Stolen Valor Act unconstitutional, federal judge rules

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

RugersGR8

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jun 20, 2005
Messages
32,271
Reaction score
54,974
Location
NW OK
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_15536854


Stolen Valor Act unconstitutional, federal judge rules
By Felisa Cardona
The Denver Post
Posted: 07/17/2010 01:00:00 AM MDT
Updated: 07/17/2010 09:35:42 AM MDT


A federal judge in Denver has ruled that the Stolen Valor Act is "facially unconstitutional" because it violates free speech, and he dismissed the criminal case against Rick Strandlof, a man who lied about being an Iraq war veteran.

U.S. District Judge Robert E. Blackburn issued his decision Friday and rejected the prosecution's argument that lying about having military medals dilutes their meaning and significance.

"This wholly unsubstantiated assertion is, frankly, shocking and, indeed, unintentionally insulting to the profound sacrifices of military personnel the Stolen Valor Act purports to honor," Blackburn wrote. "To suggest that the battlefield heroism of our servicemen and women is motivated in any way, let alone in a compelling way, by considerations of whether a medal may be awarded simply defies my comprehension."

The Stolen Valor Act prohibits people from falsely claiming they have been awarded military decorations and medals. The act, signed into law in 2006, carries a punishment ranging from fines to six months in prison.

U.S. Rep. John Salazar, a Democrat from Manassa, introduced the legislation in 2005.

"This is an issue of fraud, plain and simple," Salazar wrote in an e-mail Friday. "The individuals who violate this law are those who knowingly portray themselves as pillars of the community for personal and monetary gain. The Stolen Valor Act has been upheld by other courts and I am confident this decision will be overturned on appeal."

Blackburn's decision only set precedent in the District of Colorado, and further prosecution of the law isn't likely to happen here unless a higher court strikes down his ruling.

Jeff Dorschner, spokesman for the Colorado U.S. attorney, said the Department of Justice is reviewing the ruling to determine whether an appeal should be filed.

Strandlof, 32, was charged with five misdemeanors related to violating the Stolen Valor Act — specifically, making false claims about receiving military decorations.

He posed as Rick Duncan, a wounded Marine captain who received a Purple Heart and a Silver Star. Strandlof used that persona to found the Colorado Veterans Alliance and solicit funds for the organization.

Actual veterans who served on the board were suspicious of his claims and reported him to the FBI.

Robert Pepin, Strandlof's attorney; the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado; and the Rutherford Institute, a nonprofit civil liberties group, all filed briefs with Blackburn contesting the Stolen Valor Act.

They argued that simply lying is not illegal.

Pepin said that he and his client were pleased with the decision and that Strandlof is doing well.

Attorney Chris Beall, who filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the ACLU of Colorado, said the decision is remarkable.

"The First Amendment protects speech we don't like," he said. "We don't need the First Amendment for speech people like. The government cannot criminalize a statement simply because it is false, no matter how important the statement is."

Beall points out Strandlof wasn't charged with stealing money meant for the veterans group, adding that laws are already in place for those crimes.

"That's plain-old, regular-vanilla everyday fraud, and we do prosecute that every day," he said. "Congress does not need a special statute to prevent people from using false claims of valor in order to prevent fraud."

John Wagner, executive director of the Warrior Legacy Foundation, a veterans group that lobbied for Strandlof's prosecution, said he will push for an appeal.

Wagner said the ruling means he can put on a police officer's uniform and a badge and walk around lying to people about his bravery and arrests to gain favors from others, such as a free cup of coffee or a round of drinks.

"I would be trying to extract benefits I wouldn't otherwise deserve," he said.

Military fakers across the country have been prosecuted under the act, but Strandlof's case and the prosecution of Xavier Alvarez in the Central District of California are the only cases based on speech alone.

In Alvarez's case, the district judge upheld his prosecution under the Stolen Valor Act, but an appeal is pending before the 9th Circuit Court.
 

Shadowrider

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jan 28, 2008
Messages
21,505
Reaction score
9,294
Location
Tornado Alley
"The First Amendment protects speech we don't like," he said. "We don't need the First Amendment for speech people like. The government cannot criminalize a statement simply because it is false, no matter how important the statement is."


