Charges Dismissed in Stolen Valor case

[KaosDad]

First - I agree that the SVA has some major flaws in it. It's like so many other laws of the land that its intentions were great, the implimentation is really bad and can be gotten around very easily.

 

However, in the case of folks lying about being active or former military - it has a very good & solid application; by arresting someone under the SVA for impersonation it allows the investigation into other, more serious offenses. And that is what we are talking about here - it's not about "lying" per se, it is impersonation which is a type of fraud. Granted - there are certain times when impersonation is permitted: Halloween (to an extent), acting in theater or movies. Claiming to be someone/something you are not in order to gain benefit is fraud.

 

The Judge, in this case, has confused lying with impersonation for gain. Therein is the flaw of his ruling.

 

IAMNAL

[Blair217]

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.

 

You miss my point.In the judges decision way down at the bottom,lieing in this instance is protected free speech because it "does not serve a compelling government interest" to find it otherwise.I was trying to make an analogy by using the FBI agent in which in one case a lie is protected speech and in another case it may not be so if it serves "a compelling government interest" to prosecute the lie.Who is doing the lieing is immaterial to the point I was trying to make,in one case a lie is free speech and the same lie under different circumstances is not.Another poster used lieing to a girl in a bar as an example of free speech,there is a difference in saying something in private which is a lie and publically saying something such as shouting "FIRE" in a crowded building.In one case there is no "compelling government interest" to keep you from trying to make a pick up in a bar in the other there is "compelling government interest" to keep you from shouting fire.The government won't prosecute you for cheating at cards in a game in your basement but by the same token will for cheating on your taxes although in both cases it was for gain and in both cases involves cheating.Compelling government interest.

 

Is free speech protected to the extent that the liar can sue someone in court for exposing his lie as in the link I posted?

[USMCRECON]

That is just so wrong; so very, very wrong on so many levels.

 

I guess if the Stolen Valor law is now unconstitutional, the next time I see some walking, talking rectum of a faker/poser/pretender exercisers his constitutional right to wear valor medals he didn't earn, I guess I'll have to just exercise my right of free expression by getting right in his face and voice my disagreement absd, if it came to it, field strip him on the spot

[shrapneldude]

That is just so wrong; so very, very wrong on so many levels.

 

I guess if the Stolen Valor law is now unconstitutional, the next time I see some walking, talking rectum of a faker/poser/pretender exercisers his constitutional right to wear valor medals he didn't earn, I guess I'll have to just exercise my right of free expression by getting right in his face and voice my disagreement absd, if it came to it, field strip him on the spot

 

Physically accosting them would be against the law. But sure, use words all you want. It's your freedom to.

 

It still confounds me how so many people think we're honoring veterans by suppressing freedoms and why nobody seems to get the bottom line of the argument is that it IS unconstitutional. You call these guys a walking talking rectum, which clearly, they are not, so that's a lie...an exaggeration, or an insult. You are FREE to say it! Ain't America great? What if the feds could round you up and toss you in the gulag for saying that?

 

I'm not saying that we're in imminent danger of giving up free speech altogether in the US, but this does set a precedent if someone were to be convicted of simply saying "I'm a war hero." Because as you can see above...we then go to FBI agents, and the like... SWAT teams, police officers, security guards, crossing guards, etc etc. Where does it end? Sure it's despicable to pose as something you're not. I even hate it when Marines tell BS or exaggerated war stories to get attention, and they ARE legitimate combat veterans. But trust me, you DON'T want to live in a country that passes law after law against mere speech. I like to think that the wounded soldiers and Marines that were pictured above...and those who died in the service of this country would be deeply saddened to see the freedom that they were willing to fight and die for so carelessly given away in their name.

[MAW]

This was a big-government, poorly-written law that was flawed from the start.

 

1.) People are trying to portray themselves as decorated veterans with intent to deceive others for personal gain are pathetic and deserve ridicule. Otherwise, it is not a crime to make a fool of yourself.

 

2.) Making it retro-actively illegal to own a MoH or anything similar is wrong. After a medal is awarded, the veteran or legal owner should have the right to treat it as any other property. Hang it on the wall. Keep it in your safety deposit box. Be buried with it.....or <gasp> sell it.

 

3.) The scary thing in all of this is that the government can strong arm people and intimidate citizens by forcing you to spend thousands of dollars on lawyers for something that is so obviously wrong.

 

4.) Do not write laws based on emotion; they should be based on logic. The Constitution and Bill of Rights should be read more often by our law makers. With attention to the Bill of Rights.

