representation is a crime that does not require any overt act for a conviction. It's limited to claiming to be a public official, public employee or licensed professional. I suppose the rationale for upholding it is the one I mentioned earlier, that there is a compelling government interest for people to know who is truly a professional or public official and who is not. Who knows though, if this Colorado decision is upheld you might see that Kansas statute as well as other false representation statutes upheld.

It will be interesting to see what higher courts do with the case. Like I said earlier, fraud is not constitutionally protected speech, but the upshot of this district court judge's decision is that an attempted fraud might be. Or at least you would have to prove that there was an attempted fraud. As it is the SVA is a strict liability crime (meaning the state doesn't have to prove you had any wrongful intent, the conduct is enough).

I understand your frustration with the Supreme Court on some of these issues. It's not always the liberal justices though who expand free speech rights. Take Texas v. Johnson, the case where the Supreme Court said you had the right to burn the American flag. Justice Scalia, hardly a liberal, was in the majority on that decision, as well as Justice Kennedy who is a moderate, but leans right. Justice Stevens, one of the most liberal justices, dissented. It's not always so cut and dry as the liberal judges screwing things up.

I doubt you meant it this way, but the idea of us "standing up to the Supremes" is a scary one. One of the great features of our government is the independent judiciary and the respect for the rule of law that it creates. True, in cases like this it can be a pain, but overall it works very well. If we could just ignore judicial decisions we didn't like or tell the Supreme Court to go screw itself, then we're no better off than Al-Qaeda or the Taliban who rule through fear and intimidation rather than by the rule of law. The stability of the judiciary, even when it reaches strange conclusions like this one, is one of our greatest strengths. Ok, off my soap box. :marine:

PaidinBlood
07-18-10, 11:34 AM
The first Amendment only protects jokers from the gov't. I will be happy to infringe the hell out of the free speech of any clown I run into.

hbharrison
07-18-10, 11:43 AM
The first Amendment only protects jokers from the gov't. I will be happy to infringe the hell out of the free speech of any clown I run into.

Oh Ya Brother I am with you got your six on this one.:thumbup:

JohnEaceHunt
07-18-10, 02:46 PM
I agree Blood. I ever catch a crum wearing a medal not earned, or pretending to be a Man of one of the Services, he will have a rough time passing the medal, and getting around for a week or two. Hopefully it would have a number of sharp edges on it, as most of the medals the crumbs choose to wear do have stars with sharp points. The incompentent judges that make such rulings are most likely communist inbred phoney Americans, as its been said we will fall from within, as one OREO is trying to do already by spending money we do not have. The colored panthers can call us crackers, we can call them Oreo's. Semper Fi, and Ready-APP.

hbharrison
07-18-10, 03:28 PM
I looked up the Kansas law, and you are in fact correct that false representation is a crime that does not require any overt act for a conviction. It's limited to claiming to be a public official, public employee or licensed professional. I suppose the rationale for upholding it is the one I mentioned earlier, that there is a compelling government interest for people to know who is truly a professional or public official and who is not. Who knows though, if this Colorado decision is upheld you might see that Kansas statute as well as other false representation statutes upheld.

It will be interesting to see what higher courts do with the case. Like I said earlier, fraud is not constitutionally protected speech, but the upshot of this district court judge's decision is that an attempted fraud might be. Or at least you would have to prove that there was an attempted fraud. As it is the SVA is a strict liability crime (meaning the state doesn't have to prove you had any wrongful intent, the conduct is enough).

I understand your frustration with the Supreme Court on some of these issues. It's not always the liberal justices though who expand free speech rights. Take Texas v. Johnson, the case where the Supreme Court said you had the right to burn the American flag. Justice Scalia, hardly a liberal, was in the majority on that decision, as well as Justice Kennedy who is a moderate, but leans right. Justice Stevens, one of the most liberal justices, dissented. It's not always so cut and dry as the liberal judges screwing things up.

I doubt you meant it this way, but the idea of us "standing up to the Supremes" is a scary one. One of the great features of our government is the independent judiciary and the respect for the rule of law that it creates. True, in cases like this it can be a pain, but overall it works very well. If we could just ignore judicial decisions we didn't like or tell the Supreme Court to go screw itself, then we're no better off than Al-Qaeda or the Taliban who rule through fear and intimidation rather than by the rule of law. The stability of the judiciary, even when it reaches strange conclusions like this one, is one of our greatest strengths. Ok, off my soap box. :marine:

You are correct the rule of law must be upheld, we here in Kansas have for the past 30 odd years now not elected our judges they hold the seat until they decide to retire the same as Supremes do at the State and fed level the only thing we can do is vote to retain or not to retain there is the problem if we in a Judicial District vote not to retain a Judge he or she is not taken off the bench but moved to another district in the case of one judge here who contiued to set sex offenders on probation instead of jail he was voted not to retain so they moved him over to the next district wher to this day he will not and has not sentanced one person for a sex crime even when it involves children. Now saying that I can see that if the US Supreme Judges were in fact elected by the people and they served only as long as the PEOPLE wish them to the system may just work a little better when a judge new that if they did not follow the letter and spirit of the law they would or could be removed from the bench. Have admit my law school days are a little rusty but I see so meany better ways of retaining judges than the way we do it now and that I do hear more and more the people are getting very feed up with the system as a whole.

