1
in b4 me!

2 yeah it's pretty clear CT is looking more like a likely Dem  hold, good news is WA & CA are strongly in play now, bad news is the Tea Party's darling in NV might be screwing things up

3

Bah.  Shoulda tied it more closely to the principles behind fraud statutes.

In less on-topic waters, someone explains Islamic terrorists.  Required reading for anyone being allowed to draw breath in what's left of the West in the 21st century.

4
And sadly, I agree with the court.

huh

5 Wrong ruling. Falsely claiming military service or medals is fraud, typically employed to establish confidence, and fraud is not protected speech.

6 So outing these pricks and posting them all over the Intertubes is also still protected speech, so ready, fire, ridicule....

7 If this story is not in TMZ, I'm not talking about it.

8 Crap. for the record, I got my headline up before Drew posted this.

9


Good thing you're not a lawyer then, Drew.  This is Bullshit.  Fraud is prosecutable without running afoul of the First Amendment. 

Impersonating a police officer is a crime, too.

A military officer swore and oath in his commission, and falsely presenting oneself as an officer at least should be no less punishable than pretending to be a cop.

10 5 Wrong ruling. Falsely claiming military service or medals is fraud, typically employed to establish confidence, and fraud is not protected speech. Posted by: Alec Rawls at July 16, 2010 04:30 PM (kTTUz) Amen. Preach it, brother!~

11 Fine. 

Just publish the bastards address and picture on the intertubes.

The rest will work itself out, I am sure.

12

Big shocker, I disagree with the Drewster again.

I still hold out hope he will start his own blog.

13 Grammar Police:  Please remove the apostrophe in Lets

14
Whew! That's a relief!

15 Yuck, this is turning into some kind of serious military blog or something.

16 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.


That part right there should make it illegal.

17 Drew-
I think you missed the boat on this one (Wolf from BLACKFIVE here).  Duncan/Strandloff WAS trying to extract 'benefit' from his service- not just for himself but for those that he was speaking to and for.  And getting people to donate money to their cause; therefore a fraud.  It was far more, in this case, than just a braggart in a bar. 

Now, based on this ruling, I can go around wearing a Law Enforcement badge, talking about bad guys I have caught and put in jail, and talking about cases I was a a part of (not).  Same.Damn.Thing.  As long as I don't try to pull someone over, cuff them, or point a gun, wearing the badge and talking smack will be the same thing.

Until I tell it to the first SWAT guy I run into at least.

Now that this has happened, isn't the precedent set for other jurisdictions to release THEIR cases?  Say, the Douche McSoulpatch general in Houston as an example?

This ruling is bad in so many ways...

The Warrior Legacy Foundation will be pushing this to be appealed...

18

19
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.

Then the state of Colorado should go after him for fraud and grand theft. So far as I know, neither of those are covered by the First Amendment. And if he did any fund raising across state lines? nail his ass with federal charges, too.

20 So now it's free speech to dress up as a cop?

21 OT: whoa the Governator actually sent troops to the border, what does that say about Obama?

22
Cool.
Does this mean I can lie on all my job applications including federal jobs?

And can I get health care at the VA?

23

And sadly, I agree with the court.

Its not the right decision.  Just like the muzzies probably have a right to build a mosque at ground zero. It is an awful decision and sets precedent for more of these type of shenannigans.

24

Sorry but this ruling is bullshit. Fuck it's illegal in Washington to lie on your resume. How is this any different? The guy was claiming something he is not to recieve the benefits of his claims. Nobody would have listened to, been influence by or hired this asshole to their campaign without his false claims.

25

I know, we can enlist Frank and Dodd to engineer another bill like finance reform and make fraud legal.

26 I don't think that there is any first amendment protection for knowingly lying.  First amendment protection exists for speech to the effect that the Jews and the Bush administration conspired to commit 9/11 or to the effect that Obama is a Muslim Manchurian candidate.  But this guy knew that what he was saying as truth was, in fact, a lie.  The logical extension of this argument is that I could sell for car for ten times its value by claiming that I modified it to get 500 mph.  Knowingly lying for your own benefit is not protected speech.

27 Posted by: Scott Beauchamp


What, no mindthoughts on the subject?

28 Drew... first you will blow us.

That is all.

