9th Circuit overturns portion of old Stolen Valor law [UPDATED]
Let’s start by looking at the Defendant on this one, just so you get an idea of what he did. From the opinion:
Defendant Elven Joe Swisher enlisted in the United States Marine Corps on August 4, 1954, a little over a year after the Korean War ended. In August 1957, he was honorably discharged from the Marine Corps into the reserves. Upon discharge, Swisher was given a DD-214 discharge document, a typewritten form that provided his name, education, type of discharge, last duty assignment, last date of service, and similar information regarding his military service. The form required a listing of Swisher’s “decorations, medals, badges, commendations, citations and campaign ribbons awarded or authorized.” In the authenticated copy of Swisher’s original DD-214, the term “N/A” (not applicable) is written in the field.
In 2001, more than forty years after his discharge, Swisher filed a claim for service-related Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). In his application, Swisher claimed he suffered from PTSD as a result of his participation in a secret combat mission in North Korea in August or September 1955. Along with his application, Swisher provided a self-published narrative that described the North Korea operation.
According to the narrative, Swisher was wounded in battle, and subsequently presented with a Purple Heart by an unnamed captain who visited him in the hospital. The same captain told him he was “entitled to and should wear the National Defense Medal, Korean War Service Medal and the Korean War U.N. Service Medal and Ribbons.” Swisher claims he also received a Silver Star and a Navy Commendation Medal and Ribbon with a Bronze “V.”
All of that was nonsense, he fraudulently created a DD214, applied for VA benefits, and got caught. He apparently had to pay the VA back. Nonetheless, at a trial for another individual, Swisher showed up wearing a variety of medals, including a purple heart, which got him busted under the Stolen Valor Act.
Now, some background here so you understand what is going on. The first Stolen Valor Act, passed in 2005 had two portions. The first was that you couldn’t wear medals you didn’t earn, and the second is that you couldn’t claim to have earned medals that you hadn’t actually earned. A guy named Xavier Alvarez was convicted on the second after claiming he’d received the Medal of Honor and a few other things. It went up to the Supreme Court, who in a very convoluted and divided opinion said that that portion, the claiming medals part, violated the Constitution. The vote on that was 3-2-4. Three said it was always unconstitutional, two said that it was unconstitutional in this case because it needed a fraud element added, and four said it should stand. [Correction on that as I think about it, it was 4-2-3 I believe. Either way, a plurality, not a majority, so the 2 in the middle are the controlling ones.]
Subsequently, the Congress fixed the law, said that claiming medals for the purpose of securing something of value was illegal, and that’s where we stood until yesterday. Technically, we still stand there, because while numerous reporters are getting it wrong, what the 9h Circuit yesterday decided was that the original law’s prohibition on WEARING medals was also unconstitutional, basing it on the same grounds the Supreme Court found in Alvarez on the claiming medals portion.
The opinion is not all that interesting or shocking, and I’m not going to quote from it, only because it is REALLY dense legal-ease that most people will not understand. But it basically dealt with whether this was a compelling government issue, and if it was (and they agreed it was) whether the government answer to addressing it was the least restrictive method. The majority felt that it was not, and again argued for a database or something similar.
I, of course, found the dissent more compelling, but a few notes first before I go into what the dissent said. This decision is not entirely unexpected and has a limited impact on things. It actually goes directly against what another circuit (the 4th) decided in a substantially similar case, so it will likely end up at the Supreme Court again. Worst case scenario there is that the Supreme Court says that the wearing medals portion has to be re-written just as the claims about military awards, to say something like “whoever wears unearned military medals with the intent to deceive for purposes of gaining something of tangible benefit shall be found guilty and…..” Etc. That’s worst case.
Either way, it doesn’t effect the new Stolen Valor Act (Law) and it really doesn’t change anything. Swisher was wearing the medal apparently to add credence to his testimony in a case, so if the law was rewritten, he probably would he been swept up under that one. Either way, Swisher doesn’t get off scot free, because he was already convicted of a host of other things, like making false statements in court, altering a federal document (his DD-214) etc.