[USMCRECON]

Physically accosting them would be against the law. But sure, use words all you want. It's your freedom to.

 

It still confounds me how so many people think we're honoring veterans by suppressing freedoms and why nobody seems to get the bottom line of the argument is that it IS unconstitutional. You call these guys a walking talking rectum, which clearly, they are not, so that's a lie...an exaggeration, or an insult. You are FREE to say it! Ain't America great? What if the feds could round you up and toss you in the gulag for saying that?

 

We are in major disagreement on this issue, shrapnel and I don't see any ground for compromise on it, I'm afraid.

 

That these fakers are walking, talking rectums is not a lie or an exaggeration. It's an opinion; my opinion. It's my opinion that anyone who falsely/fraudulently wears valor medals he/she did not earn is a walking, talking rectum. It's my opinion and stating my opinion is protected speech too, just like some walking, talking rectum wearing medals he/she didn't earn.

 

It's also my opinion that anyone who wears and claims valor medals to which they're not entitled, should be throttled. As for going to jail....hardly. I do not initiate physical confrontations; only a fool does that. Should, while I was exercising my free speech in telling the faker what I personally thought of him and his wearing unearned medals, said faker touch me or make any gesture that I interpreted as threatening to me, we'll escalate as necessary.

 

I have verbally challenged several fakers over the years but have never deliberately initiated a physical confrontation. The pathetic part is that these faux heroes, these lying fakers, don't seem to pack the gear it would have taken to earn the medals they're fraudulently wearing. In every case (that I know of) they've turned tail when challenged rather than take the scolding they initiated like a man.

 

I'm puzzled by the way some claim they are honoring vets as well but that's their fight to freedom of expression. I honor them by volunteering in the Honor Flight program. We meet flights of WW-II vets at the airport and escort them to the National Mall to visit their memorial; I know, that's pretty weird, huh.

 

As for free speech, not all speech is protected. You're not free to yell fire in a theater when there is none. You're not free to tell an airline attendant you have a bomb on an airliner when you don't, etc, etc. Claiming to be a federal officer or a law enforcement officer when you're not, I believe, is also still a criminal offense.

 

OK.....I've said my piece.

[USMCRECON]

This was a big-government, poorly-written law that was flawed from the start.

 

.........The scary thing in all of this is that the government can strong arm people and intimidate citizens by forcing you to spend thousands of dollars on lawyers for something that is so obviously wrong.

 

.......Do not write laws based on emotion; they should be based on logic. The Constitution and Bill of Rights should be read more often by our law makers. With attention to the Bill of Rights.

 

The really scary thing is that the govenment has already passed several stupid, frivolous, politicaly- and emotionally-based laws (that the majority of Americans are opposed to) that have and will strongarm Americans into paying trillions. They should have read the Bill of Rights before doing that too but they didn't.

[shrapneldude]

We are in major disagreement on this issue, shrapnel and I don't see any ground for compromise on it, I'm afraid.

 

That these fakers are walking, talking rectums is not a lie or an exaggeration. It's an opinion; my opinion. It's my opinion that anyone who falsely/fraudulently wears valor medals he/she did not earn is a walking, talking rectum. It's my opinion and stating my opinion is protected speech too, just like some walking, talking rectum wearing medals he/she didn't earn.

 

It's also my opinion that anyone who wears and claims valor medals to which they're not entitled, should be throttled. As for going to jail....hardly. I do not initiate physical confrontations; only a fool does that. Should, while I was exercising my free speech in telling the faker what I personally thought of him and his wearing unearned medals, said faker touch me or make any gesture that I interpreted as threatening to me, we'll escalate as necessary.

 

I have verbally challenged several fakers over the years but have never deliberately initiated a physical confrontation. The pathetic part is that these faux heroes, these lying fakers, don't seem to pack the gear it would have taken to earn the medals they're fraudulently wearing. In every case (that I know of) they've turned tail when challenged rather than take the scolding they initiated like a man.

 

I'm puzzled by the way some claim they are honoring vets as well but that's their fight to freedom of expression. I honor them by volunteering in the Honor Flight program. We meet flights of WW-II vets at the airport and escort them to the National Mall to visit their memorial; I know, that's pretty weird, huh.

 

As for free speech, not all speech is protected. You're not free to yell fire in a theater when there is none. You're not free to tell an airline attendant you have a bomb on an airliner when you don't, etc, etc. Claiming to be a federal officer or a law enforcement officer when you're not, I believe, is also still a criminal offense.