29
the 1st Amendment isn't only for you little Eichmanns

30
Now I can wear my custom made Bosnian Firefight Medal.

31 Babykillers!  I'm going to kill all your babies!!!

32 Lying has never been protected speech.  And lying for financial gain, i.e. theft by false pretenses or fraud, has been recognized as criminal for hundreds of years in the common law.  That the law concerns only a certain subset of lying, i.e. lying about military service, does not suddenly boost the lie to the level of protected speech.

33 Kiss my ass!

34

This ruling will not stand because the argument which is essentially 'it depends on what the meaning of the word is, is' will not be embraced by SCOTUS.

35 Posted by: Mr Wolf at July 16, 2010 04:35 PM (9sz0L)

I absolutely want to see the guy prosecuted for fraud as I R A Darth Aggie lays out in comment 18.

I'm just not sure how you criminalize somebody lying to impress a dumb chick at a bar.

Obviously this asshole did more than that but there are already statutes to deal with those actions.

36
Let's face it.

This cocksucking judge has a problem with the phrase "stolen valor" because patriotism is bad. No special protection for the military.

Janet Napolitano and Eric Holder have made it clear that the military is not to be included as one of the protected classes.

37 Bad ruling.

I support the "Vigilantes Kicking the Dog Shit Out of Lying Disgraceful Mutherfuckers in Broad Daylight at the Local VFW Hall Act of 2010"

38 Dumb dumb dumb So are we allowed to wear a fake Congressional Medal of Honor now?

39

Drew..

It's not a fucking free speech issue.

You cannot pretend to be a cop.... you cannot pretend to be a doctor. ..for obvious fucking reasons

...and you cannot pretend to claim certain military service and use it to benefit yourself or a cause you represent...because it's fucking fraud

It's a good thing you don't claim to be a lawyer

40 So does this mean I can dress up and act like a President without being prosecuted?

41
Now that this has happened, isn't the precedent set for other jurisdictions to release THEIR cases?  Say, the Douche McSoulpatch general in Houston as an example?

Not necessarily. Houston is not in the 10th Circuit Court but rather the 5th, and each district may carry their own local precedent. If it comes to pass that the 5th (or other) circuit comes to a different decision, then eventually this will wind up on the Supreme's desk to provide a definitive ruling and unify the circuits.

42
So if I scream into the phone loud enough to knock a bitch's veneers off, it's cool?

43 I support the "Vigilantes Kicking the Dog Shit Out of Lying Disgraceful Mutherfuckers in Broad Daylight at the Local VFW Hall Act of 2010"

Posted by: sifty at July 16, 2010 04:43 PM (BItlo)

And you didn't even include a link to the donation page.  Shame.

44

I call BULLSHIT on Drew.

I was about to scracth AOS off my visit list until I noticed it was not Ace who posted that "It's not right but I wholeheartedly agree with it," line of dumbness. It's bad enough you a-holes crapped all over my generation of those who served now it's just fine and dandy to claim false valor... BS!!!!eleventy!!!

Free speach does not allow shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, etc. Claiming false valor is like those above who say, "Okay let's all claim we're State Troopers the next time we go to the bar," and according to Drew that's okay. In addition, he DID get something out of this in the way of income and fame for starting that organization. That's fraud from the looks of it.

Apparently Drew thinks we're just supposed to sit back and sputter and go away. Right Drew? F*k that! Free speach does not and never has included telling falsehoods. The Founding Fathers are spinning in their graves over this abuse of the 1st Amendment.

G*d I want to just chew concrete right now. Asshats.

45 If the douche solicited for funds, and has set up a non-profit to handle those funds, said non-profit organization should come under serious IRS scrutiny.

46 The logical extension of this argument is that I could sell for car for ten times its value by claiming that I modified it to get 500 mph.  Knowingly lying for your own benefit is not protected speech.
Posted by: WalrusRex at July 16, 2010 04:38 PM (xxgag)

That's a great example.

Here's the thing...you can and should be prosecuted for that.

What you should not be prosecuted for is telling some of your friends around the bar that that's what you did (even if you didn't).

There are plenty of existing laws to go after this fuck that don't rely on what he said.

Honestly, I think this is a terrible case for this law because he did do some illegal things.

The better case would be...should Dick Blumentahl be charged under it for what he said?

47 Don't we already have a law covering fraud?  As nicey-nice as this Stolen Valor nonsense seems, it's a stupid law.

48

hehe

http://tinyurl.com/5ta8nr

 

 

49

 So does this mean I can dress up and act like a President without being prosecuted?

Why the hell not? I pretend like I know something about the law!

50 I'm just not sure how you criminalize somebody lying to impress a dumb chick at a bar.

Obviously this asshole did more than that but there are already statutes to deal with those actions.

Posted by: DrewM. at July 16, 2010 04:42 PM (X/Lqh)

It's easy, if you slander somebody trying to impress a chick at a bar there is a law against it. The Stolen Valor act  takes lying about your service as being a slander against those who served.

51 No, Strandlof didn't get any tangible benefit from his fraud, but he did use his false  persona to make anti-Bush ads for VoteVets and Democrat candidates in Colorado in 2006. He helped IVAW raise money, he was among the support personnel at Winter Soldier hearings in Silver Spring MD in 2008. 

52
Easy to see who has served and who has not in threads like this.

53 If the douche solicited for funds, and has set up a non-profit to handle those funds, said non-profit organization should come under serious IRS scrutiny.

Posted by: TXMarko at July 16, 2010 04:45 PM (WBdC3)

No firearms were involved.  We're not interested.

54 It's easy, if you slander somebody trying to impress a chick at a bar there is a law against it. The Stolen Valor act  takes lying about your service as being a slander against those who served.
Posted by: robtr at July 16, 2010 04:46 PM (fwSHf)

I didn't pull out the quote but the judge went through how there's essentially no such thing as group defamation under US law (see footnote 7).

55 Obviously the ACLU went judge shopping for this case. Lying is not protected speech unless it is a politician doing the lying.

I think this would be overturned if the AG will pursue it but I have my doubts there.

Does anyone know who appointed this judge?

56 Posted by: DrewM. at July 16, 2010 04:45 PM (X/Lqh)

Blumenthal may be the exact reason why this decision was overturned!

57 Rick Strandlof

But we still get to dump habanero sauce in his soup and send him brownies laced with Ex-Lax, right?

As private citizens, I mean.

That's all I ask from our Supreme Court...

58 Donation page for the VKDSOLDMFBDLVFWHA 2010 and newsletter (with crossword) to follow as soon as possible.

59 Easy to see who has served and who has not in threads like this.

Posted by: Dang Straights at July 16, 2010 04:48 PM (fx8sm)

Hey, man, back off!

60 I can maybe see how its a first amendment right to brag in a bar that you are Sergeant Conrad S. Hauser, codename: Duke, but dressing up in a false uniform with false medals with the attempt to deceive (to the best of my knowledge the law would not have outlawed dressing up with no attempt to device, such as for Halloween for example) seems to me to be an entirely different kettle of fish.

61

No firearms were involved.  We're not interested.

Posted by: IRS at July 16, 2010 04:48 PM (pUfK9)

WE sure as hell are!!!

62

And that there might be the possibility that no one is actually misled, which the court says is part of a proper fraud claim, even the mere attempt to defraud has also always been viewed as outside First Amendment protection.

This opinion is a pre-determined outcome in search of a justification.  It falls short.

63 You cannot pretend to be a cop.... you cannot pretend to be a doctor. ..for obvious fucking reasons
Posted by: beedubya at July 16, 2010 04:44 PM (AnTyA)

No but you also cannot be arrested for saying "I used to be a cop" to some bimbo.

If you say, "I'm a cop and because of the authority that vests in me you must do x, y an z" yeah, you're ass will get thrown in jail but that's not the case here.

64 Geez, DrewM justs get out of the dog house with most of the AoS crowd and he turns around and screws me again...

65 I was going with to say "what about the fraud?" as I was reading, then I saw the update. Therefore, I will say "yeah, what about the fraud?"  He should not get away this.  Slimeball.

66 Why is it illegal to impersonate a police officer, but apparently not illegal to impersonate a veteran?

67 If you say, "I'm a cop and because of the authority that vests in me you must do x, y an z" yeah, you're ass will get thrown in jail but that's not the case here.

Posted by: DrewM. at July 16, 2010 04:52 PM (X/Lqh)

Um, could you be more specific about "x, y an(d) z"?  Like, are we talking just the tip in, or what?

68 The second that donated money changed hands based even a little bit on a feeling of trust and affection for a veteran, this slime became a criminal. He needs jail time.

69 I didn't pull out the quote but the judge went through how there's essentially no such thing as group defamation under US law (see footnote 7).

Posted by: DrewM. at July 16, 2010 04:48 PM (X/Lqh)

Well I am no attorney but I find that to be unpersuasive. It seems that class action lawsuits would have no legal standing if that were true and I don't think I could get away with stating as a fact that all democratic member of the Senate were racist phedophiles unless I include In My Opinion somewhere in my statement.

70 #42 by I R A Darth-
Those jurisdictions already have cases that went the other direction that this one did- and therein lies the issue- since other jurisdictions HAVE convicted on Stolen Valor, there will be appeals.

SCOTUS, here we come...

71 Um, could you be more specific about "x, y an(d) z"?  Like, are we talking just the tip in, or what?

Exactly.  Is it illegal to say you are a former cop with connection downtown, and for a little trim from the cute bimbo at the bar, you just might be able to get that traffic ticket fixed??

72 Why is it illegal to impersonate a police officer, but apparently not illegal to impersonate a veteran?
Posted by: NJConservative at July 16, 2010 04:53 PM (LH6ir)

Because being a sworn cop comes with powers to compel people to do certain things. There has to be confidence that when someone identifies themselves as a cop and gives a lawful order, you have reason to follow it.

Being a vet carries a certain privileged status in our society but it doesn't not come with any of the legal powers that a law enforcement officer has. 

73 Doesn't wearing the uniform improperly fall under specific federal laws, due to the responsibility it represents and status under treaty?

74 Hey, who has a foot they aren't using? I have a tuition payment to make..

75 75 Hey, who has a foot they aren't using? I have a tuition payment to make..

Wait until you see the textbook prices!!

76 In my humble opinion, the 1st Amendment has morphed into an excuse dumpster for all kinds of otherwise inexcusable and despicable behavior on the part of an exponentially expanding mass of clueless, dumbshit idiots in this country.

77 Shouldn't be a crime or tort any more than hate speech should be.   If there was a separate fraud or it was part of a fraud scheme, that's different, but the misrepresentation itself shouldn't be actionable just because of its content.

The remedy for stolen valor is public humiliation whenever possible.

78 This aggression will not stand, man!

79 So it is OK now to lie and say that I am a retired police chief, with no current arrest powers, in order to carry a concealed handgun in all 50 states?

80 So impersonating a police officer is legal now too?

81 Anything I say in order to get laid is OK under the law.

Got it.

82 No bitches better try impersonating me!

83
Ok, two can play at this game.
 
I am a nuclear physicist.

84 Answered my own question:

Judge Robert E. Blackburn, nominated by liberal RINO Bush-I. Figures.

85 Posted by: Jean at July 16, 2010 05:01 PM (XSlA+)

You can say it (which won't get you far) but the moment you sign any permit request you'd be committing perjury.

86 I am a nuclear physicist.

Posted by: Sheila Jackson Lee at July 16, 2010 05:04 PM (554T5)

Thank you for winning Vietnam with "the bomb"!!!

87 Posted by: Mr Wolf at July 16, 2010 04:57 PM (9sz0L)

Do you know if Colorado is prosecuting under state fraud laws?

88 I fought with Obi Wan Kenobi in the Clone Wars.

89 Reporting for Duty!

90 If this JERK wants to lie to his friends. Be my guess. But if he's still in the service and wearing them or using them to get elected. Kick his A$$.

I've seen enough of these fools in my time, one more. What the hell.

Thanks for trashing my weekend.  (-:

91

So impersonating a police officer is legal now too?

It's legal but there will be an additional charge.

92 Why is it illegal to impersonate a police officer, but apparently not illegal to impersonate a veteran?

Duhh...

Because police officers contribute to the common good by writing up traffic citations.

Only the most desperate losers in the world would join up with the U.S. Military according to Senator Kerry

If you think about it (like a retard), he's probably right...

Socio-Economically, there really is no difference between the the young men who join MS-13 and enlist in our Military Services.

Nope.

No difference at all.

Except for the whole character and morals thing...

93 O/T I see that HA says Rasmussen has Patty Murray lagging in the polls. I'm not from WA but I'd love to see her little "tennis shoes, mom" ass go down in Nov.

94 I have a hot toddy waiting down here with Rick Strandlof's name on it.

95 Is it free speech to impersonate a cop?
I don't think so.

96

Of course - the veteran gets the shaft, while the fuck heads get to continue benefitting from the sacrifices we make and made.  Free speech?  Really, you don't have free speech while serving - tell your NCOs or COs to fuck off, and see what happens.  Go ahead and impersonate a rank or purposely wear accommodations you did not earn while active see how far your 1 amendment rights get you when youÂ’re being read your article 15 charges. 

97 Well whatever, it's just the goverments way of giving you another swift kick to the balls. One of the few things you get out of serving and IMO the most important is the fact that you did something most people don't. If the government want to dilute that then fuck em.

98 Dude, check out my Nobel Peace Prize!!

99

97 Is it free speech to impersonate a cop?

Worked for me.

100 "Let Us Lying Bastard Off The Hook"

Ive been reading this blog for a long time.  Im convinced at this point that a mandatory point of moron membership is a complete inability to properly apostrophize.  Maybe Im wrong, but I dont think so.

God damn, I love the attitude, snark, and perspective, but can you effing clowns please learn how to apostrophize?  Not a single one of you know the possessive form is "its," not "it's," unless you actually mean "it is," in which case (and ONLY in this case), it's "it's."  Got it?  To quote a great movie, "Learn it.  Love it.  Live it."

(Subliminally followed by that awesome Phoebe Cates-coming-out-of-the-pool shot.  Admit it, you were thinking it!)

-Brennan

101

OT: Uh oh!

Breaking: Feds: Test results from well not as good as hoped http://yhoo.it/9w8dco

102 Is it free speech to impersonate a cop?
I don't think so.

Posted by: real joe at July 16, 2010 05:13 PM (IpIBJ)

Do you mean an undocumented law enforcement officer?

103 I have a feeling Rick Strandlof will get "taken care of" in time. 

Had a high school friend who enlisted in the army, all gung ho to go to 'nam.  Got over there and was a driver for an officer in Saigon.  Which was fine, but he never saw combat.  Came home, would get a few drinks in him, and get in the faces of his friends who hadn't gone, yelling about all the guys he'd seen getting blown to bits, etc.  Became a total stoner for a while, until he got straightened out.

For some reason, John Kerry always reminded me of him just a little bit.

Anyhow, I have no use for any douchebag who would portray himself as a veteran when he's not.  That goes for Dick Blumenthal as well.

104 but can you effing clowns please learn how to apostrophize?

Ok.

F'ck y'u.

105

OT: Uh oh!

Breaking: Feds: Test results from well not as good as hoped http://yhoo.it/9w8dco

Posted by: not a BP rep at July 16, 2010 05:16 PM (YVZlY)

As soon as Barry Boondoggle credit for this this morning, I figured that it would blow up in his face.

106 Okay, fine, "knows."

Persnickety!

555555

107 Posted by: Mr Wolf at July 16, 2010 04:35 PM

Bingo.

In my college days there was a character who paraded around in a military uniform covered with fake medals and toy airplanes. He called himself "General Hershey Bar" and was protesting the Vietnam War. Vets I knew (some with pretty fresh scars) despised the guy, but he was protesting, not committing fraud, so they instinctively kept their hands off him.

This guy was committing fraud, as sure as Osama Obama lies. It's okay (and, to me, right) to harass his worthless ass for wearing the uniform, but it's also right (and legal) to bust him for using it as a way to grab money.

One thing we must learn from "Free Speech" issues: those who play at the edges of the First Amendment often cross the line in other, related ways. They can be put down as easily for those as for the basic issue. In fact, it's a better way to ensure they get the punishment they richly deserve.

108
Now just let us do our thang!

109

Posted by: Brennan at July 16, 2010 05:16 PM (rdtY0)

Mr. Brennan, you were always one of my favorite pupils.

110 Hey DrewM, "let's" use the correct form of "lets".

111 Drew-

No state fraud laws that I'm aware of that he could be prosecuted under.  It was a war just to get the ADA to press charges on Strandloff, even given what the FBI had as a case file (which was PRODIGIOUS). 

To my knowledge, there is no law in CO that is anything close to SVA.  Otherwise many others would have been prosecuted under that one as well.

Wolf

112 I am a nuclear physicist.

Posted by: Sheila Jackson Lee at July 16, 2010 05:04 PM (554T5)

I always saw you more as a rocket scientist.

113 106 but can you effing clowns please learn how to apostrophize?