But some portions from the dissent, which I found compelling. They started by noting the difference between spoken words and the actions of wearing the medal.
The statute at issue here, however, does not police “white lies,” nor does it prohibit lying generally. Instead, it targets a very specific lie that implicates a very specific government interest, an interest which the full court here and the Supreme Court in Alvarez agrees is significant. And importantly, the lie the government wishes to punish cannot be uttered with words; it can only be accomplished by falsely wearing the nation’s medals. Although the Court in Alvarez found that the harm caused by the form of the lie regulated by § 704(b) did not outweigh the First Amendment harm, the interests implicated by § 704(a) must be weighed differently from those at issue in Alvarez under § 704(b). The harm to the government’s interest in upholding the military honors system caused by the false wearing of its medals is greater than the harm caused by “bar stool braggadocio.”
And then they talked about who the victims of this type of behavior are:
The false and deceptive wearing of military medals “dilutes the value” of military honors generally, by conveying the impression that “everyone” earns them. Moreover, such conduct also dilutes the symbolic value of the medal itself, hampering the government’s ability to reward those it has concluded are worthy of recognition. The purpose of a military medal is not only that it conveys the government’s appreciation for an individual’s service to the individual, but that it conveys the government’s commendation of that individual to others, identifying the medal winner “as an example worthy of emulation.” United States v. Alvarez, 617 F.3d 1198, 1234 (9th Cir. 2010) (Bybee, J., dissenting). The value of the military medal, like the value of a trademark, is that it is both recognizable and publicly understood to convey a specific message: in this case, the message that the wearer has done something worthy of admiration. When those who are unworthy are allowed to wear the medal, the government can no longer identify its heroes in a way that is easily discernible by the public….
This is a key response, because one of the complaints of the majority is that there was no specified harm to individuals by someone wearing the medal. The dissent makes clear its opinion that anyone who actually earned those awards has the value of them diluted.
Lastly, the dissent looked at the “proposed answer” to the Stolen Valor problem, a nation-wide database. Now, opinions on this one differ amongst even those on our side, but I tend to agree with the justice writing the dissent here Circuit Judge Bybee:
Finally, the majority, following Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. at 2550–51 (Kennedy, J.) (plurality opinion); id. at 2556 (Breyer, J., concurring in the judgment), proposes a database of medal winners as a means to counteract Swisher’s deception.10 Maj. Op. at 31–32. To my mind, this is no solution at all to the problem of individuals falsely wearing medals. If the public has to check the database to confirm that a medal wearer actually earned the medal, the purpose of the medal itself is utterly defeated. If we can no longer trust what we can see, the only honor the United States can confer on its heroes is a listing in a database. Once wearing the medal itself doesn’t signify anything more than a presumption of a property right, the nation’s highest honors will have become, literally, virtual.
He addresses this more fully earlier too, which I include here out of order, because I think it makes a great deal of sense:
But as anyone knows who has witnessed the President awarding the Congressional Medal of Honor or a promotion ceremony pinning a new officer—or even an Olympic medals ceremony or a Cub Scout court of honor—there is value, both symbolic and tactile, in the awarding of a physical emblem. If there is important value in the act of awarding a physical medal, there is important value in the wearing of it.
Anyway, the bottom line is this: there is now a split in the courts on whether wearing of certain medals violates the law, and it will end up in the Supreme Court most likely, which will get another shot at explaining what the best way to deal with this is. Various guys who lie about their military service are crowing about this “major victory” for them, but the exact opposite is true as it regards those of us who publish their falsehoods. The courts have now twice said that the proper way to deal with such people is to take it to the court of public opinion, in other words, publish how these people lied and shame them for it. The problem there is that they then sue us, and we have to go to court to defend actions which the Supreme Court explicitly told us to do. Either way, this isn’t the great victory they think it is. All this will do is push it up the chain again, get more publicity for the people that lied, and force the Supreme Court to enunciate more clear guidelines.