Vandrel
07-18-10, 03:36 PM
Well good, then I'm going to put on a judge robe and go to Denvor and stand in that freaks face and tell him I'm a judge. <br />
<br />
What's the difference according to him? <br />
<br />
<br />
I bet he'd get his...

foreverproud
07-18-10, 04:05 PM
I read Judge Blackburn's opinion/ruling, but I kept asking myself to what degree did this guy openly claim he was a Marine and where did he make his claims.

Oh my God ..... read this Denver Post article and watch the video ..... if this isn't a case of all out fraud then I don't know what! Shame on this judge!

I mean I was willing to say OK ... maybe it couldn't quite be defined as fraud ... if it was not public statement...but you can't get much more public than what this guy did...

Many faces of 'fake vet' Rick Strandlof exposed
Written by Kevin Simpson of The Denver Post

http://www.denverpost.com/commented/ci_12537680

Even I ... as just a Marine mom want to go through the screen and give this guy a swift kick you know where.

Wyoming
07-18-10, 04:05 PM
Well good, then I'm going to put on a judge robe and go to Denvor and stand in that freaks face and tell him I'm a judge.

What's the difference according to him?


I bet he'd get his panties in a wad if the guy was pretending to be a cop or claiming to have been a cop

Com'on now, read the other posts.

What you suggest, could be a no-no.

usmc3521
07-18-10, 05:01 PM
B/S totally. Its a crime period.


Since its ok to be a fraud now Im going to get an umbrella jump off my roof a few times to earn my jump wings, then walk around claiming I was a Recon Marine that went to a special jump school here in michigan that is so secret that even the President doesnt know about it.!

Vandrel
07-18-10, 06:07 PM
Two words.....



Secret SEAL

USNAviator
07-18-10, 06:35 PM
First off I'm not a sea lawyer but this disturbs me. With his ruling Judge Blackburn has set in motion a cascade of appeals from everyone who has been convicted under the SVA

"U.S. District Judge Robert Blackburn dismissed the case and said the law is unconstitutional, ruling the government did not show it has a compelling reason to restrict that type of statement"

"That type of statement" being he claimed he was a Marine who was awarded (not won, civilians!!) both the PH and SS. His statement was a lie, pure and simple

I think this will be overturned upon appeal. At least I hope it will. If not we will most likely be running into many more SEALS, Rangers, Special Forces and valor award holders in our daily travels. God help us and God help THEM

Rocky C
07-18-10, 06:43 PM
Ok, Since Posting this Thread I have been reading the differant responses. Now I want to post My feelings on this topic.

Freedom of Speech? Sure, I believe in it, everyone has their own opinion on things.
Stolen Valor? I DON'T THINK SO !!!

It is what it is and this is What it is with Me..........

If you exercise your freedom of speech and say you are a Military Veteran, Active, Retired, Disabled, whatever and I find out your not, I'm gonna knock you the F*ck Out.

If your a Poser Scumbag and I Catch you in Uniform and You don't Rate it, I'm gonna strip you down and Pizz all over you.

Will you have me arrested? perhaps, but when I get out were gonna start all over again.

This is where I get to express My Freedom of Speech and My Freedom of EXPRESSION !!!

That how it is with me.
Nuff said for now.

Now I'm gonna make myself a couple of Calzones, watch some TV and do a perimeter walk around My property.

Enjoy your Evening.

Semper Fi,
Rocky

Mongoose
07-18-10, 06:44 PM
My bosses wifes brother died two months ago. He had told his kids he served in Viet Nam when in the army. All his life he never would talk about or say anything about his military time other than that. Through the years people called him a fake because he didnt want to talk about it. His own brothers and sisters thought he lied about serving in V.N. My bosses wife said he would just walk off if V.N. was brought up. Any way they didnt request a military burial even though he requested it before he died. He died with cancer. Never went to V.A. in his life. His son sent off for his dads dd214 after he died. It came back last week. The man not only served in V.N. he served two tours and was awarded the Bronze star with combat V. and two purple hearts. I wonder how his kin feel today?

USNAviator
07-18-10, 06:50 PM
If you exercise your freedom of speech and say you are a Military Veteran, Active, Retired, Disabled, whatever and I find out your not, I'm gonna knock you the F*ck Out.

If your a Poser Scumbag and I Catch you in Uniform and You don't Rate it, I'm gonna strip you down and Pizz all over you.

Will you have me arrested? perhaps, but when I get out were gonna start all over again.

This is where I get to express My Freedom of Speech and My Freedom of EXPRESSION !!!



I know this will be deleted or * out but I'm saying it anyway ****ING "A" Rocky :thumbup:

Wyoming
07-18-10, 07:25 PM
My bosses wifes brother died two months ago. He had told his kids he served in Viet Nam when in the army. All his life he never would talk about or say anything about his military time other than that. Through the years people called him a fake because he didnt want to talk about it. His own brothers and sisters thought he lied about serving in V.N. My bosses wife said he would just walk off if V.N. was brought up. Any way they didnt request a military burial even though he requested it before he died. He died with cancer. Never went to V.A. in his life. His son sent off for his dads dd214 after he died. It came back last week. The man not only served in V.N. he served two tours and was awarded the Bronze star with combat V. and two purple hearts. I wonder how his kin feel today?

I hear you Billy. I have 2 Brothers. Both Army. The younger was in finance and spent time in Germany. The one under me was on the Army Rifle Team, BUT, was also in VietNam.

Was he there? Yes. We met up once. Tough departure. Does he talk about it today? No. Does he sit quietly? Yes. We both do.

Oh yeah, he's an outdoors type. Could make Quigley look like a circus performer.