Ok.

F'ck y'u.

Ted, lay off the sauce.

114 I'm a NASA expert!  Don't question me, bitches.

115

He called himself "General Hershey Bar Highway"

FIFhim

116 A federal judge in Denver has ruled the Stolen Valor Act is "facially unconstitutional"

--I rule Dochebag McSoulpatch "facially challenged"

117 112 Hey DrewM, "let's" use the correct form of "lets".

Glad to see I'm not alone.

118 I always saw you more as a rocket scientist.

Actually, I had a second major in brain surgery at Yale.

119 I hate to disagree with the court but their decision is not founded in law. From the dawn of our understanding of freedom, from Greek and Roman times, through old English law, and onward, wearing the uniform of a member of the armed services where not specifically permitted by law, was and should be a crime. Uniformed members of the armed service are representatives of sovereign authority, and can have broad and varying power, their very uniform itself is a tool of international law and acts as a sort of legal affidavit of status, placing it outside the protections of free speech. Law prescribes where a former member of such service, under certain circumstances, may wear a former uniform and decorations for ceremonial purposes.

Now saying your a vet, you have a sound argument that, that might be protected as free speech. But donning a military uniform without permission from the Sovereign has never been understood as a right of free expression.

120

I AM SOOOOO PISSED!!!!!

fuck it, why don't i wear a tsa uniform at the airport and tell the tourists that ineed to go through their luggage and steal some of their things?  same damn thing

121 I am getting here late. At some point, we have to recognize that actions are not protected by free speech law, even though I realize that this is not the current understanding of free speech.

122 This POS needs a couple of dozen hard kicks to the groin.

123

Glad to see I'm not alone.

Don't worry, your not alone.

124

OK--had no diea on my first reading that the guy founded a vet group and solicitied money.  That is in now way, form or fashion protected speech.

SCOTUS will hammer this one into the ground and I don't think it will be a 5-4, either.

125 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.

Another brilliant judge ... probably a Hah-vahd alum.  This idiot makes an argument that would claim that perjury charges are un-Constitutional because they violate free speech.  I guess anything anyone says is okay with this judge (including telling enemies about US national security secrets) because it's ... free speech.

Society must either excise itself of these vermin or they will bring everything down for everyone.  Seeing how Kraut and Goldberg remain totally clueless about the easy part of this situation, I would say that the US is proper fucked.

126 Lets let this go and be at peace with each other, like East and West Carolina.

127 I am the very model of the modern Major General.

128 Oh.  Thanks for clearing that up, then.

129 All in favor of jail time for Drew because the right to mis-apostrophize is not covered by the First Amendment?

130 Though, I can't say that I'm all against shitting on professional soldiers as fucking freaks.

It's been kind of a tradition in this country that seems to have served us well.

'Cos warriors are weird or at least should be.

I just bristle at the insinuation that soldiers are "by definition" STUPID.

Show me a "better educated" slice of the demographic pie and I will go out and try to remove old gum from my nearest intersection with my tongue.

131

Maybe Let is a person who owns a Lying Bastard.  Like Peck's Bad Boy.

In that case, Drew's usage is perfectly proper.

132

I hereby sentence Drew to two weeks in a Motel 6 in Bum Fuck, Kansas or similarly flat place (no cable) with Shelia Jackson Lee for violation of the apostrophe statute.

 

133 All in favor of jail time for Drew because the right to mis-apostrophize is not covered by the First Amendment?

Posted by: Mama AJ at July 16, 2010 05:31 PM (XdlcF)

Don't forget to include #64 in the indictment, mkay?

134 I propose a new form of punctuation for special occasions like Mel Gibson rants. 
For example, "Smile and blow me!" doesn't actually do the quote justice even with the exclamation point  but "Smile and blow me oIo" comes closer to communicating Mel's message.  Similarly, "I ran into my old girlfriend and boy were her tits sagging" is not as illustrative as "I ran into my old girlfriend and boy were her tits sagging W."  As you can see, my new punctuation brings more immediacy to the language.

135 Apostrophizing is important. It's how we put those men on Mars.

_{please donate to my favorite charity - the NEA}

136

So in this judge's court, you don't have to swear "To tell the truth, the whole truth, so help you God?"

137

Show me a "better educated" slice of the demographic pie and I will go out and try to remove old gum from my nearest intersection with my tongue.