But either way, the new Stolen Valor Act is completely intact, and if you try to scam the government or anyone else with your fake stories of heroism, you will likely get arrested.
Don’t believe me? Just ask Robert Guidi of New Jersey (pictured above) who was arrested after claiming to be a Green Beret Sniper and POW during Vietnam in order to get a charitable group to build him a $30,000 deck which he can’t enjoy from his current residence at the Morris County Correctional Facility.
UPDATE: [DELETED]
It appears I was wrong, and have deleted that portion. It looks like the wearing portion was repealed. But now I’m even more confused, because the 4th Circuit case upheld it.
But a footnote in the dissent states:
Both provisions of the Stolen Valor Act were amended following Alvarez, subsequent to the events that gave rise to Swisher’s case. Congress removed the “wearing” provision in § 704(a), apparently preemptively, and more substantively revised § 704(b) to comply with the Court’s holding in Alvarez. See Stolen Valor Act of 2013, Pub. L. No. 113-12, § 2, 127 Stat. 448 (2013). Thus, the precise provisions at issue here are no longer in effect. As amended, however, the statute would still appear to cover Swisher’s conduct. Section 704(b) now reads: “Whoever, with intent to obtain money, property, or other tangible benefit, fraudulently holds oneself out to be a recipient of a decoration or medal . . . shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than one year, or both.” 127 Stat. 448.
But the dissent also notes that:
Concomitantly, because § 704(a) requires proof of deceptive conduct, any harm to First Amendment interests is less than in Alvarez, and the less restrictive alternatives discussed in Alvarez, less effective.
The majority today ignores these distinctions, and discusses the outcome of this case as though Alvarez renders it a foregone conclusion. But it is not. Alvarez does not clearly compel the result here—indeed, that was the conclusion reached by a panel of our court in United States v. Perelman, 695 F.3d 866, 872–73 (9th Cir. 2012), in which we upheld § 704(a) under the lesser scrutiny applied to conduct regulations laid out in O’Brien.1 It was also the conclusion reached by the Fourth Circuit, which found that § 704(a) would survive strict scrutiny. United States v. Hamilton, 699 F.3d 356, 371–74 (4th Cir. 2012). While I do not entirely agree with the reasoning in these cases, they demonstrate that the reach—and indeed the holding—of Alvarez is unclear. Alvarez gives uncertain guidance as to how false statements should be analyzed, especially if Justice Breyer’s opinion controls under Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 193 (1977).
So I have no idea.
UPDATE x2:
I think I may have figured this out. Congress seems to have taken out the bifurcated thing that they had about speech and wearing medals 704(a) & (b) and changed the wording. So it now reads:
“Whoever, with intent to obtain money, property, or other tangible benefit, fraudulently holds oneself out to be a recipient of a decoration or medal . . . shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than one year, or both.” 127 Stat. 448.
My guess is that wearing a medal could be assumed to be “hold[ing] oneself out to be a recipient of a decoration or medal” and so they assumed that both now required the mens rea, or guilty mind, which means there was a fraud element.
Which makes this case more interesting, because then the question becomes this:
Does wearing a medal one did not earn while testifying before a court satisfy the requirement of the statute for “tangible benefit”?
That’s a VERY interesting question. Because Congress punted on what a tangible benefit was. If you are asked to be Grand Martial (Marshall?) of a parade, is that a “tangible benefit”? What exactly *is* a tangible benefit?
Category: Stolen Valor Act
I will let the False Commander and CEO of All-Points Logistics “Phony” Phil Monkress and his nefarious senior staff know.
Pls, lets get on point
GT, no disrespect intended, hard to post from mobile.
I meant – important subject and post –
I’ll wait and see if the poser dullards even address it.
