http://www.wral.com/news/political/story/10266655/

Quote :

"High court to rule on Stolen Valor Act By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court will decide whether a law making it a crime to lie about having received military medals is constitutional. The justices said Monday they will consider the validity of the Stolen Valor Act, which passed Congress with overwhelming support in 2006. The federal appeals court in California struck down the law on free speech grounds and appeals courts in Colorado, Georgia and Missouri are considering similar cases. The Obama administration is arguing that the law is reasonable because it only applies to instances in which the speaker intends to portray himself as a medal recipient. Previous high court rulings also have limited First Amendment protection for false statements. The court almost always reviews lower court rulings that hold federal laws unconstitutional. The case concerns the government's prosecution of Xavier Alvarez of Pomona, Calif. A member of the local water district board, Alvarez said at a public meeting in 2007 that he was a retired Marine who received the Medal of Honor, the nation's highest military decoration. In fact, he had never served in the military. He was indicted and pleaded guilty with the understanding that he would challenge the law's constitutionality in his appeal. He was sentenced under the Stolen Valor Act to more than 400 hours of community service at a veterans hospital and fined $5,000. A panel of the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2-1 to strike down the law. The majority said there is no evidence that lies such as the one told by Alvarez harm anybody and no compelling reason to make a crime out of them. In a dissent, Judge Jay Bybee said his colleagues should have followed previous Supreme Court rulings holding that false statements are not entitled to First Amendment protection. The appeals court refused the government's request to have the case heard again by a larger group of judges. Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, agreeing with the majority, said people often tell lies about themselves in day-to-day social interactions. He said it would be "terrifying" if people could be prosecuted for merely telling lies. But seven appellate judges said they would have heard the case, suggesting that Alvarez's conviction should have been upheld. The law had been the latest congressional effort to try to keep people from wearing medals they did not earn. But it was the first time that lawmakers made it a crime for someone to claim falsely that he had been awarded a medal. The law has led to dozens of arrests at a time when veterans coming home from wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are being embraced as heroes. Many of the cases involve men who were not accused of trying to profit from their claims. Almost everyone convicted under the law has been ordered to perform community service. Arguments will take place early next year. The case is U.S. v. Alvarez, 11-210."

Telling lies is already a crime in certain situations; however, are some lies protected by the first amendment? Is this act truly unconstitutional? Is it even needed? Not sure on this one, but for this specific case, why couldn't a law/charge of 'obtaining property by false pretenses' be applied?

10/17/2011 12:30:51 PM

What type of property is valor?

10/17/2011 5:17:57 PM

Is this not the same guy who received money/an award or something after lying about his service? Maybe I should read into this more; though I thought it was the same guy.

10/17/2011 5:38:00 PM

On a related note, is there any state/federal law about lying about military service to promote your business or court military customers?

Is there any easy way to check up on someone's claim of military service?

10/17/2011 5:47:17 PM

^ & ^^ How is that really different from any other sort of misrepresentation? Why should there be a special law concerning military service?

Ask for a DD-214, or http://www.archives.gov/st-louis/military-personnel/.

10/17/2011 6:58:33 PM

I'm amazed that people still try to pull shit like that in the era of google.

10/17/2011 7:00:48 PM

WANTED

10/17/2011 9:31:02 PM

^^^ I'm not arguing for any special law, although I do like to see bad things happen to douchebag fakers.

I was asking because I need to handle a specific situation.

10/17/2011 10:46:02 PM

You can try NCIS. They can get involved, but I don't know what their threshold is.

10/18/2011 1:09:11 PM

An ass kicking sure but legal problems NO!

Unless of course he tried to use his fake credentials to penetrate a military base or derive veteran benefits.

10/18/2011 3:40:43 PM

For employment purposes, it's easy - ask for a DD-214, Page 4. If they give you a page 1, it doesn't have the type of discharge or the code for why they were discharged. Gotta be a page 4. If they're claiming some sort of award/rank/training with out an accompanying certificate, and it's not on a DD-214 or DD-215, they're full of shit. On a related note, there's no such thing as awards that are classified - if you earned a medal, it will be on there. The citation itself may be redacted, but the award will still be listed.

Outside of using military service to defraud people, it kinda boils down to semantics. I find it reprehensible to lie about service, and I would happily scuff someone up for it, but some people are satisfied with theme merely being called out for the liars that they are. I could see both sides.

10/18/2011 8:25:58 PM

It's a case of a businessman representing himself as a retired Marine, and I don't buy it. He totally screwed me over, and now I'm looking to exact a price for his bullshit.

Quote :

" On a related note, there's no such thing as awards that are classified - if you earned a medal, it will be on there. The citation itself may be redacted, but the award will still be listed."

Yeah, I have a joint comm with a pretty vague citation.

10/18/2011 8:44:57 PM

^ I am intrigued to hear this business ploy.

10/18/2011 9:07:41 PM

Oh, it wasn't a ploy. He totally fucked me on repairing my jet ski. Overcharged by 50%, and ruined my boat--it's far more fucked up now than it was when I left it at his shop.

I also think that he's a compulsive liar.

There's no ploy--it's just a bad business and a douchey owner, and I'm looking to put a stop to his shit, retaliate for how he wronged me, and maybe if I'm lucky, recover some money from him.

10/18/2011 9:40:23 PM

As far as I know, if you did serve previously you can say "I am a former [Marine/SEAL/etc] and I love this [product/service]". But you can't say "Get this Marine Corps endorsed product!".

I also think this means you can't wear uniform when endorsing or claiming.

So I'd imagine the same applies for civilians, it just makes you a liar/asshole as well.

10/18/2011 10:08:33 PM

If you're still in the service, you can't endorse while in uniform. I'm not sure of the legality once you retired, but I know it's considered extremely bad taste to do so.

10/18/2011 10:14:59 PM

Who needs jet skis when you get to fly jets for a living

10/18/2011 10:50:49 PM

His website said that it's a business owned by a retired USMC GySgt. I don't believe that, or anything else he says, but I would think that making that claim for the sake of garnering business is illegal.

10/18/2011 10:56:11 PM

What leads you to believe he was not a real Marine?

No CAR?

10/18/2011 11:07:25 PM

I think he served in the Marines, but I don't believe that he served 20 years and retired as a Gunny. I don't believe much of what he says, least of all his stories about being a sniper and being involved in a bunch of covert actions.

10/18/2011 11:12:58 PM

Well remember, the Marine from "Battle: Los Angeles" was retiring as a 20-year SSgt.


Did you give him some in-depth questions about his tours of duty?

10/18/2011 11:15:15 PM

Oh, retiring as a gunny isn't that unusual. I just don't buy that he did 20 years, because I think that anything he says regarding any subject is questionable.

I kinda had my suspicions about those stories, but I didn't really grill him, because I didn't know him that well at that time. I found him to be a chronic bullshitter later.

10/18/2011 11:19:42 PM

IE "Salesman".

Call him on it, tell him you won't expose his charade if he refunds/does a better job, then never talk to him ever again ever, forever.

10/18/2011 11:27:24 PM

Well, I need to confirm my suspicions first...but I'll eat the couple thousand dollar (or prob more) loss if that's what it takes to hold him accountable. Of course, exposing him as a fraud would prob help in small claims court or a credit card dispute, anyway. In any case, if I can confirm, I'm not going to keep quiet about it.

10/19/2011 12:01:02 AM