Charges Dismissed in Stolen Valor case

[tredhed2]

Charge dismissed in fake hero's case, Valor Act ruled unconstitutional

By Felisa Cardona

The Denver Post

 

Related

 

•Jan 20:

•Lies from "war vet" are protected speech, civil liberties group says

•Nov 17:

•Richard Glen Strandlof pleads not guilty to posing as wounded Marine

•Oct 3:

•Phony Marine due for arrest

•Jun 10:

•Fake vet pleads guilty to traffic charge in Colorado Springs

•Jun 9:

•Springs man who claimed to be a veteran getting out of jail

•Jun 7:

•Faking military duty is easy; unmasking "why" is more complex

•Many faces of 'fake vet' Rick Strandlof exposed

•May 15:

•Dems red-faced over veteran impostor

•May 14:

•Springs veterans alliance exposes its founder as fraud

 

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

 

U.S. District Judge Robert Blackburn issued his decision this morning.

 

"The Stolen Valor Act is declared to be facially unconstitutional as a content-based restriction on speech that does not serve a compelling government interest, and consequently that the Act is invalid as violative of the First Amendment," Blackburn wrote in his opinion.

 

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 the FBI began investigating.

 

Robert Pepin, Strandlof's attorney, the ACLU 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.

 

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.

 

Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeremy Sibert had argued false statements made by Strandlof are not protected speech because they damaged the reputation and meaning of military decorations and medals.

 

Felisa Cardona: 303-954-1219 or [email protected]

[Jack's Son]

Now, we'll have to wait for a medal collector to be charged !

 

Any volunteers ??

[shrapneldude]

Now, we'll have to wait for a medal collector to be charged !

 

Any volunteers ??

 

More than one already has been on the wrong side of this garbage legislation. As I understand it, there wasn't much sympathy for the poor guys when it came to the government's enforcement of the SVA...and these guys weren't phonies, they were honest well-intentioned collectors.

 

But hey, as long as the American people are so willing to let law enforcement take away their freedoms one at a time, perhaps we have nobody to blame but ourselves when the day comes that this very hobby is outlawed under the pretense of national security. "There ought to be a law against people being able to own military uniforms!" All it takes is one pro-active politician to get behind it. Unintended consequences be damned!

[Jack's Son]

More than one already has been on the wrong side of this garbage legislation. As I understand it, there wasn't much sympathy for the poor guys when it came to the government's enforcement of the SVA...and these guys weren't phonies, they were honest well-intentioned collectors.

 

But hey, as long as the American people are so willing to let law enforcement take away their freedoms one at a time, perhaps we have nobody to blame but ourselves when the day comes that this very hobby is outlawed under the pretense of national security. "There ought to be a law against people being able to own military uniforms!" All it takes is one pro-active politician to get behind it. Unintended consequences be damned!

Am I to understand that a collector has been charged , AND CONVICTED ??

[36-tex]

Dan, make sure you do not blame "law enforcement" for this. "Law Enforcement" simply carries out the enforcement of laws passed by the Legislative branch of our government. AND before anyone jumps on the "Obama" did this bandwagon, I believe it was supported by both parties well before this administration took over.

 

That being said, this law is baloney. I support laws that nail people who try to trick others in believing they are war hero's. I do not support laws that limit what a collector may own.

[shrapneldude]

Obama didn't do this. The American "Right" did this in a drastic measure to stop people from claiming false war medals. I agree they're scumbags, but don't agree that we need more and more laws regulating private property and free speech. If these guys chisel someone out of money with a fake medal and a BS story...they'll get charged for theft.

 

Jack's son...the short answer to my knowledge is YES. I don't know that any prison sentences have been given, but do know of several collectors who were hassled by the FBI over this very law and ownership of certain medals and essentially "convicted" without trial. This is their story to tell if they choose to, but suffice it to say, everyone who was behind the SVA and it's predecessors probably didn't give a second thought to some war nerd with a bunch of medals in his collection as a target of the legislation, but that has certainly been the case more than once.

 

36-Tex - My problem isn't with beat cops out there actually carrying these laws. My problem is with the laws themselves and the people who enact them using cops to do their bidding...while they spout rhetoric about "protecting the sanctity of the medals" and so forth. Would you, as a cop, be comfortable with executing a search warrant for a man who is accused of illegally possessing a war medal? It's your job...you have to...and like it or not, it's the law.