Hold on, here comes the Stolen Valor douchbaggery shitstorm.
TSO,
Thank you for the great work on this post.
^^^ditto^^^
Excellent work (as always)!
Great job! Now if only idiots can understand, but, that’s asking way too much…
Good read, and yes, while it APPEARS to be a victory for the DRC types, it’s not. Additionally, most of the 9th Circus decisions are overturned by SCOTUS.
Food for thought.
Plus, as TSO noted above we now have conflicting Appeals Court decisions on the matter. It’s thus a virtual certainty that the SCOTUS will end up considering the case.
I wasn’t aware that the 9th Circuit had that rep. Googling indicates (roughly) 75% of their cases were overturned in the past several years! Wow!
Yep. It’s often called the 9th Circus for a very good reason. It’s rather the Loony Left Wing of Federal jurisprudence.
I’ve heard 9th Circuit of Repeals more than once. If you google that, it’ll show plenty of stories too.
They are like the DRG of the courts… and SCOTUS usually smacks their ass down for their lack of common sense.
What is the red hat Swisher is wearing? I can’t open the photo. If nothing else, I’ll try to get that organization to do something although with the VFW so far it has been a waste of time. They seem to accept phonies, I guess as long as their dues are paid up and they buy a couple of rounds at the bar all is well in VFW land. But not to worry, the Post in NJ said their phony promised to stop wearing his unearned Purple Heart.
That’s exactly why I refuse to pick a home post despite being a Lifetime VFW member. Too many frauds fill their ranks and often a person is ostracized for even questioning when someone’s tales make no sense. The VFW and AL have done a lot for vets politically and remain a strong vet friendly lobby in D.C. and for that, I’ll support the organization, but unless I’m invited by a personal friend to a particular event, I avoid posts and halls like the plague. I’ve seen to many embellishers to be comfortable at one again.
The value of honor and valor will never change: they are priceless. They cannot be bought. Ribbons and medals are only cloth and metal; it is the warrior behind them who gives them the value they have. No amount of strutting in public, no amount of flash on a jacket, will give any poser that thing which they so desperately crave: the inward courage that marks a warrior and makes him equal to the medals he wears.
PN – a very appropriate statement.
It will never be said any better.
Pinto Nag,
Well said!
Pinto Nag…..an absolutely stunning statement!
If you don’t mind I’ll copy/paste your comment to my desktop for future reference (with proper accreditation if used).
You’re more than welcome to use it any way you would like.
No, you are incorrect. (sorry).
Some of these people have no desire for validation.
Cash; benefits. As your cost or someone else’s.
I wish the penalties were more severe.
If I won the lottery
I would do all I could to end this.
Sorry, posted in wrong place,
Won’t try and post from mobile again.
While many of us have told Big Army to GTH, we’ve never said that to AR 670-1.
Whoever allowed that Chef Boyardee MFr above to speak should beat their face!!!
In my view, it simply strengthens the new SV act, even though there are plenty of wannabes who will argue that they are now free to be wannabes.
Thanks for the dissection of those opinions, TSO.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the conviction of former Marine Elven Joe Swisher for wearing a medal he did not earn. The act is considered a crime under federal law. This is my take on this, the word ‘speech’ implies speaking, words, sounds, in other words if you wish to lie using your mouth and make sounds, that is your first amendment right. But to wear something, a actual physical object to perpetuate a fraud, such as a Purple Heart, should NOT fall under the first amendment. You are now committing a false representation of yourself, same as if you wear a badge, but are not law enforcement. That said, if you do wear a badge, and claim to be LE, is that protected under the 1st Amendment? The answer is no, you can be arrested for impersonating a police officer. You wanna mouth off a lie,,fine that’s your right, but the second you add props to bolster the lie, that should be against the law. period!
The act is considered a crime under federal law.
Not any more.
Actually, it still is a crime outside the 9th Circuit’s jurisdiction. The 9th Circuit’s decision only is controlling precedent within its jurisdiction.