 

OK.....I've said my piece.

 

 

What I meant was playing devil's advocate and saying, of course, that rectums cannot walk or talk. So to say a human being is in fact a rectum is a false statement. It is your opinion, just as it may be another man's opinion that the sun is made of butter. Again, you are free to express that opinion.

 

I know not all speech is protected...but again, that is not my argument. If I were being honest, It ought to be. But the fake war stories are far less harmful than yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater. Reenactors, crummy movies starring Chuck Norris and Stephen Segal, and ridiculous novels about Delta teams have done more to skew the public perception of the military than any two-bit mama's boy in an unearned uniform. They suck...they're cowards...they don't deserve to breathe the same air as a real veteran and ought to be ashamed of themselves. That's our common ground. Where we differ, is our definition of freedom. This shouldn't be a government matter any more than a man saying "no honey, I wasn't looking at her chest!" It's none of the government's business if someone lies, and to be quite honest, it's none of ours either. The laws against fraud and theft and so forth are more than sufficient, and why there needs to be a SPECIAL law for military posers is kinda hard to understand. Big hardcore recon dudes like yourself are who should be dealing with these guys. NOT the FBI.

[Adam R]

This thread brings to mind the quote by Evelyn Beatrice Hall (often incorrectly attributed to Voltaire); - "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

[MAW]

This thread brings to mind the quote by Evelyn Beatrice Hall (often incorrectly attributed to Voltaire); - "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

 

You have the right idea....good quote for the situation.

 

When I was in college, I came to an area where a group of students had just dispersed, and they had burnt an American flag as a protest to something. If I had seen them, I would have given them H*ll. But........they have the right to be idiotic college students if they want to be.

[USMCRECON]

You have the right idea....good quote for the situation.

 

When I was in college, I came to an area where a group of students had just dispersed, and they had burnt an American flag as a protest to something. If I had seen them, I would have given them H*ll. But........they have the right to be idiotic college students if they want to be.

 

And those who disagree with the burning of the American flag also have an equal right to intervene as their own form of protest. I wasn't going to post again on this thread but your comment reminds me of a baseball game I was watching back in April of 1976. The Cubs were playing the Dodgers in Dodger Stadium and since I was living in Chicago, it was on the tube.

 

Two nitwits (in my opinion) ran out onto the field during the game and tried to set fire to an American flag in short center field. Rick Monday came running in from right the field area and snatched the flag out up off the ground before they could set fire to it. You might say that was his counter-protest. I will NEVER forget that game or Rick Monday.

 

Americans do not have to sit idly by and watch everything we believe in slowly be destroyed. We have the right to make our feelings known and to act on them just like these (in my opinion) walking, talking rectums.

 

It's none of the government's business if someone lies, and to be quite honest, it's none of ours either. Big hardcore recon dudes like yourself are who should be dealing with these guys. NOT the FBI.

 

It should be someone's business when these individuals walk around wearing valor medals they didn't earn. I'm not sure if the "big hardcore Recon dude" comment was supposed to be humor but, the truth is; I don't go on witch hunts, looking for anyone with a medal on his/her chest or hat, or telling a little war story. However, when I see or hear the obvious fakers, phonies, and egregious liars, I will continue to exercise my own rights of free speech and expression and aggressively challenge the valor thieves. I don't have to stand by and let that happen.

 

OK.....now I'm really done with this thread.

[shrapneldude]

Americans do not have to sit idly by and watch everything we believe in slowly be destroyed. We have the right to make our feelings known and to act on them just like these (in my opinion) walking, talking rectums.

It should be someone's business when these individuals walk around wearing valor medals they didn't earn. I don't go on witch hunts, looking for anyone with a medal on his/her chest or hat, or telling a little war story, but when it comes to the obvious fakers, phonies, and egregious liars, I will continue to exercise my own rights of free speech and expression and aggressively challenge the valor thieves. I don't have to stand by and let that happen.

 

OK.....now I'm really done with this thread.

 

I don't mean to keep arguing this, because it's clearly not going anywhere, but it's YOUR business, if that's what you choose to do. It's the business of anyone who wishes to contend with these phonies and discredit their BS claims. Any private citizen of the US can act when the opportunity presents itself with these phonies simply by calling them out for their lies.