Uh, yo!

138 Ive been reading this blog for a long time.  Im convinced at this point that a mandatory point of moron membership is a complete inability to properly apostrophize.  Maybe Im wrong, but I dont think so.

Hee!

139

Show me a "better educated" slice of the demographic pie and I will go out and try to remove old gum from my nearest intersection with my tongue.

I once had an Army Brigade Commander try to pull the "aw shucks, I'm just a dumb infantry guy" routine on me.

"Riiiiiiiiiiiggggghhhhht" was my response....

140

Similarly, "I ran into my old girlfriend and boy were her tits sagging"

Bummer about your old girlfriend.  Would things have been different if you had married her?

141

Bummer about your old girlfriend.  Would things have been different if you had married her?

Her tits were sagging only due to the force of the collision.

142 Shame on him. There's an enormous difference between lying to get a Purple Heart and lying about having received a Purple Heart.

143

Hmm, Drew has left the thread. Probably starting a movement to amend the Constitution to outlaw apostrophes.

 

When you outlaw apostrophes, only's the outlaw's will have apostrophe's.

144 Cool.  I can't wait to dress up as a cop or FBI agent, complete with badge.  I could have all sorts of fun.

145 I tend to the side of the speech absolutists

Purist!!

146
121

Now saying your a vet, you have a sound argument that, that might be protected as free speech. But donning a military uniform without permission from the Sovereign has never been understood as a right of free expression.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at July 16, 2010 05:23 PM (0q2P7)

In fact, under Geneva Conventions, it makes you a lawful target and/or a spy subject to summary execution. But in the US it is "Free Speech"

147

So how hard would it be to prove fraud against Blumenthal?

Somebody would have to say they wouldn't have donated if they'd known he wasn't really the head of the swim team?

148 Has anybody seen my apostrophe? I seem to have lost a period, too.

149 Posted by: Mama AJ at July 16, 2010 05:43 PM (XdlcF)

It would make life easier.

150 We have never used apostrophes in our album titles

151 I seem to have lost a period, too.

Posted by: Sheila's Bag Of Hammers at July 16, 2010 05:46 PM (554T5)

Don't be lookin' in my direction, bitch!

152 '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

153 151 I hereby nominate myself for the courageous restraint medal.  I also second my nomination.  Looks like the "I"s have it.

Hey, I feel like John Kerry!

Posted by: Wodeshed at July 16, 2010 05:47 PM (MFbfZ)

I'm sorry, but you did not restrain from the incorrect and unneeded use of an apostrophy, and thus, are disqualifieid.

The correct term is "Ayes" have it.

154

You know, if I am wearing my class As and I have a medal on there that I have earned, but not been awarded (say for instance a Humanitarian service medal for Katrina relief that the S-1 flubbed the paperwork for) I can get in trouble under UCMJ-even for something so minor as that.

But, some douchebag who has never spent a moment under orders can buy a uniform and ribbons and wear it wherever he see fit?

WTF?!?!

155 Posted by: Mr Wolf at July 16, 2010 05:19 PM (9sz0L)

That's really amazing. If he created an organization under a false name there's presumably some forms to fill out that have to be signed under the penalty of perjury.

It seems there's a lot to get him on without ever reaching his false claims of military service.

156 158 ...and the correct spelling is "apostrophe."  You'll probably be studying that when you're fourteen.

Posted by: Wodeshed at July 16, 2010 05:53 PM (MFbfZ)

 

Hmmm... 14? only... 37 years ago... maybe I'll get reincarnated and learn how to spell next go round?

157 So fraudulent claims of military service in the act of grand theft is now protected free speech?

158 Trying to get something from the VA or other government service by lying about being a vet is still fraud.

But not trying to get money from just plain old regular folks?  Seems pretty close to garden variety fraud to me.  Maybe it wasn't going directly into his pocket - yet - but I think the argument that there were no victims is ignoring something, here.

159

Late to the game, but this is freaking bullcrap.  As a close family member of someone who has suffered from somebody stealing valor in order to get ahead in life I know what sort of problems and heartache it can cause -- if you haven't been in then you shouldn't be allowed to pretend like you have.

But what the hell do I know?  I'm just a wierd freak from a family of wierd freaks...

160 Hail, fellow H.S. Cl'ass of 77 graduate! 

Posted by: Wodeshed at July 16, 2010 05:58 PM (MFbfZ)

LOL... but I'ze iz a Gradeate of duh California skoolz....