This is why the SCOTUS virtually never fails to take cases where Circuit Courts of Appeals reach different conclusions. If they don’t, then Federal law doesn’t stay consistent nationwide.
Actually, it still is a crime outside the 9th Circuit’s jurisdiction.
Actually, it is not. USC 18 704 is the Federal law on the subject.
After the 2005 version of 704 was declared unConstitutional by the 9th Circuit (an opinion upheld by the Supreme Court, Congress came back with a new version of the law which omitted the word “wears” which was signed into law in 2013.
Here is the text of the 2013 Stolen Valor Law as passed:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/258/text
Notice this part of the bill:
(a) In General.–Section 704 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended–
(1) in subsection (a), by striking “wears,”; and
(2) so that subsection (b) reads as follows:
“(b) Fraudulent Representations About Receipt of Military Decorations or Medals. <> –Whoever, with intent to obtain money, property, or other tangible benefit, fraudulently holds oneself out to be a recipient of a decoration or medal described in subsection (c)(2) or (d) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”.
And here is USC 18 704:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/704
If you have a different citation, I would be more than willing to look at it. As it is, the Federal law seems to be that the fraudulent wearing of a medal is not a federal crime.
Note: In this case, Swisher was convicted of wearing a medal under the old Stolen Valor law of 2005. He came back to the 9th Circuit (twice in fact) to say “I was convicted of an act that you and the Supreme Court was Constitutional.” The first bite of the apple was a three member panel which upheld the conviction. The full 9th Circuit heard a slightly different theory on why the mere wearing of a medal was protected speech and reversed the conviction.
Actually, it seems it still is. Take a look at 18 USC 702.
I’m pretty sure that a military decoration qualifies as a “distinctive part thereof” with respect to a military uniform, since the military uniform regulations of all services prescribe their correct wear and their wear is mandatory when directed.
Unauthorized wear of military uniforms and the distinctive parts thereof is still unlawful. 18 USC 702 is a part of the US Code which was not amended by 2013’s Stolen Valor Act.
Actually, it still doesn’t.
“Distinctive part thereof” refers to the original passage of the section in 1916 where “distinctive part” meant insignia (as in unit insignia) or rank designations.
It has nothing to do with medals. If it did, there would not have been a need for section 704.
Furthermore, even if one were to try to charge someone on the basis of 702, the Alvarez decision has thrown that out the window.
Alvarez only addresses verbal claims. It did not address the wearing of unauthorized decorations. Ergo, that means the SCOTUS has only ruled on the “verbal claims” portion of 18 USC 704. It has not yet ruled on the actual wearing of medals. Only the 9th Circuit has done that, and as TSO observes in the article the 4th Circuit has apparently issued a decision that says essentially the opposite from what the 9th Circuit’s decision says. It’s therefore not settled law – and won’t be until the SCOTUS rules on the issue.
At least three military personal decorations (MoH, Navy GCM, USMC GCM) and at least 10 campaign or service medals existed prior to 1916. It is therefore IMO highly unlikely that the original statutory intent of “distinctive part therof” included rank and/or the “US” insignia but excluded those existing decorations.
It’s also unclear how the original intent of the statute could have included unit insignia. Can’t speak for the Navy or USMC, but in the Army unit insignia were not authorized in 1916. Obviously Army unit insignia therefore were not addressed by the original statute. (Certain unit insignia had been authorized between 1902 and 1911, however, authority for their wear was withdrawn in the Dec 1911 uniform regulation. Unit insignia were not authorized again until 1920. See Wikipedia page on Unit Insignia for details.)
If the statutory intent was to include distinctive uniform items to be created at future dates – e.g., as you claim, unit insignia – then logically all decorations and campaign medals created after 1916, along with qualification and/or combat badges (which are also unique to the military) are thus also covered. The fact that medals were separately singled out for mention in 18 USC 704 is true, but it is also irrelevant to the fact that they are also covered by 18 USC 702 as a “distinctive part” of the military uniform.