So I guess that silly little oath you have to take before giving testimony in court, in front of congress, upon taking office, etc. is now meaningless?
 

henschman

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jul 22, 2008
Messages
4,396
Reaction score
24
Location
Oklahoma City
We already have laws against fraud, which is what this man practiced.

We don't need laws against lying. Simple false speech is not a violation of anyone else's liberty and should not be punishable. By contrast, lying to induce someone into a contract or to get someone to execute a contract is a violation of the property rights of others... it deprives them of property without consent, and that is why it should be illegal. Lying in a court of law is a threat to whatever rights are at stake in a trial, whether it be life, liberty, or property.

Just BSing somebody is not a violation of anybody's rights and shouldn't be illegal. This man should have simply been charged and punished under his state's fraud law.
 

PFXD 45

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
327
Reaction score
0
Location
Virtus, Ornamentum, Vis Veris.
We already have laws against fraud, which is what this man practiced.

We don't need laws against lying. Simple false speech is not a violation of anyone else's liberty and should not be punishable. By contrast, lying to induce someone into a contract or to get someone to execute a contract is a violation of the property rights of others... it deprives them of property without consent, and that is why it should be illegal. Lying in a court of law is a threat to whatever rights are at stake in a trial, whether it be life, liberty, or property.

Just BSing somebody is not a violation of anybody's rights and shouldn't be illegal. This man should have simply been charged and punished under his state's fraud law.


My question would be is claiming your a veteran and using their credentials qualify you for federal charges also?

Is there not a law against that as well??
 

vvvvvvv

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Nov 18, 2008
Messages
12,284
Reaction score
65
Location
Nowhere
I side with with court on this one. The concept of allowing the government to decide whether something is truth or not and then prosecuting based on what Congress deems as "harmful" bothers me. Basically, you'd give the government the power to prosecute you for anything that they deem false. That is not a power that I think that any of us want in the hands of government, no matter what the regime.

It is one thing to lie about receiving military honors; it's a different thing to use those false honors to your benefit.

Think about how many more people would unrightfully be considered felons if it was criminal to make a claim that the Holocaust never happened, the George Washington supported Imperialism, that Obama is not a U.S. citizen, that the CIA isn't involved in funding the drug war, that warm beer is better than cold beer, that turkey bacon is better than real bacon, or that their height and/or weight (both easily verifiable) is different than what it really is?

Wearing the medals or using them to advance your career or deprive someone of their property should be a crime. It is one thing to lie to your peers about qualifications you have; it is another thing to lie on a job application about those qualifications.
 

henschman

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jul 22, 2008
Messages
4,396
Reaction score
24
Location
Oklahoma City
PFXD 45 said:
My question would be is claiming your a veteran and using their credentials qualify you for federal charges also?

Is there not a law against that as well??
Yes, the Stolen Valor Act is a federal law, which was why this guy was charged in federal court. If he had claimed any federal veterans' benefits, he could have also been in violation of a federal law.
 

SMS

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jun 15, 2005
Messages
15,299
Reaction score
4,218
Location
OKC area
I side with with court on this one. The concept of allowing the government to decide whether something is truth or not and then prosecuting based on what Congress deems as "harmful" bothers me. Basically, you'd give the government the power to prosecute you for anything that they deem false. That is not a power that I think that any of us want in the hands of government, no matter what the regime.

It is one thing to lie about receiving military honors; it's a different thing to use those false honors to your benefit.

Think about how many more people would unrightfully be considered felons if it was criminal to make a claim that the Holocaust never happened, the George Washington supported Imperialism, that Obama is not a U.S. citizen, that the CIA isn't involved in funding the drug war, that warm beer is better than cold beer, that turkey bacon is better than real bacon, or that their height and/or weight (both easily verifiable) is different than what it really is?

Wearing the medals or using them to advance your career or deprive someone of their property should be a crime. It is one thing to lie to your peers about qualifications you have; it is another thing to lie on a job application about those qualifications.

Well said...echoes my thoughts. My guess is the law will be rewritten to make it less broad in scope....and clarify that lying about military service for personal gain is the target behaviour.

If some loser wants to brag in the local bar about being a war vet, let him. Karma will come around
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom