View Full Version : Stolen Valor Act to make the High Court docket
Cake_14N
06-26-2012, 12:14
LINK (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/faking-heroism-top-court-rule-stolen-valor/story?id=16644077)
I only hope the Court has the guts to rule that this is not allowed under the 1st amendment and these posers can be criminally prosecuted.
"California man Xavier Alvarez is challenging a law known as the Stolen Valor Act -- federal legislation that in 2006 made it illegal for people to claim to have won or to wear military medals or ribbons they did not earn. Alvarez was convicted of violating the act in 2007 after he publicly claimed to have won the country's highest military award, the Medal of Honor. Alvarez never served in the military.
Alvarez was sentenced to three years probation, a $5,000 fine and community service, but he and his lawyer appealed the decision, saying that the Stolen Valor Act is unconstitutional -- essentially that it violates a person's right to lie.
"The Stolen Valor Act criminalizes pure speech in the form of bare falsity, a mere telling of a lie," Alvarez's attorney, Jonathan Libby said in February. "It doesn't matter whether the lie was told in a public meeting or in a private conversation with a friend or family member."
Alvarez and ALL those like him can bitch, whine, lie and complain all they want...it is what they do best!
If you lie about being SF, you WILL be found out because those who shed Blood, Sweat, and Tears that are the real thing will hunt you down.:mad:
May God have no mercy on his soul, for he has none, IMHO.
Holly:munchin
SouthernDZ
06-26-2012, 15:16
If the law is passed, a great number of people will be redacting their resumes in a hurry....
“Maybe there's an innocent explanation. Maybe he was some kind of intelligence agent, and the Vietnam story is a cover.”
San Antonio Express-News, June 26, 2012
Executive's Military Claims Challenged
By Zeke MacCormack
KERRVILLE — As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to announce its ruling Thursday on the constitutionality of the Stolen Valor Act, questions have arisen about an oil company executive's claims about his military record.
The act made lying about receiving military awards a federal crime.
Herbert Williamson III has claimed to be a decorated Vietnam veteran and retired colonel from the Army Reserve.
He declined to discuss his military record for this story, citing a federal lawsuit filed against him by a former business partner.
“When the litigation is over, I'll be glad to supply all sorts of information, but not until then,” said Williamson, a Harvard graduate who held executive and consulting posts with numerous energy companies before moving to Kerr County.
In sworn depositions for the lawsuit, he said he was in the Army from 1970 to 1973, rising to the rank of chief warrant officer, second class. He also claimed to have served one year in Vietnam, earning a Distinguished Flying Cross in 1971 as a scout helicopter pilot.
But Connecticut National Guard records indicate he served in that state from January 1971 to August 1972, working as a communications wireman at the rank of private first class.
“Our records don't reflect that he went to Vietnam, or that he received any decorations,” said Lt. Col. Tom Choate of the Connecticut National Guard. He noted that Williamson was honorably discharged when he moved to Maryland, where he joined the Maryland National Guard.
Documentation was similarly lacking to support claims by Williamson, 63, that he was awarded a Purple Heart and served 30 years in the Army Reserve, retiring in 2003.
“I did not find a record for Herbert Williamson having served in the Army or Army Reserve,” said Mark Edwards, media relations chief at the U.S. Army Human Resources Command.
As a professed Vietnam veteran, Williamson has appeared at Hill Country events honoring military personnel, including one in Kimble County in 2010 where he discussed “the impact of the war experience on the development of the young men who served,” according to a news report.
Now chairman of the board of ZaZa Energy Corp., a Texas-based oil and gas exploration and production company, he dismissed the inquiries into his military background as “a fishing expedition” by Richard Ellison, his former partner's prior attorney.
Alleged discrepancies in Williamson's account of his military service prompted Ellison this month to file a stolen valor complaint with the FBI and a perjury complaint with District Attorney Bruce Curry.
The Supreme Court took up the Stolen Valor Act after an appeals court overturned the conviction of Xavier Alvarez, who publicly described himself as a retired Marine and recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor while a public official in California.
While conceding the falsity of those claims, Alvarez said the Stolen Valor Act violates his First Amendment right to free speech. The government argued that the law falls outside First Amendment protections.
The high court's decision is eagerly awaited by veterans groups across the country.
“We're hoping that the Supreme Court ... decides that it's not protected speech,” said Jay Agg, AMVETS national spokesman.
Records provided by the National Personnel Records Center indicate Williamson was in the Army only from March 12, 1971, to July 18, 1971. Those dates correspond with the period that Connecticut National Guard records indicate he was in basic training with the Army.
“I'm very skeptical that he was in Vietnam at all,” Ellison said. “Maybe there's an innocent explanation. Maybe he was some kind of intelligence agent, and the Vietnam story is a cover.”
Asked Monday about the apparent inconsistencies, Williamson said, “There are other things you are unaware of that I can't comment on.”
His lawyer, Richard Mosty, suggested that Williamson may be unable to speak about his service because of its being classified.
Williamson appeared in “The Complete Marquis Who's Who” in 2009 as having received a Bronze Star and Purple Heart in Vietnam in 1971.
The publication's editor, Fred Marks, said its records indicate the information was submitted before 1993 by Williamson, who verified it in a prepublication proof.
Williamson's name was not on lists of recipients of those medals that are maintained by private groups, but the websites say their records are incomplete.
A corporate profile on Williamson posted last year by Toreador Resources Corp. described him as “a highly decorated Vietnam veteran and a recently retired colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve with military intelligence and civil affairs command positions.”
From what he's seen, Ellison said, “It's not true.”
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/military/article/Executive-s-military-claims-challenged-3662148.php
greenberetTFS
06-26-2012, 16:15
"California man Xavier Alvarez is challenging a law known as the Stolen Valor Act -- federal legislation that in 2006 made it illegal for people to claim to have won or to wear military medals or ribbons they did not earn. Alvarez was convicted of violating the act in 2007 after he publicly claimed to have won the country's highest military award, the Medal of Honor. Alvarez never served in the military.
Alvarez was sentenced to three years probation, a $5,000 fine and community service, but he and his lawyer appealed the decision, saying that the Stolen Valor Act is unconstitutional -- essentially that it violates a person's right to lie.
"The Stolen Valor Act criminalizes pure speech in the form of bare falsity, a mere telling of a lie," Alvarez's attorney, Jonathan Libby said in February. "It doesn't matter whether the lie was told in a public meeting or in a private conversation with a friend or family member."
Alvarez and ALL those like him can bitch, whine, lie and complain all they want...it is what they do best!
If you lie about being SF, you WILL be found out because those who shed Blood, Sweat, and Tears that are the real thing will hunt you down.:mad:
May God have no mercy on his soul, for he has none, IMHO.
Holly:munchin
This is all that needs to be said.......:mad:
Big Teddy :munchin
(1VB)compforce
06-28-2012, 08:11
Opinion Here (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-210d4e9.pdf)
Unfortunately they overturned the Stolen Valor Act as it is currently written. That means it will have to be redrafted and repassed through Congress.
Ghost_Team
06-28-2012, 09:48
And we thought there were alot of posers before.....
Personally, I always thought the SVA, although well intentioned, was poorly written but correctable.
It pisses me off, though, that somebody like Alvarez can get away with lying his way through life like that. :mad:
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
greenberetTFS
06-28-2012, 10:13
This is all that needs to be said..
Big Teddy
He claims MOH status and that's OK!!!!!!!..............:mad:
The U.S. Supreme Court today affirmed a California case in which the 9th Circuit held that a statute setting criminal penalties for misrepresenting one's military record was unconstitutional. The so-called "stolen valor" case concerned an elected official who'd falsely claimed to be a Medal of Honor recipient........:mad:
WTF is happening in our Country that shit like this is tolerated..........:mad:
Big Teddy :munchin
Did I ever tell you guys about my time as a Supreme Court Justice? There we were, up to our knees in paperclips... :cool:
Pat
Did I ever tell you guys about my time as a Supreme Court Justice? There we were, up to our knees in paperclips... :cool:
Pat
Weren't you awarded the Silver Stapler for that action?
Weren't you awarded the Silver Stapler for that action?
Well, maybe I did and maybe I didn't ;) ;). It was a Black Robes Op, you see. Hush-Hush Ultra stuff.
Chief Justice Pat
Snaquebite
06-28-2012, 13:09
I love this comment on one of the news stories...
Now that the esteemed arbiters of our Constitution have made it permissable to lie about one's military valor perhaps they will now consider it a permissable "expression of free speech" for a veteran to beat up a liar.
With the current SCOTUS, what's right is wrong and what's wrong is right.
The Country's going to shit at breakneck pace.
Order your seeds today!
Team Sergeant
06-28-2012, 14:09
With the current SCOTUS, what's right is wrong and what's wrong is right.
The Country's going to shit at breakneck pace.
Order your seeds today!
Are bullets considered seeds? You can plant things with them!
[COLOR="Lime"]Personally, I always thought the SVA, although well intentioned, was poorly written but correctable.How would you have corrected it? Would these corrections help a different version of the SVA pass SCOTUS vetting?
How would you have corrected it? Would these corrections help a different version of the SVA pass SCOTUS vetting?
It always seemed to me that such lying, whether about millitary service or professional qualifications or such, to gain something of value (e.g. a job or a service related discount or some other service or a promotion or money or free services, etc) is something already covered by existing laws within our legal system.
As to whether or not any Act either further limiting or broadly defining such actions would ever pass SCOTUS muster as being 'Constitutional' - well, your guess is as good as mine.
Richard :munchin
Team Sergeant
06-28-2012, 15:40
'Stolen Valor Act' Shot Down by High Court
Jun 28, 2012
Military.com| by Bryant Jordan
A Texas man who helped lead the charge for Congress to pass a law against so-called military "fakers" said he was disappointed the Supreme Court had struck it down Thursday.
B.G. "Jug" Burkett, a Vietnam veteran and co-author of 1998's "Stolen Valor," told Military.com he thought the court might toss out the portion of the act making it a crime to "verbally" claim being awarded medals and decorations, but not the entire law.
"I'm disappointed. You've got people out there that can claim the highest decorations in the land and there's no way to legally stop them from doing so," he said.
Burkett's view is widely shared by veterans' organizations.
"The Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S. is greatly disappointed in today's Supreme Court decision that overturns the Stolen Valor Act of 2005," VFW Commander in Chief Richard Denoyer said in a statement released shortly after the court's announcement.
In a ruling written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court determined that the act was too broad for seeking to "control and suppress all false statements on this one subject in almost limitless times and settings without regard to whether the lie was made for the purpose of material gain."
For the court to decide that lying about military service and decorations was a criminal offense would essentially endorse the government compiling "a list of subjects about which false statements are punishable. That governmental power has no clear limiting principle," he wrote.
The ruling did not come as a surprise to retired Master Sgt. Jeff Hinton, who also exposes phony vets and troops who exaggerate their combat experience.
"I expected no less from bureaucrats, politicians and lawyers," said Hinton, a former Green Beret who operates the website Professionalsoldiers.com. "As always the United States military will protect its own. We will continue to uphold the honor and integrity of our veterans service ourselves."
Likewise, Denoyer said: "Despite the ruling, the VFW will continue to challenge far-fetched stories, and to publicize these false heroes to the broadest extent possible as a deterrent to others."
Burkett has spent years doing just that on his own website, StolenValor.com. Along with a team that includes three former Navy SEALs, he routinely exposes and publishes stories about people who claim to be war heroes or have earned ranks or decorations they didn't.
Additionally, Burkett investigates reports of phony veterans who have been able to get into the Department of Veterans Affairs system and draw benefits. He said he turns those reports over to the VA for further investigation and prosecution.
Burkett was an investment counselor in Dallas when he began looking into questionable claims being made by men about service in Vietnam, where he had served with the Army's 199th Light Infantry Brigade. He found cases of phony veterans spinning stories of heroism and even atrocities.
Along with Texas Monthly writer Glenna Whitley, he authored "Stolen Valor," which in 2005 then-Rep. John Salazar, D-Colo., borrowed as the title for legislation making it illegal to impersonate servicemembers and falsely claim awards. The law made it a federal misdemeanor to misrepresent yourself as a recipient of a military medal or decoration. The crime was punishable by up to six months in jail for all but the Medal of Honor, which carried jail time of up to a year.
"I'm hoping Congress will re-craft a new [Stolen Valor] law to make it even stronger," Burkett said. "I can't imagine you can't craft a law that makes impersonating a servicemember a felony. They do it for police officers. Why not the military?"
.
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2012/06/28/supreme-court-strikes-down-stolen-valor-act.html?comp=7000023317843&rank=1
Roguish Lawyer
06-28-2012, 15:53
Opinion Here (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-210d4e9.pdf)
Unfortunately they overturned the Stolen Valor Act as it is currently written. That means it will have to be redrafted and repassed through Congress.
Wrong, it means that you can't have a Stolen Valor Act period. The Court held that there is a First Amendment right to lie about receiving military awards. Game over, thanks for playing.
greenberetTFS
06-28-2012, 16:06
Wrong, it means that you can't have a Stolen Valor Act period. The Court held that there is a First Amendment right to lie about receiving military awards. Game over, thanks for playing.
