It Ain’t Over Quite Yet – Or Looking For A Silver Lining?
As TSO points out here there IS a bill pending that may actually be a better option for dealing with Stolen Valor anyway.
The Summary:
Stolen Valor Act of 2011 – Amends the federal criminal code to subject an individual who, with intent to obtain anything of value, knowingly makes a misrepresentiation regarding his or her military service to: (1) a fine, one year’s imprisonment, or both if the misrepresentation is that such individual served in a combat zone or in a special operations force or was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor; and (2) a fine, six months’ imprisonment, or both, in any other case. Provides that: (1) this Act shall not apply to a misrepresentation that an individual did not serve in the Armed Forces, and (2) it is a defense to prosecution that the thing of value is de minimis.
Time to shake off this set back and get to work!
Category: Geezer Alert!, Stolen Valor Act
But again, this thing is in the Homeland Security Subcommitee and has been for the last month. I’m not going to hold my breath. And even if this were to get past the house, Reid would sit on it until after this session of Congress concludes, and they’ll have to start the ball all over again.
Bottom line, no SVA, revamped or otherwise, until at least next year.
I believe a misrepresentation of anything in order to gain something of value is called fraud and has been against the law for quite some time.
This is a much better law than the original SVA. For one, because it is a fraud statute since it requires an intent to obtain something of value, and there is no doubt that fraud can be criminally punished. Also the original one suffered from both vagueness and under-inclusiveness problems. It isn’t clear whether someone like Jason Truitt would have been punishable under the original act – he never actually claimed any medals (at least, not anywhere that I’ve seen) he just claimed to have been wounded, a POW and a SEAL (and yes, I realize to vets there is little substantive difference between saying “I was a POW” and “I earned the POW medal” but it was still room for a defense argument) and if this flaw would have prevented his punishment, then the law was underinclusive for failing to punish this substantially similar conduct. Under the proposed new version, he’d be nailed dead to rights for his lies, since he got a free trip and a free gun. I know it’s not a popular view around here, but I think SCOTUS did the right thing. Now Congress can go back and fix it.
Wait and see? Dunno. It does look, at first glance anyway, as if the propsed law is an improvement.
[…] Lilyea, stalwart exposer of medal impersonators, points us to a bill in Congress that may work. Posted by Bruce Kesler at 11:01 | Comments (3) | […]
@1 I’m not sure, Sparky – I’m fairly liberal myself, as are a good number of friends, and all of us support some form of the SVA. We differ in terms of what we find acceptable, but nobody -not a single person I know, including registered Democrats- thinks there aren’t many situations where a law of this sort would be great.
My hope is that this will be expedited through, especially in light of the fallout from the SCOTUS ruling. I have no love for Reid, but given what I think the public opinion on this is, I could easily see an outcry make this happen. Not because he thinks it’s right, but because he doesn’t want negative publicity.
@2- Took the words right out of my mouth, (uh, fingers?)
I don’t think liberal has anything to do with it. Reid is a douchenozzle of the highest order and has been sitting on anything and everything that has come from the House, including the budget, etc.
Congress, in their own minds, have bigger fish to fry. This is a presidential election year, and nobody on either side of the aisle is about to make any waves if it hurts their chances of reelection or retaining the majority in their respective chambers.
I’m remaining skeptical because Congress in even the best of times is a sloth-like object, and more so of late.
I’d bet you’re correct, NHSparky, but for a different reason. There was another SCOTUS decision released today. It’s going to dominate the news for a while.
Well, there’s that little thing, too.
Remember how difficult it was for the Feds to go after gangsters because of the Constitutionally protected right of free association? The FBI simply went after them on their spoils, ie income tax evasion.
Same thing here. Free speach is constitutionally protected; even open douche-baggery. The “Spoils” is the key. If there is anything of value obtained or attempted to be gained, it is fraud.
This won’t do anything to stop the guy in a bar from claiming to be a SEAL but it does stop the guy trying to gain something of persoanl value by misrepresenting facts that are instrumental in his scheme.
This is kind of my position on gun laws BTW. We don’t need new laws, we need to enforce the ones we already have.
@8 I agree the Congress is utterly pathetic, but even the pathetic creatures like Reid are inclined to move when public sentiment of their own party holds them in contempt, ESPECIALLY during an election year. When the pendulum swings far enough that their re-election chances are hurt by NOT introducing the bill, they’ll take action.