 

If we're so weak and powerless as a nation as to let the valor of our national heroes be stolen by a few con artists, and to be in such a state of shock over it that the only way to stop it is for the government to step in with sweeping, vaguely worded legislation, then we don't need heroes...we need a miracle. Valor, honor, and dignity are not legal terms, they are emotional terms and mean something different to everyone. To me, those things can't be stolen because they are intangibles, but they are also mine. I assign the honor or respect to the Marines and Corpsman I served with, and they hold a special place in my heart. To me, they've earned it. To someone else their honor and respect may go to a football player or a CEO or something. How can someone steal feelings? Again...not defending posers, or reenactors, or anyone else who wants to get dolled up in a uniform and claim to be something they are not, but looking at some pathetic "never-was" loser who gets busted for this crap does NOTHING to change my opinion of the real heroes. Getting into it on this deep level wasn't my intention, but since the foundations of freedom in America aren't enough of an argument here, perhaps on a visceral level think about whether these guys make fools of themselves, or of the people who allow them to diminish their respect for others.

 

Physically attacking someone is not one of your rights under the constitution. A counter-protest is to be encouraged, but beating someone up...well, if you want to do that instead, prepare for a lengthy stay at the county jail. I personally wouldn't shed any tears for a poser who got beat up, but it ain't worth getting that on your record.

[Spathologist]

Physically accosting them would be against the law. But sure, use words all you want. It's your freedom to.

 

It still confounds me how so many people think we're honoring veterans by suppressing freedoms and why nobody seems to get the bottom line of the argument is that it IS unconstitutional.

 

Maybe all those people *are* the ones who "get it".

 

All rights have limits, that's constitutional law. You seem to think lying is protected speech, but it's not when you lie to investigating police officers, lie about someone verbally or in print, or lie about there being a fire in the movie theater.

 

And this issue is not about lying. It's about impersonation. Impersonation for personal benefit is fraud and theft.

 

Maybe now you will "get it".

[shrapneldude]

Maybe all those people *are* the ones who "get it".

 

All rights have limits, that's constitutional law. You seem to think lying is protected speech, but it's not when you lie to investigating police officers, lie about someone verbally or in print, or lie about there being a fire in the movie theater.

 

And this issue is not about lying. It's about impersonation. Impersonation for personal benefit is fraud and theft.

 

Maybe now you will "get it".

 

Fraud and Theft were crimes long before the SVA and fraud and theft happen all the time without war lies thrown into the mix.

The "it's not legal to yell fire" line is getting really old because again, people get hurt if you yell fire or lie to the police investigators and so forth.

This is about freedom and government intrusion pure and simple. I "GET" that people care for their own rights and very little for those of others. I don't get why military enthusiasts, combat veterans no less, couldn't seem to care less about freedom. What gives? Maybe I missed that period of instruction in boot camp where they said the only freedom that matters is that of people we agree with. I dunno. If I'm so wrong, and nobody cares that freedom means less and less in this country with each special interest group to pass a law, then fine. So be it but when you look around and wonder why all of a sudden some FBI officer is kicking your door down because you told a politically charged joke at the office, this is why. Because everyone got behind this type of law.

[Spathologist]

Fraud and Theft were crimes long before the SVA and fraud and theft happen all the time without war lies thrown into the mix.\

 

And this type of fraud and theft was never prosecuted until the SVA was passed.

[Blair217]

From some later news articles there is a good chance this is going to be appealed.

 

Lets put a little finer point on this arguement.Several political candidates have been called out on this but none of them to my knowledge have been taken to court on this for whatever reason.What was the real motivation behind prosecuting this guy to start with?Was this the only charge against him?Or is this one of many charges brought by an overzealous prosecuter in hopes one of them will stick in a flimsy case to start with?Was there some political motivation for bringing this case to court on that charge for one reason or another?

 

For those of you who hold this is free speech,unless I'm badly mistaken fraudulent claims are not protected free speech whether it is something you can or will be prosecuted for or not.The constitution says free speech not all speech or fraudulent speech,here's that shouting fire again example.The government has and will prosecute for things spoken or written when there is a compelling reason to do so in the public interest.Telling political jokes amongst your friends or lieing to a broad in bar to get a piece would not be considerd compelling reason to prosecute in the public interest and using them as examples of protected free speech is simplistic at best.

[JBFloyd]

Tom,

 

Thanks for posting the judge's full decision in this case. If folks would take the time to read it, they'll perhaps understand it better. Maybe a few will figure out that what "should be" is different from what "is"

[Chribo]

This is a problem the world over, I am not sure if any other countries have laws about it.

