This is not the Medal that you want.
The Purple Heart is one of two medals I hope to never get. It is something that is given in compensation for the sacrifices in a armed conflict. It is something that should not be actively sought. But someone should have told that to David Perelman who shot himself in the foot figuratively and literally.
A man who served three months in Vietnam as a cargo specialist in 1971 shot himself in the leg 20 years later and claimed it was a shrapnel wound. And as a result, he earned a Purple Heart and $180,000 in disability benefits from the VA in 1994.
But he shot himself in the foot — figuratively — because he later pleaded guilty to two counts of fraud for stealing the disability benefits and for wearing the medal to a national convention of the Military Order of the Purple Heart in Las Vegas.
Not surprisingly he tried to say that his actions of were simply freedom of speech. But you know your excuses are bad when even the 9th Court calls you on it.
But this week, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco declared that argument a stretch. The court clarified the distinction for Perelman, saying he was clearly donning his medal with the intent to deceive others.
Yep so I am sure you will have a fun time trying to explain how that hole in your foot got there to people.
Update: Here is a link to the 9th Court Ruling thanks to the link posted by 2-17AirCav.
Category: Phony soldiers, Shitbags
This is something that we have to watch for every day when people call in for their orders. Some of the stories are pretty amazing that these guys come up with….
Only 2 medals you don’t want? While deployed we played this game and found at least 4:
MOH
Purple Heart
POW Medal
Antarctic Service
I love u medals of America. Can I get a discount on a sweet shadow box now?
Poor SOB. If only he had spoken with a lisp, wore a Carmen Miranda hat and a Liberace jacket, he would have prevailed.
>But you know your excuses are bad when even the 9th Court
In one of my law classes, My professor actually stated that the 9th leans one way politically..and by the court case we were reviewing-could I tell which way they tended to lean…
Duh, didn’t even need to look at the court case.. HELLO! It is truly a bad day when the 9th Circuit does not support the “wrong” party.
No wonder so many people detest attorneys, especially those in black robes and, most especially, those on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Here we have a loser, Perleman, who argues that the statute prohibiting the wearing of unauthorized medals is facially invalid in view of the 1st Amendment. He points to the Alvarez case and says, ‘See! You guys already said that oral deception (i.e., lying) is constitutionally protected speech.” So he figures he can’t lose, this being the selfsame court that decided Alvarez. Surprise! He loses. Not that I’m disappointed, mind you, but coupling the wearing of an unauthorized medal, ribbon, etc., with the intent to deceive others AFTER you’ve just recently declared that lying itself is constitutionally protected speech is rather odd. It means that one can say “I earned the MOH, Silver Star, and Purple Heart” when he never served a day in service but if the same knucklehead actually pins a Purple Heart on his chest, he has broken the law. Crazy stuff. If you want to read the rather short decision, here it is: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/09/26/10-10571.pdf