Maybe I’m hopelessly optimistic, but I’d strike a sympathetic tone, roll out the examples of the biggest frauds in the press, explain how they scam Mom and Dad out of money, the government out of taxes, and sweet little kids out of their hopes and dreams, and that the only way they get away with it all is because stupid Harry Reid won’t bring the bill up in Congress, and wait for the magic to happen.
And ‘liberal’ only matters if this is perceived as a strictly Republican effort, in which case the Democrats would oppose it. Make sure it’s a non-partisan thing and there are fewer problems.
@11 I would go so far to say that if I buy the guy in the bar a beer becuause I think he’s a fellow vet, then I should be able to get him for fraud. (And then I tell everyone I know about him being a douche bag. Which is the exercize of MY right to free speech.)
Beer is, after all, something of value 🙂
HM2 FMF-SW Ret: so is getting laid. And I really want to see how that shakes out regarding the “de minimis” clause of the proposed HR 1775. (smile)
This is one of many things that I simply cannot twist into a partisan issue. Those who do – well, I have no words to describe them that can be used in polite company.
@15, That may be true, but if we assign a dollar value to said activity, does it not become illegal activity?
Things that make you go Hmmmmmm…..
“a bill pending that may be a better option”
Has anyone ever wondered how we can have so many lawyers in Congress, with all kinds of aides etc,and yet every bill written seems to end up in court with millions of dollars of court cost? How about we charge back the court costs on bad bills to the people who wrote the bad bill?
@8 – Sparky, Reid is the worst kind of piece of festering, bleeding shit. He’s an obstructionist, partisan, socialist bag of cock!
I was in Vegas last month, and was sitting around with a stripper at one of the clubs (don’t ask) and she was telling me how old Harry has a weakness for strippers and blow, and is often seen at such establishments with coke up his nose.
Gotta love it!
[…] It Ain’t Over Quite Yet – Or Looking For A Silver Lining? […]
HM2 FMF-SW Ret: a “thing of value” need not have a defined monetary value. That value may be intangible. (smile)
The SCOTUS decision today did not take issue with that point. All recognized that stolen valor injures both legitimate recipients of military honors and the government’s interests.
What six justices took issue with was the fact that a content restriction was imposed with respect to verbal speech. Four justices felt that such a restriction was not warranted, and that nonrestrictive measures (e.g., publicly “outing” the perpetrators) would sufficiently serve the government’s interests vice a restriction on the First Amendment. Two justices felt that the original scope of coverage of the First Amendment restriction was overly broad, but implied that a more narrowly-scoped restriction might pass muster.
pagar: That doesn’t make sense, amigo. No one ever knows how the SCOTUS will rule before it rules.
Beer is something of value, so is an impressionable girl’s virginity. How about the upper hand in an argument? How about respect or moral authority? I like to think that honor is something of value but apparently the Supreme Coutrt thinks otherwise.
Simple explanation from the peanut gallery over here: if the liar making the false claim is not hoping to gain something of value (be it getting laid, a VA check, or something between those extremes) why would the claim be made? In other words, the liar making the false claim is fully expecting something of value (to him, anyway) or the claim would not be made.
My 2 cents: Getting laid is only of value if I profit from it, vis-a-vis, I get paid.
And per COB6, free speech is protected speech, which allows people to write novels and get them published, and write controversial articles that stir up heated debates. These things are necessary.
Henry Miller’s books were banned because he wrotebooks about men who enjoyed having sex with women (shocking!!!), which made them obscene. (It wasn’t their only focus, but you get the drift.) In comparison with the language used by teenagers now, they’re pretty mild and brilliantly written.
I prefer to see a law passed that includes an intentional act to gain a profit from lying about your service. The prime candidate for that is Dallas the Hornblower and another is that goof Herbert Williamson, who also claims to have an MBA from Harvard. Did anyone contact Harvard’s alumni office about him? Please let me know.
Hey! What’s this lying around shit?…
Over? Did you say “over”? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no! And it ain’t over now. (Germans? Forget it, I’m rolling!) ‘Cause when the goin’ gets tough….the tough get goin’! Who’s with me? Let’s go!….
What the fuck happened to the TAH I used to know? Where’s the spirit? Where’s the guts, huh? This could be the greatest night of our lives, but you’re gonna let it be the worst! “Ooh, we’re afraid to go with you AverageNCO, the Supreme Court said being a phony douche is okay. Well, just kiss my ass from now on! Not me! I’m not gonna take this! Poe, he’s a dead man!* Soup Sandwich, dead!* Ballduster—okay he really is dead…..
NEVER QUIT EXPOSING THESE BASTARDS!!!!! NEVER QUIT!!!!!!!
*Editorial note. The term dead was used just for effect. I do not support any vigilante violence upon these individuals, only public humiliation.
#25 excellent point on Williamson. In this case his actions brought discredit on the Army and on Harvard. Stolen Valor makes the Army part criminal but not the Harvard part.
While both claims would be elements of a scheme to commit fraud.
Being discussed over at sofrep.com. Consensus is having to duck veterans for the rest of your life is worse than prison. Keep outing these cowards, humiliating them and embarassing them whenever possible. http://sofrep.com/8645/1st-amendment-rights-xavier-alvarez/#comments
“No one ever knows how the SCOTUS will rule before it rules.”
IMO, it has to be possible to write a bill that doesn’t have to go to court for a ruling asking if it is constitutional. The nation is going bankrupt. Who pays for all these court cases?
@26 – Avg. NCO — no one is lying around. It’s pull back, regroup and strike again. I’m with tangonine: you keep at it until these gloryhounds realize it’s not worth the labels of delusional, fraudster, stumpsucking liar, and whatever else I can think of.
I believe that if there had not been such an effort made to support people coming back from deployment in the Middle East, none of this might have happened, and we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
However, I also believe that this kind of mendacious grand-standing by lying basterds (per Q. Turantino) has probably been going on since before the Siege of Troy. Even the tribes in Afghanistan have stories about who in their family kicked Alexander’s butt, and they have detailed depictions of that event.
So I say again, pull back, regroup and strike again.
I’ll throw in a toast I heard from somewhere:
May the dogs of war feast on the bones of our enemies.
The Marine snipers in Fallujah used “dogs of Fallujah” instead of war.
The more I read the ruling, I think the Judges are just short of saying “give the the Posers a good ass whipping. Then again just my interpertation of the Ruling.
The way I read it, Joe, is that the SCOTUS across the board recognized the damage done by Stolen Valor but did not feel that making lying for non-monetary gain was an appropriate remedy. That’s the aspect of the SVA that’s always bothered me, and which I feared would get it invalidated. The original wording made lies told to family and friends (or acquaintances) for simple self-promotion vice to further economic fraud criminal.
The proposed HR1775 corrects most of that, and might pass legal muster if enacted – particularly since it includes a de minimis provision. It won’t help with that lying POS Alvarez – the Constitution bans ex post facto application. But I think it would cover false campaign claims and false statements made on job applications or during job interviews – as those would be false statements made in an attempt to secure a “thing of value”.
Whether lies told in an attempt to gain sexual favors would be covered is unclear. It would depend on whether the Courts viewed getting laid as a “thing of value”. Some people do; others don’t. (smile)
PS: Joe – check your e-mail. You’ve got one or two from me.
I’m with Joe Williams on this, and I nominate Hondo and HM3 as Dirty Old Men of the week.
Also, as far as I know, letters to the editor in newspapers are still free, as are blog posts on social media. I sense a disturbance in the force in the form of an even greater social peer outing and public displays of said thieves of honor. It’s time to kick it up a notch.
“Dirty Old Man”, ROS? Au contraire. The correct term is “normal hetero male”.
As the old Air Defense folks might put it: “Just ’cause you ain’t allowed to fire the missile don’t mean the radar quits workin’.” (smile)
Average NCO, tip of the hat for the Animal House quote. That quote crossed my mind yesterday, reading some of the blogs.
What about lieing to get political office? Is that in and of itself “of value” or would the pay received for the office count or would the pay be ruled as incidental because the person was not running for office for the pay but for the office itself?
@ #39, jonp: Personally, I think using the lie to gain votes an easier case to make – but that’s coming from a non-lawyer. Would most agree that a vote is a thing of value? I certainly hope so! Also, you would not have to figure out that pay vs holding the title deal.
@ 34, Hondo nothing coming thru. Use (redacted). Admims may remove and send to Hondo in private E-Mail.
Joe: attempted contact again.