 

At any rate, my statements above were to say that I believe the law itself IS unconstitutional. It's not illegal for me to try to convince people I've never served in the military. We don't need more and more laws against inanimate objects, and the laws we have against objectionable behavior have been in place since before the SVA.

[36-tex]

Dan, points taken! As a police officer there are laws I enforce that I do not agree with. It is my job, however, to enforce them anyway. I had someone ask me if I were in Arizona would I enforce the new state law about illegals. My answer was YES, because that is what I am hired to do.

[tredhed2]

The suspect in this case merely "claimed" to have been decorated and was an O. By someone merely claiming, verbally (unk if "in writing" applies") - I am differentiating between those knotheads with very tiny p****** who wear uniforms and/or medals in public. The SV Act should apply to them.

 

Now, shrapneldude sort of touched on the crux of the issue.

 

I happen to agree with the trial judge. Why? This was the only law of which I am aware that infringed on free speech. By claiming to be someone you are not (a decorated service member), those words uttered to present the claim ("I was awarded a _____________') made you a Federal criminal. If someone was stupid enough to say "I'm a bank robber", without any proof, acts, conspicaies with others, that statement alone is not unlawful in the same way way the S.V. Act was written. That person could not be arrested for making the statement, althought he might draw attention.

 

As far as the FBI (Famous, But Incompetent) goes, they are still trying to figure out where all the terrorists are hiding in plain sight, so they have their hands full.

[JBFloyd]

I don't know of any court cases involving collectors, as they never got to court. In two major cases the FBI used its powers to jerk two clowns around, essentially costing them $25,000 each in lawyer fees. At that point, knowing they had a very weak case (or a prosecutor telling them to go find real criminals), the FBI pitched the paperwork. Their point was made and the collecting community understood their risk of similar shakedowns.

[Jack's Son]

I don't know of any court cases involving collectors, as they never got to court. In two major cases the FBI used its powers to jerk two clowns around, essentially costing them $25,000 each in lawyer fees. At that point, knowing they had a very weak case (or a prosecutor telling them to go find real criminals), the FBI pitched the paperwork. Their point was made and the collecting community understood their risk of similar shakedowns.

That's more along the line of what I was thinking.

For medal collectors, there has not been a "test case".

[Teamski]

OK.... SO will it be soon legal to buy/sell or trade the MOH? If so, I wish I didn't let mine go back in the 1990's......

 

-Ski

[Adam R]

One important point isn't mentioned in the article. Did the judge rule the entire law unconstitutional, or only that portion of the law that relates to making false claims about being the recipient of military decorations? In other words, does the other portion of the law, dealing with buying and selling of medals still stand? Or has it also been struck down? This is an important point for collectors. Perhaps some legal eagle here on the Forum can research this. (Either way, I doubt eBay is going to let us sell DSCs or Purple Hearts any time soon.) :thumbdown:

[Spathologist]

I happen to agree with the trial judge. Why? This was the only law of which I am aware that infringed on free speech. By claiming to be someone you are not (a decorated service member), those words uttered to present the claim ("I was awarded a _____________') made you a Federal criminal. If someone was stupid enough to say "I'm a bank robber", without any proof, acts, conspicaies with others, that statement alone is not unlawful in the same way way the S.V. Act was written. That person could not be arrested for making the statement, althought he might draw attention.

 

Your analogy is flawed.

 

What happens when someone impersonates a veteran is that they are presenting themselves as someone who held a Federal commission or office, and they are gaining benefit from it.

 

This is exactly the same thing as impersonating other Federal officers, such as FBI, DEA, or CIA. Saying, "I'm a retired FBI agent", and gaining benefit from it, will certainly land you in jail because the government has a compelling interest in ensuring no one impersonates current of former members of those organizations.

 

But the key part of the judge's ruling, the part that allows him to declare it unconstitutional, is that, according to him, the government has no compelling interest in ensuring no one impersonates a military veteran.

 

IOW, the honor, dignity, and respect accorded to those with military service are not worthy of protection.

 

The judge can kiss my albino tushy.