 

While I was in the army I saw a number of guys getting a kicking for wearing Foreign Legion T-Shirts or stuff but not being in the legion.

 

In the 15 years since I have left the army I have run accross or been introduced to about 10 "ex legionnaires".... of them I can say DEFINATELY 6 were never in, or never passed selection.

 

I find it sad and pathetic that they try, on the other hand I find the fact that some sad MF try to pretend to have been in the legion makes me actually prouder to have been there... cos I did something they did not.

 

Maybe they need a kicking, maybe I should consider houndingh them... but screw it...

 

Service (IMHO) is something a soldier and his familly can be proud of... realistically the rest of the world does not really care (May get you a free beer on occasion)...

 

As long as the Walter Mitty is not fraudulantly getting benifits from his lies then he is just a pathetic idiot who wishes he had done something he did not... I hesitate to say a "real time reenactor" ... but imagine what german vets think when they see guys running around in german uniforms with Iron Crosses.... some of those guys live in an imaginary world as well.... the "real time reenactor" just happes to REALLY live his fantasy...

 

IMHO catching one (uno, Eins, 1) single child molester is more important than 10 Walter Mitties pretending to have a pair of balls.

[MAW]

IMHO catching one (uno, Eins, 1) single child molester is more important than 10 Walter Mitties pretending to have a pair of balls.

 

 

Agree 100%.

[Blair217]

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_12373595?source=pkg

 

 

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_12364436?source=pkg

 

There is more involved here than making up stories about military service.

[tom2001]

I was gonna just sit back and watch this thread, but it's too interesting, and people have actually remained civil to each other (a rarity here), so I'll jump in again.

 

For fear of sounding like an old Monty Python routine, all speech is protected, unless it is NOT protected. Courts have made specific rulings in the past abridging freedom of speech. If restrictions haven't been passed into law, or ruled on by the courts, then it's free (protected) speech. Some examples on where courts have ruled against unlimited free speech are: Hare Krishnas at airports, protests at jails, obscenity, putting lists of abortion providers and their patients on web sites, incitement to riot, to name just a few.

 

Throughout the years, courts have been very reluctant to limit content based speech. That is, not where or when or how you say something, but what you say. Generally, unless there is a "compelling government interest", or the speech presents a "clear and present danger", content based speech is protected. Besides the common example of "shouting fire in a crowded movie theater", courts have ruled that burning draft cards during the 1960's was not protected speech (cards were needed to keep a well regulated and efficient military draft), or that (during WWI), someone handing out flyers to new recruits inciting them to desert from the military was not free speech either.

 

The SVA as written is a content based restriction to free speech. In last week's ruling, Judge Blackburn stated that there was no compelling government interest to restrict the defendant's speech, and since the law was content based, it was therefore unconstitutional.

 

One last thing as I ramble on. FRAUD has a specific legal definition, unrelated to the colloquial usage. Read about it here:

http://definitions.uslegal.com/f/fraud/

[Blair217]

This from 2008 but is an interesting read http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/c...0,4361227.story

 

If this case stands or is upheld in appeal what happens to previous convictions made using this law?Somehow after researching this it seems to me there is more in the political than constitutional involved here.Frankly it is of concern to me that acceptance of lieing as being acceptable as free speech under any circumstance is disturbing and an example of how low the morals in this country have sunk.If your children could read and understand what this court case was about and then asked you,"Daddy does this mean it's okay to lie?",what would you tell them?The law notwistanding,people should be held accountable for what they say and is an acceptable way of judging someones character in most cultures by the truthfullness of the words spoken. The iniquities of the father are visited on the son.

 

 

"I am different from Washington;I have a higher,grander standard of principle.Washington could not lie.I can lie,but I won't".

Mark Twain

[JBFloyd]

If your children could read and understand what this court case was about and then asked you,"Daddy does this mean it's okay to lie?",what would you tell them?"

 

If they read and understand the decision they will understand that it has nothing to do with the acceptance of lying, that it is clear statement that the federal government cannot criminalize speech it doesn't like without a compelling reason.

[USMCRECON]

............ Physically attacking someone is not one of your rights under the constitution. A counter-protest is to be encouraged, but beating someone up...well, if you want to do that instead, prepare for a lengthy stay at the county jail. I personally wouldn't shed any tears for a poser who got beat up, but it ain't worth getting that on your record.