Consigliere
What needs to be done to get the job done?............:confused:
Big Teddy :munchin
Roguish Lawyer
06-28-2012, 16:16
Consigliere
What needs to be done to get the job done?............:confused:
Big Teddy :munchin
Amend the Constitution. The only remedy now for false military claims is to out and humiliate the liars.
Amend the Constitution. The only remedy now for false military claims is to out and humiliate the liars.
I think that's incorrect - e.g., lying on a job application, making such claims in a false official statement, collecting unearned benefits based upon said lies, etc, are all punishable offenses, aren't they? :confused:
Richard :munchin
I think that's incorrect - e.g., lying on a job application, making such claims in a false official statement, collecting unearned benefits based upon said lies, etc, are all punishable offenses, aren't they? :confused:
Richard :munchin
Richard, I hate to say it, but I kinda felt it was going to go down like this. Theres a difference between morality and law. I was hoping in this case, there would have been a better outcome. It's for those reasons you posted that a person could be prosecuted civilly or criminally. There are existing laws. But, if it was passed, i can see the implication of how the law could equate the asshat in the bar trying to "get a shot at the squirrel" with the likes of bill hillar. Today has been a bad day. A really shitty day. At least holder was found in contempt. Shit...
The Reaper
06-28-2012, 17:21
Hey, I might want to dress up like a LEO, and get a Crown Vic with blue lights and a siren.
Is that protected by my same 1st Amendment rights?
TR
Hey, I might want to dress up like a LEO, and get a Crown Vic with blue lights and a siren.
Is that protected by my same 1st Amendment rights?
TR
Hell yeah! How about I lie on my loan application...or "steal someone's identity"?
PS, I know there are already laws on the books...just blowing steam...
Roguish Lawyer
06-28-2012, 17:27
Hey, I might want to dress up like a LEO, and get a Crown Vic with blue lights and a siren.
Is that protected by my same 1st Amendment rights?
TR
No
No
I already knew that was the answer...and I didn't even go to law school...;)
The Reaper
06-28-2012, 17:41
No
Can I dress up as a cop, and go to a costume party?
TR
(1VB)compforce
06-28-2012, 18:04
Wrong, it means that you can't have a Stolen Valor Act period. The Court held that there is a First Amendment right to lie about receiving military awards. Game over, thanks for playing.
Perhaps I should have expounded a bit.
The lawyers/analysts over at Scotusblog.org (who were the first to announce the findings) stated that the opinion as read asserted that the act was too broad. In the opinions there are several places where it is referred to that the SVA didn't take into account whether the person had used these types of claims for personal benefit. In Justice Kennedy's (plurality) opinion he speaks about how the attempt to define a specific type of speech as protected has historically been very narrowly scoped. What I was saying was that the SVA is toast as written, but that a similar act that included provisions against false military claims for personal gain would, according to the implications, tone and language of the opinion, have a good chance of passing the constitutionality test.
Here's a link to the analysis to which I referred:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/06/opinion-recap-stolen-valor-act-violates-the-first-amendment/ (http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/06/opinion-recap-stolen-valor-act-violates-the-first-amendment/)
I actually posted ahead of that analysis, but in full disclosure, they, scotusblog, had already stated that the opinion read that way and after reading it, I agreed and so posted that way.
Justice Kennedy announced the opinion for a plurality of the Court (he was joined by the Chief Justice as well as Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor). Justices Breyer and Kagan concurred, suggesting that if Congress re-enacted the law with additional limitations, it might be constitutional.
I'm not a lawyer, but I spent considerable time in my stepfather's law office researching case law and helping to build arguments so not completely unaware. That said, I certainly bow to your higher understanding. If my thoughts are wrong, please let me know why. I'm always open to learning.
How long will it take me to get arrested if I go around saying I am on the Supreme Court?
Just a thought. I may give it a try.
sf
Roguish Lawyer
06-28-2012, 19:38
Can I dress up as a cop, and go to a costume party?
TR
Yes
Roguish Lawyer
06-28-2012, 19:57
If my thoughts are wrong, please let me know why. I'm always open to learning.