[shrapneldude]

IOW, the honor, dignity, and respect accorded to those with military service are not worthy of protection.

 

The judge can kiss my albino tushy.

 

This has very little to do with honor or dignity of military veterans. That is emotional baggage pinned to these laws which have been used to push this legislation forward..."preserving the honor of our veterans." In the truest spirit of American freedom, the best way for them to honor any veteran's sacrifice would be to banish all laws that interfere with free speech.

 

There are already laws against stealing money and/or benefits under false pretenses. I know this is a very touchy subject for many American military enthusiasts and veterans, but the fact is, whether we like it or not, in America, free speech for EVERYONE ought to be protected and defended. These guys get publicly called onto the carpet by veterans groups and patriotic organizations (ironically those groups are often very quick to suggest and support laws that go against the constitution.) But using federal tax money to pay someone to go after these guys just for lying? There are child molesters and rapists and murderers they can hunt down, and I'd rather someone be locked up for those kinds of crimes than stealing someone's vague concept of honor and dignity by being full of crap.

[trenchbuff]

Big government is bad. How many examples do we need?

[67Rally]

There are child molesters and rapists and murderers they can hunt down, and I'd rather someone be locked up for those kinds of crimes than stealing someone's vague concept of honor and dignity by being full of crap.

 

Yet when those folks are caught and sent to prison, they released and turned back onto society to continue where they left off. Either way, the laws such as SVA are only enforced in the courts when there is political capital at stake. Look at our current immigration laws. They are seldom enforced because there is nothing to be gained by the politicians as most Americans don't really care.

[Spathologist]

This has very little to do with honor or dignity of military veterans.

\

 

It has everything to do with it. Apparently, your desire for dingle-dangles overrides any outrage you should feel over someone using the office you and I have bled for and others have died for to acquire from others what they haven't earned themselves, whether it be money, favors or respect. I'm sorry your concept of honor and dignity is "less vague" than those of us who do feel harmed by these impostors.

 

Impersonation is not free speech. It's theft. Every time one of these turds gets something they haven't earned, it takes from those of us that have.

 

I have no problem with owning medals; they should be collected, studied and preserved. I have a problem with people using them to commit fraud, which this scumball did, and which should be punished.

[shrapneldude]

\

 

It has everything to do with it. Apparently, your desire for dingle-dangles overrides any outrage you should feel over someone using the office you and I have bled for and others have died for to acquire from others what they haven't earned themselves, whether it be money, favors or respect. I'm sorry your concept of honor and dignity is "less vague" than those of us who do feel harmed by these impostors.

 

Impersonation is not free speech. It's theft. Every time one of these turds gets something they haven't earned, it takes from those of us that have.

 

I have no problem with owning medals; they should be collected, studied and preserved. I have a problem with people using them to commit fraud, which this scumball did, and which should be punished.

 

Don't do that man. You're throwing a whole bunch of emotion into the mix where it definitely doesn't belong. If you want to discuss personally, by all means, send me a PM. My desire for "dingle-dangles" doesn't have anything to do with this either. Don't tell me what I should feel. I am outraged by it. I'm just not sure sending the full force of the FBI down on these guys is the answer, and changing laws around to skirt free speech is far more of an outrage.

 

These turds getting something they haven't earned in the way of tangible gifts...benefits, cash donations, etc. etc. under false pretenses, that was already a crime -- fraud, theft, etc. I feel offended by these impostors. Not so much for me, but for my friends who bled a lot more than I did and didn't come home and will never get the "attaboys" these guys lap up like starving kittens. Then again, getting that sort of attention as a "real" veteran never really sat well with me anyhow. It disgusts me to my core to see some sorrya** miserable phony trot out in front of a bunch of flag-waving Americans and be idolized, having never served or never earned the decorations he wears.

 

However...it would sicken me inside and out even more if we let our nation devolve into a place where we had to fear the government every time we said something that someone else would object to. The desire to own old war stuff, or guns, or anything else is NOT the underlying factor here. FREEDOM to own whatever we want, say whatever we want, and do whatever we want, so long as we're not harming anyone. The constitution doesn't grant you a right not to be insulted by what someone says, but it does grant you the right to say insulting things and not have to worry about being rounded up by the cops.

