previous post next post  

Stolen Valor Act unconstitutional...

Stolen Valor act unconstitutional... doesn't bother me as much as it does many of my friends. But I'm a well known squish.

I was never that comfortable with going after these guys that way. I thought fraud prosecutions did a decent job of covering the ones who obtained value through subterfuge. I am really not supportive of passing ever more laws that bind and bound more and more areas. Especially for things like making it essentially illegal to be an asshole. You have that right. And I have the right to mock you for it, brutally.

Use it to gain value, you're a thief. We have laws for that already.

I think the work of the Stolen Valor watchdogs is sufficient. Out the weasels. Embarass and humiliate them.

And put the thieves in jail.

Again my lefty friends... does this make the Court legitimate again?

Except for being in the pocket of the NRA.  That does without saying.


"Out the Weasels"?  Why disparage such a noble creature as the weasel by associating them with those who lie, cheat, and steal?  The weasel is a family creature wo will die to protect his family.  Sorry, I forgot.  Lying, cheating, and stealing is the goal of the Wild Weasels, especially cheating.

I couldn't let this pass.  As a retired Wild Weasel, I always seem to see these references to weasels.
As unpopular as this will be, I was not in favor of the Stolen Valor Act.  Emotionally, yes, I think it is a good thing.  But we see it over and over, emotion makes bad law.  Law needs to be an act of reason and careful construction, not something thrown together because "We need to Do Something! about this problem!" 
I wasn't a fan of the attempt at lawing it either.

Treating everything with new specialized law just further absovles the average Joe citizen even further from having to pay attention himself to what's going on around his own AO and letting "the law" take care of everything.

Citizens can handle this sort of thing. Out the bastards, name and shame in public. If the uniform and/or made up stories have been used to thieve then the law can step in and hammer slam.

I have never "seen the elephant" to use the Civil War term for being in combat.  I did serve with the 14th Armored Cav up on the Fulda Gap. We did have our "Berlin moment" when the Soviets invaded Czechoslovakia in August of 68, but I never earned my Combat Infantry Badge.

My Dad however, definitely earned his CIB in some hellacious battles in France and Germany while serving with the 232nd Infantry Regiment of the 42nd Infantry Division (Rainbow).  When he passed away my Mother gave me Dad's CIB.  It is one of my prized posessions.  But, you know, I would never even dream of holding  that CIB up against my Army greens I have hanging in the closet, let alone pin it and maybe a Silver Star and maybe a couple of other medals on there and then go out and pretend to be a hero!!  There is a matter of honor and integrity involved....  it is an outrage and a foul offense to those men who did "face the elephant", looked death in the eye and come out the other side to pin on medals and try to bask in real heroes' glory....
That's my take as well.

(Plus the law *as written* was ludicrous, since it made both an actor wearing an accurate uniform to portray a military man into a criminal, and the kid who put on grandpa's uniform in tribute or just play...)
I want to read the opinions first. I thought it was a bad idea for a law, but since we have so very many of these bad ideas becoming laws, this was one of the better ones.  The only thing I could wear would be a Firewatch Ribbon, and maybe a Good Conduct. And Rifle and Pistol Expert badges.

Name 'em and Shame 'em, is fine with me.

And yes, leave the Weasels out of it. Balls bigger than their airframes.
I had somebody mistake me for a veteran a while back.  I dunno why, maybe it was my general air of tired grumpy cynicism, or something. Anyway, I was quick to correct him. Like Lord Peter Wimsey, I don't care for even inanimate objects pretending to be something else, let alone people doing so.  What's more, the pretenders mostly seem to be incompetent transparent obvious laughable frauds. I mean, do they have any idea how silly they look?
 @htom, raises the approach of "Name 'em and Shame 'em". The question becomes, how do we do it? Is all speech free? In a crowded movie theater, y'all don't yell **FIRE**! In the airliner at 50 K feet, y'all say "Hello John", not yell ** Hi - Jack **! Under the realm of the Federal Court, Is this the place that we name 'em? Then what? I figure a picture of the individual, with the military award plus any other documentation stating this individual wrote stating the false award. Then we compare with "Official Documents". But we also look for differences. The individual has the right to ask the VA and DOD for assistance in locating  documents. After everything is accumulated, the Federal Judge will render his findings. The accused individual, if the Judge permits an appeal, within a limited amount of time, the accused may appeal. If not, the accused must sign the document of the Federal Judge's Findings, in agreement. Now, only 2 things, the accused's picture and the Federal Judge's Findings will be a part of a packet. This "Packet" should become a part of every record in the accused's life, for the duration of his life. There should be a website available to the public with this packet.

Okay, let's just pass a new law:

Assault and battery motivated by the victim's unearned wearing of military uniforms, medals or decorations is a midsdemeanor punishible by no more than a $1 fine and/or verbal admonishment.  Any physical injuries inflicted in such an assault are deemed to be self inflicted and the perpetrator shall not be liable for any damages, actual or punitive.  Nor shall such an assault be considered an "act of violence" which could trigger any other criminal or civil charges, penalties, or adminstrative sanctions.   No state laws may impose any more serious charges or penalties in a case which COULD be charged under this section.

I have to agree with the Armorer here. OTOH, part of the package is  scum bag Roberts voting with the Libtards to uphold Obama's latest usurpation.

No, SCOTUS is just as illegitimate as it has been since the 30s. They are just 9 scoff laws who don't care a whit about the Constitution.
 Anyone claiming medals or military honors that they have not earned is doing so to gain an advantage, whether its tangible or not. Its fraud, no matter how you cut it. The law was poorly written, but it doesn't change the fraudulent nature of the behavior that this was trying to prevent. 
Hmmm. Some poor reading going on here.

Sigi, the relevant part of the bill says
(b) False Claims About Receipt of Military Decorations or Medals. -- Whoever falsely represents himself or herself, verbally or in writing, to have been awarded any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the Armed Forces of the United States, any of the service medals or badges awarded to the members of such forces, the ribbon, button, or rosette of any such badge, decoration, or medal, or any colorable imitation of such item shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
(emphasis added) Actors don't claim they have received a given reward. Clint Eastwood -for example- in Heartbreak Ridge never claimed he was awarded the MOH. The script said his character recieved the award during the events portrayed in the movie. Big difference.

Common law fraud has nine elements:

a representation of an existing fact;
its materiality;
its falsity;
the speaker's knowledge of its falsity;
the speaker's intent that it shall be acted upon by the plaintiff;
plaintiff's ignorance of its falsity;
plaintiff's reliance on the truth of the representation;
plaintiff's right to rely upon it; and
consequent damages suffered by plaintiff.

Most jurisdictions in the United States require that each element be pled with particularity and be proved with clear, cogent, and convincing evidence (very probable evidence) to establish a claim of fraud.
(emphasis added)
SCOTUS had an issue with the breadth of the law, given that most Stolen Valor cases do not involve "damages suffered by plaintiff." That is, very few of these scumbags (directly) make money from their claims.

Ergo, the law was too broad, something judges hate when it comes to free speech cases.

QM, I was going to reply to your comments about Roberts' "scum bag-osity," but I decided to link to Jerry Pournelle's thoughts on the matter instead. He always provides food for thought. :)