The plurality (which I wrongly thought was a majority when I read it) leaves no room for anything more narrowly tailored. Breyer's concurrence purports to leave that possibility open, so my earlier comments were a bit hasty since a new statute could get five votes. That being said, I don't see my QP friends being anything close to happy with anything that might survive the "intermediate scrutiny" being suggested. The kind of narrowing that appears to be required to satisfy those two idiots really defeats the purpose and devalues honor in a really disgusting way.
There's a difference between morality and law.
Maybe in the long run, this outcome will be for the better. As the saying goes, you cannot legislate morality.
Maybe civilians will get to the point where they're educated enough to ask better questions of those who say they've BTDT. Maybe posers (and others) will get to the point where they say "The law says I can put this medal on, but, in my heart it is the wrong thing to do" and makes a different choice.
As a society, we've (for lack of a better term) matured so that some cultural practices are increasingly viewed as inappropriate. Definitely, there's still a lot of work to be done when it comes to treating those who have served honorably with the respect they deserve.
My $0.02.
The Reaper
06-28-2012, 21:05
Yes
Where is the line on this slippery slope?
TR
Roguish Lawyer
06-28-2012, 22:46
Where is the line on this slippery slope?
TR
Well, the Court has it somewhere other than where we want it to be, that's for sure. Not so easy to define.
Could I dress up like a police officer and drive around in a police car? As long as I don't try to pull anybody over, I haven't really impersonated an officer have I?
What if I stop by Arby's and am not asked to pay for my meal while I'm wearing my fake police uniform, have I then crossed the line?
ddoering
06-29-2012, 06:13
With the current SCOTUS, what's right is wrong and what's wrong is right.
The Country's going to shit at breakneck pace.
Order your seeds today!
We are being destroyed from within. Lying is sanctioned. Well then, my new persona is Supreme Court Justice Medal of Honor winner US Marshall helicopter pilot. I will get all the babes now!!!
craigepo
06-29-2012, 08:32
Where is the line on this slippery slope?
TR
That's a very good question.
On one hand, it seems that, for example, PV2 Johnny Ranger who tells the girl at the bar a huge line about false war hero stuff, just to impress the girl at the bar, is probably safe from any federal law. Is it a lie? Yes, but the Supreme Court's ruling wont let him be indicted. His ass might get kicked, but he won't go to jail.
On the other side, a guy who falsely claims a purple heart to get into the V.A. hospital has done something that could land him in jail. The only problem with this, vis-a-vis Stolen Valor, is that such a crime would be covered by existing fraud laws. Essentially, such a Stolen Valor law would be redundant.
Where the devil will be in the details is making a specific law worth writing. I would guess that the offending person would have to make a stolen valor claim to obtain something tangible to fall outside constitutional protection.
If I were a legislator handling this, I would go a totally different route, and get this out of the federal criminal justice system. The "Wall of Shame" idea is not too bad. Make the bastards live forever. If some guy makes a false medal of honor claim while running for city alderman, put his name and his lie somewhere easy to find that will last forever. Ensure that his grandchildren learn what he did, and get to suffer the indignity of being in his bloodline.
...“Our records don't reflect that he went to Vietnam, or that he received any decorations,” said Lt. Col. Tom Choate of the Connecticut National Guard. He noted that Williamson was honorably discharged when he moved to Maryland, where he joined the Maryland National Guard.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/military/article/Executive-s-military-claims-challenged-3662148.php
Why do all these guy's flock to Maryland? :confused: I need to get the f outta dodge :mad: I'm actually glad I ETS'ed from that organization last week.
P.S. The guy's in the 20th here that I donated all that beer to in '08, your welcome :D
(1VB)compforce
06-29-2012, 11:44
And here it comes...
A day after the Supreme Court struck down a law that made it a crime to lie about military service, veterans groups and lawmakers are gearing up for another battle.
The nation's top court voted 6-3 on Thursday that the Stolen Valor Act of 2006 infringes upon speech protected by the First Amendment. The law, which was enacted amid the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, targeted those who made bogus claims about receiving the Medal of Honor or other military decorations. The retooled Stolen Valor Act of 2011 wouldn't stop barroom boasting about bogus service, but would take aim at people who benefit financially or otherwise from their phony claims.
Heck's bill has 52 bipartisan co-sponsors, and Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., has introduced the Senate companion bill. Violators of the law, if passed, would face up 1 year in jail for the misdemeanor offense of lying about serving in a combat zone, serving with special operations force or being awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. In any other case, offenders would be fined or face up to 6 months behind bars.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/29/new-push-under-way-for-stolen-valor-law-after-supreme-court-ruling/#ixzz1zCsNPIxP