Speech has long been held to include expression, judicially speaking of course. Otherwise those asshats that walk on US flags could be arrested. That being said, wearing medals you didn’t earn is immoral and if used fraudulently for some tangible benefit, illegal. The 9th circuit decision does not affect the legality of wearing them for fraudulent purposes. It has, in fact, changed nothing that the Supreme Court wouldn’t have changed anyway. I fought for his right to wear that PH if that is what he feels he needs to do. I also fought for my right of speech in calling him a lying dirt bag, piece of shit and making sure everyone in his community knows it to be true. If anything the 9th circuit ruling only gives me more reason to embarrass these turds in their everyday lives.
Excellent points of order written in the normal articulate presentation Jonn. Still leaves most of us sitting on the edge just to be sure. Guess it’s about time to open the TAH pawn shop and offer the goodies to those being discussed. That sure puts a damper on the medals most of us have tucked away in a box somewhere. The high courts, in all their brilliance, have lowered the value of them, at least from their point of liberal speak. Man, I’d hate to be the attorney who so cleverly represents those challenging the issue.
To all you posers who are sitting by, holding your breath, and anticipating a win: You ALL are still a bunch of shit heads who we know and will always point out as the lowest form of pond scum. Absolutely NOTHING will stop those who post on here from exposing you publicly every time possible. You will ALWAYS have to hold your head down, even when you spew your lies over the graves of those who actually did what you are lying about.
Well said.
The 9th Circuit Court is also the reason we have so many people still sitting on Death Row decades after their sentence.
Damn court of clowns.
So,does this mean folks will be allowed to tell others that they are Judges representing the 9th Circuit? Does this also mean that Brian Williams will get his job back?
TSO, Maybe you can answer this for me. Does this set precedence if I want to walk around in a police uniform and badge so long as I don’t promote myself to be an actual officer. As long as I tell everyone who asks that I’m not a cop, then I’m covered by freedom of speech. I’m sure all those claiming stolen valor as a victimless crime would agree that dressing as a cop is a victimless crime as well.
Alas no, that is impersonation, which is something different. Unless it is a Halloween costume or something. I’m not sure I really get the distinction, but the dissent in this case didn’t either, so I guess I am not alone.
TSO, isn’t there something in laws about impersonation that has to do with danger to the public? Isn’t that why impersonating police officers, firefighters, paramedics, doctors, etc., is illegal?
[facetious]
Is this going to impact my policeman stripper gig with the tear away uniform?
[/facetious]
Keepin’ It Real….PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE do NOT stir up this pot any further. I’ve been milking the retired LEO stripper gig in nursing homes for years now. Especially at Christmas when I put a big red bow and flashing Rudolph nose on my Johnson. The old grannies (and even some of the old dudes who can’t see two feet in front of them) load my G-string with Medicare bucks.
TSO: might have to do with strict scrutiny. One can argue that laws restricting the impersonation of police officers pass strict scrutiny (abridges a fundamental right, but serves a compelling public interest and does so in the least intrusive manner feasible to accomplish that compelling public interest) even though they adversely impact freedom of expression.
Well, I do agree on that, the question is whether impersonation qualifies as speech. And again, you can’t impersonate a judge, doctor, lawyer, building inspector etc. But a military official or recipient you can. No one has really articulated why that would be.
Under the larger heading of “freedom of expression”, I think you can argue any of those impersonations would qualify as “symbolic speech”. Not sure I buy that, but the courts do seem to give great deference to all forms of freedom of expression.
I think the argument is the same in all of those cases. Those professions you named typically have legal authorities and/or duties that directly impact public health and safety or law enforcement. Restrictions against impersonating all of those thus arguably would survive strict scrutiny.
Absent martial law, on US soil the US military typically doesn’t have such authorities and/or impact – at least not outside a military reservation or area where a state of emergency has been declared.