 

Who is going to stand up for him if others won't (pictures borrowed from another post):

 

 

Or for him:

 

 

I really wanted to be done commenting on this but you have misunderstood what I wrote earlier and I need to set that record straight on this particular issue. You might want to go back and re-read it. I don't go around stalking for someone to beat the crap out of just because I like to do it. I intimated that I have or would do such. I NEVER wrote that I would knowingly be the initiator of a physical altercation with (beat up) one of these (in my opinion) walking, talking rectum fakers just because he was stealing other men's/women's valor

 

What I DID write is that I would aggressively confront a valor thief verbally (my counter-protest). I continued with; should the valor thief make physical contact with me or make any gesture toward me that I construed to be threatening, I would then be well within MY RIGHTS to defend myself and I would do so. I further wrote that it would be highly unlikely the situation would reach such point; most of these valor thieves do not have the courage it would take to have earned the medal(s) they are fraudulently wearing.

 

I do not wish my words to be turned into something they were not. I hope that clears up and misconception about "beating someone up."

[bobgee]

PRIOR to the passing of the SVA, in 2002/03, the following ocurred.

 

This rectum had joined the Marine Corps League in Houston and was immediately fawned over by many based on his "heroism". He alledged to have been awarded the Navy Cross, Silver Star & 2 Purple Hearts in Vietnam in 1975 (DING-DING-DING!!!!) during the fall of Saigon. I personally heard him tell the story of being at Tan Son Hut (sp) airport as a grunt Cpl when his squad was attacked. They had men killed & wounded and a Marine Huey came in to pick them up. The pilot was killed and the co-pilot wounded. Our "hero" climbed into the pilot's seat and with the wounded co-pilot safely flew the bird out to a carrier in the gulf.

 

Sadly this rectum had actually been a Marine Sgt and served as an MSG in our embassy in Moscow and in Frankfurt. Consequently. he talked the talk and walked the walk.

 

He not only wore the uniform of a CWO-3 with medals, para wings, scuba badge and White House Service Badge (HMX-1 B.S.) but he had the citations and certificates to display as well.

 

The major offense which the Feds got him on was his altering of his DD214 to add the spurious decorations, in order to obtain Free State of Texas "Legion of Valor" license plates.

 

I ressurrect this tale to show that there were laws on the books PRIOR to SVA that could get the job done when rectums such as this were exposed. The US Attorney Houston at the time was a Navy Officer who got fully behind the prosecution efforts.

 

Semper Fi......Bobgee

 

"The Houston Chronicle - April 26, 2003 Edition

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/m...politan/1884713

Fake Marine sentenced to eight months in prison

A Houston man who posed as a highly decorated war hero was sentenced Friday to eight months in federal prison.

 

Paul Alan White, 47, had pleaded guilty in December to unlawfully wearing the Marine Corps uniform of a chief warrant officer 3 and a Navy Cross, Silver Star, Purple Heart and Vietnam Service ribbon. In January, he pleaded guilty to altering military discharge papers.

 

U.S. District Judge Sim Lake sentenced White to six months each for wearing the uniform and medals and to eight months for altering the military document, with the sentences to run concurrently.

 

White must also serve one year of under supervision upon his release, undergo mental health counseling and pay $6,000 in fines.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Man who impersonated war hero pleads guilty

 

 

The Feds say Paul Alan White did serve three years in the Marines, but never saw the combat he claimed to have taken part in.

By The Associated Press

 

(12/4/02 - HOUSTON) — An ex-Marine who pretended to be a Vietnam War hero pleaded guilty Wednesday to wearing a warrant officer's uniform adorned with some of the military's highest medals for valor that he didn't earn.

But Paul Alan White, 47, of Houston still faces trial on federal charges of forging a document to receive a Texas license plate reserved for veterans who earned medals for bravery.

 

White, who also is accused of violating his parole on a conviction of credit card fraud, admitted to have illegally worn a warrant officer uniform adorned with the Navy Cross, the Silver Star and the Purple Heart.

 

The Navy Cross is second only to the Medal of Honor as the Navy's highest honor for heroism. The Silver Star is awarded for bravery in combat, and the Purple Heart is awarded for wounds received in combat.

 

White served in the Marines from 1973 to 1976, but prosecutors say his records show he never achieved a rank higher than sergeant and did not serve in Vietnam or in combat. He has a federal conviction for impersonating a CIA agent.

 

White faces up to six months in prison and $5,000 fine. His trial on three counts of falsifying documents in relation to the license plate is slated for Jan. 21. Prosecutors say he claimed on those documents that he earned the medals he illegally wore.

 

On those charges, he faces up to 15 years in prison and a fine of $250,000."