 

We can use OUR freedom of speech to publicly discredit and shame these posers, and accomplish the same end without having to sign over our rights as Americans.

 

*EDIT* For the record, I know that the intent of these laws was to honor vets and keep their sacrifices from being exploited by con men which is a very good intention. This is not how the law is being applied, and it's hurting some very honest and upstanding members of society as well as the scumbags. That, and when a veteran serves to defend freedom, he defends freedom for people regardless of whether he agrees with them or not. Honoring their service by interfering with freedom is a pretty backwards approach. Emotion (and political ambition -- "Vote for me! I'm DOING something to honor our vets!!") is the real problem.

[tom2001]

This has very little to do with honor or dignity of military veterans.

 

 

Well said! Other posters here are confusing two separate legal issues: fraud, and free speech (or to be more precise, "protected speech").

 

Someone impersonating a veteran (decorated or not), and thereby receiving a benefit or reward by doing so, is committing fraud. No different than lying on your income taxes or being part of a Nigerian email scam.

 

The important question that the judge ruled on today was whether the simple act of lying about being awarded medals is protected speech. That is, speech protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution (The Bill of Rights). Except for certain circumstances such as incitement (shouting fire in a crowded movie theater), obscenity, and hate speech, all speech is protected. The same law that protects my right to openly criticize my government also protects the right of the KKK to march down my street.

 

And it also allows people to lie.

 

If the defendant in the Colorado case obtained financial benefit by lying about his military service, there may be separate fraud charges against him. But as of right now (pending government appeal), the SVA is unconstitutional, because lying, even about military awards, is protected speech

[Blair217]

Have any of you seen this http://www.burnpit.us/2010/07/illinois-may...ilence-opponent Protecting free speech is one thing,calling a lie free speech is a horse of a different color.If I were to go around representing myself as a decorated retired FBI agent beyond doubt I would be arrested and prosecuted for the lie.The "Stolen Valor Act" may have not been the proper venue to go to court on in the Arizona case if fraud and monetary gain were involved.The better question to ask is who will benefit from this court ruling and who will not.

[Manchu Warrior]

Have any of you seen this http://www.burnpit.us/2010/07/illinois-may...ilence-opponent Protecting free speech is one thing,calling a lie free speech is a horse of a different color.If I were to go around representing myself as a decorated retired FBI agent beyond doubt I would be arrested and prosecuted for the lie.The "Stolen Valor Act" may have not been the proper venue to go to court on in the Arizona case if fraud and monetary gain were involved.The better question to ask is who will benefit from this court ruling and who will not.

I am no expert on this subject but I would think that if someone is sitting around drinking beers and telling fabricated stories about his FBI service it would also be considered free speech. The problem is when the same person starts to impersonate an FBI agent or a police officer. And as much as I believe anyone lying about military service is a scumbag I also believe anyone impersonating a police officer is a much greater threat to society then someone playing soldier. Simply because if they bang on your front door and show you a fake badge and say they are the police I believe most would be more inclined to let them in. But, if they were claiming to be a soldier or were even dressed in ACUs I would think most of us would tell them where the local army base was located and would then proceed to dead bolt the door.

[tom2001]

Have any of you seen this http://www.burnpit.us/2010/07/illinois-may...ilence-opponent Protecting free speech is one thing,calling a lie free speech is a horse of a different color.If I were to go around representing myself as a decorated retired FBI agent beyond doubt I would be arrested and prosecuted for the lie.The "Stolen Valor Act" may have not been the proper venue to go to court on in the Arizona case if fraud and monetary gain were involved.The better question to ask is who will benefit from this court ruling and who will not.

 

A couple of points:

 

I'm not following your thinking here. A retired FBI agent, a retired postal worker, or a discharged member of the military are just ex Federal employees. They hold no special legal status because of their former employment.

 

And, fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your perspective, lying is indeed protected speech. If it weren't, every guy chatting up a girl in a bar on a Friday night would be committing a crime.

[tom2001]

BTW, if anyone wants to read the judge's decision, it's available on Google docs:

 

http://docs.google.com/#search/strandlof

 

Only 14 pages, double spaced, so pretty easy to read!!

 

EDIT: I guess you need a Google account to be able to open Google docs, so I've attached a copy of the PDF file. Hope this works!!

Strandlof_Decision.pdf

[shrapneldude]

A couple of points:

 

I'm not following your thinking here. A retired FBI agent, a retired postal worker, or a discharged member of the military are just ex Federal employees. They hold no special legal status because of their former employment.

 

And, fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your perspective, lying is indeed protected speech. If it weren't, every guy chatting up a girl in a bar on a Friday night would be committing a crime.

 

The line of thinking, as far as I can tell, is the idea that these guys are stealing honor and respect normally due veterans and policemen and such. If someone shakes their hand and says "thanks for your service" when they've never served at all, in the eyes of people who support this legislation, is nothing short of theft. They are stealing compliments and pats on the back. That's the mentality that got people to push for a new law in the first place. Like you say, though, lying is protected speech. The overly emotional response of "They're STEALING honor!" is really no different from a guy embellishing his high school football days or a lady lying about her age. Some lies are hurt more than others, but in the big picture, we as a nation really shouldn't be regulating this type of thing. Leave it up to the individual citizens to sort these phonies out and publicly discredit their claims.

[stingerwooten]

So, apparently this judge in the Strandlof case has declared the Stolen Valor Act a violation of the first amendment. He goes on to say that claiming false medals and military service equates to burning the flag – although there is a political message in burning the flag, and none in claiming service and medals. Finally he claims there are no victims.

 

Excuse me? You want to run that be me again judge?

 

With two wars still going on, valor has become a valuable commodity for individuals who want to skip enlistment and combat and go directly to the hero adoration stage. The Stolen Valor Act of 2005 was created to prosecute those who claim false awards and medals. While widely popular amongst the veteran community, these prosecutions do raise constitutional questions of free speech. We've had everyone from judges to admirals to bank employees facing accusations of felonious bravado.

 

Even George Washington himself, whom created the forerunner of the Purple Heart for those who have “given of his blood in the defense of his homeland” and declared that “should any who are not entitled to these honors have the insolence to assume the badges of them, they shall be severely punished.”

 

While most people, no doubt, share the anger and disgust with people claiming such honors, the question is where to draw the line between free speech and criminal conduct. Citizens have a right to burn an American flag as a form of protected speech. However, if they do so while wearing a single falsely claimed medal, they can be prosecuted.

 

I'm sure we can all agree that false claims of military honors are repugnant and worthy of social condemnation. These men deserve to be social pariahs, but there remains a serious question over whether they deserve to be prosecuted as criminals.

 

In my personal opinion, yes..it does.

 

This is an issue of fraud plain and simple. The individuals who violate this law are those who knowingly portray themselves as pillars of the community for personal and monetary gain. Maybe I misunderstand the intent of the First Amendment, but I've always been under the impression that it protected political speech. I.e. Congress could make no law which stifled or prohibited political speech. The idea was to prevent the sitting government from essentially outlawing the speech of those who didn't agree with it.

 

So how is lying about a medal "political speech"? And why should a lie be protected anyway? Obviously it shouldn't.

 

Stolen Valor isn't just about financial profit. It's also about theft. These people attempt to steal what someone else has earned for their own purposes. It gives the offending individual the power to be able to join an organization, get special treatment with regards to getting tickets to a football game, getting license plates, getting preferential treatment in a job situation, even enticing somebody into marriage.

 

I think Doug Sterner (creator of the Home of Heroes website and one of the authors of the Stolen Valor Act) said it best in regards to what George Washington stated in regards to claiming false honors, "Should any who are not entitled to these honors have the insolence to assume the badges of them, they shall be severely punished." Mr. Sterner explained, "I think that speaks to the intent of the framers, that George Washington saw this kind of lie outside the scope of this freedom-of-speech issue." All of these Stolen Valor cases point to ethical responsibility and the reprehensible nature of those claiming to have won honors others have sometimes given their lives to achieve. It's morally reprehensible for someone to claim valor awards and achievements for those brave military men and women that died in defense of this great nation.

 

So Judge, tell me once again...why do we prosecute the frauds and the phonies? I'll leave you with these as a prime examples;

 

Take a good look at the following pictures and then tell us a phony has a constitutional right - "Freedom of Speech" - to say he 'earned' a Purple Heart, when he did not!

 

 

 

 

 

'Nuff said!