Here’s why I have a problem with that though. It is practicing law without a license which is illegal. Now, if the person gets paid, then it is fraud. But even absent getting paid it is illegal, as in criminal. Now, clearly a person who thought they were consulting a lawyer and got hosed ought to be able to get a civil remedy, no dispute there. But the criminal code makes it illegal to even give out legal advice claiming to be a lawyer. That’s obviously just speech. So is a person giving legal advice more criminally culpable than someone claiming to be military. Again, put aside the fraud element, since we’re already noted that will get covered separately. But even if someone gives great legal advice, a person is pleased with it, everything goes well, it is still illegal. If we base law on the adverse effects, then there wouldn’t be one in that hypothetical. And yet it is still illegal. So I’m confused.
And the other aspect is that the awards are given by the military, i.e. the Government, so I would think they would have copyright rights to those. That’s something Breyer brought up in the oral argument as well. (or perhaps more accurately a emblem/logo type argument.)
Unfortunately,I don’t think so.
If I recall correctly, the Federal government has zero copyright rights to any intellectual property it produces. (I know that’s true for written work and photographs, and I believe it is true for graphics, logos, designs, etc . . . ; but I’m not sure about that latter group). I believe only certain seals/logos/designs specified in Federal law are protected against unauthorized use.
Hondo: WRT symbols I’m sure you are correct. The government holds no “copyright” the way a private person or entity could. I could make T-shirts or patches with the 82nd Airborne Division SSI, Crest, jump wings, etc, and sell them for a profit and not owe the Govt a dime. Nor do I think the government could order me to stop doing so.
TSO, I believe the argument is that the complexity of the law is such that a layman often requires qualified expert opinion on the legality of certain actions to avoid becoming a criminal. The government thus has a compelling interest in ensuring that unqualified individuals be legally deterred from holding themselves out as lawyers lest they create a number of unwitting criminals by giving bogus legal advice.
Not sure I buy that argument personally, but it’s at least logical. And Lord knows the courts are crowded today.
TSO: I’m late to this party but I believe that in most states “practicing law without a license” requires more than just giving legal advice. Holding oneself out to be a lawyer, preparing legal documents, entering court appearances or sending documents to other people identifying oneself as an attorney would be examples but the mere giving of advice I don’t think would suffice by itself.
I think the Alverez decision articulates the reason:
While the Government’s interest in protecting the integrity of the Medal of Honor is beyond question, the First Amendment requires
that there be a direct causal link between the restriction imposed
and the injury to be prevented. Here, that link has not been shown. The Government points to no evidence supporting its claim that the public’s general perception of military awards is diluted by false claims such as those made by respondent. And it has not shown, and cannot show, why counterspeech, such as the ridicule respondent received online and in the press, would not suffice to achieve its interest.
Whether or not we agree with that is a different matter, but that is the reason and the difference.
CA SGT, Lets be Cops!
If we’re lucky, we’ll run into Rob Riggles.
Good job, Brother!
Damn! Too bad the 9th Circuit doesn’t cover the state of Utah.
At this point in the winter I would have really liked to have seen a resurrection of the Zombie thread on COL Crotchrot.
You know he would have been the first one to start up with his crapola all over again.
Oh, well, maybe I’ll hit the Powerball with the numbers that Hondo slipped to me and forget all about Ole Crotchrot.
He found the Purple Heart on the grounds of the White House after Heinz Kerry threw it over the fence in protest.
Hear, Hear!
Everybody should start wearing police/FBI/leo badges on their belts and around their necks its not stolen valor after all. Its protected by the first amendment.
[…] The Lonely Conservative: Says The Man Who Sat For Interview With Cereal Girl This Ain’t Hell: Ninth Circuit Overturns Part Of Stolen Valor Law Weasel Zippers: Duck Dynasty‘s Phil Robertson Endorses Ted Cruz Megan McArdle: You […]