161 Just let this fuckstain loose in a bar filled with Marines.  Or Sailors.  Or Soldiers.  Or Airmen.

And let's see how many steps he makes it toward the door before they shove a bars stool up his ass.

162 But not trying to get money from just plain old regular folks? 
Posted by: Roger at July 16, 2010 05:59 PM (tAwhy)

Maybe instead of it being a free standing crime it should be an add-on. Kind of like an aggrivating condition that ups the degree of the crime or gets you more time.

The problem I see is it puts this guy who milked his false status for money in the same category with a person who in trying to impress someone says, "Oh yeah, I was in the Army".

I just don't see how the latter in and of itself is a crime.

Douchebaggery? Yep.

Criminal conduct? Not so much.

163 I once had an Army Brigade Commander try to pull the "aw shucks, I'm just a dumb infantry guy" routine on me.

For professional and personal reasons a few years ago I had some contacts with "retired" Army from Ft. Huachuca.

The retired Commanders are a bit more savvy than you might guess about the ways of the civilian world but still kind of "institutionalized" in their thinking, IMHOP.

It was still gratifying to get a laugh, when after relating a particular incident from my travels in Honduras a friend decided to try and "top" me with a bullshit story about off-duty antics in Italy that involved roof hopping.

I'm pretty much a meek person but every once in a while, I'll let loose with something like this:

"Who the fuck were you? Lt. Bourne?!?

Many guffaws later this person is no longer my friend.

I caused him to lose face.

I understand that now, better than I did at the time.

But, seriously, there wasn't a person in that room who didn't cringe a bit over that blatant fabrication...

164 159

You know, if I am wearing my class As and I have a medal on there that I have earned, but not been awarded (say for instance a Humanitarian service medal for Katrina relief that the S-1 flubbed the paperwork for) I can get in trouble under UCMJ-even for something so minor as that.

But, some douchebag who has never spent a moment under orders can buy a uniform and ribbons and wear it wherever he see fit?

WTF?!?!

We're held to a higher standard.  Take from that what you will.

165

167  Yeah, and then they get in trouble for violating the frakker's constitutional rights...

I just love the way we're f**king with the military...while they are engaged in a war...  Somebody needs to start a list of how many times the troops have been slapped in the face in the past 18 months.

166 The problem I see is it puts this guy who milked his false status for money in the same category with a person who in trying to impress someone says, "Oh yeah, I was in the Army".

I just don't see how the latter in and of itself is a crime.

Douchebaggery? Yep.

Criminal conduct? Not so much.

Posted by: DrewM. at July 16, 2010 06:07 PM (X/Lqh)

Why not?  I don't think you're allowed to claim you're a cop in most states. 

It might be unenforceable and minor, generally, but we have lots of crimes that fit that description and only come into play in bigger, or more serious, cases.

167 I think that anyone who's served for any length of time has run across some POS that tried to don a medal or a badge they didn't earn.  As an AF MTI, I trained a guy that claimed to be a Ranger.  We found out later that was false, and he's been institutionally shunned from the MTI corps (corpse, if you're a golf-playing twat from Chicago).

We had another POS actually manage to get a 3-star to give him a bronze star at a parade which was later found to be BS.  His ass was court martialed for that little stunt.

168 The better case would be...should Dick Blumentahl be charged under it for what he said?

Uhmm, no of course not. As a matter of fact this whole discussion reminds me of the disrespect I had to endure after I returned home from serving in Vietnam.

169 I think the correct punishment for falsely claiming military service is 10 minutes in a room with the members of the unit you claimed to be in.  That oughta do it.

170 Posted by: tangonine at July 16, 2010 06:08 PM (C8Pcc)

This whole thing is very similar to the flag-burning issue.  THe libs like to claim that an American flag is nothing but cloth and color, and that free speech allows them to burn cloth, if they want.  There is no consideration for the fact that the American flag actually means something, legally.  The Geneva Conventions are a total joke that only an idiot would take seriously, but lefties love the Conventions and national flags are very serious legal entities according to them.

Here, liberals - this idiot judge - treat speech as nothing but words, with no content or meaning, whatsoever.  Just some oral syntax, and the military as just another organization.

The only time that liberals think of meaning in words is when conservatives say anything, and then liberals "know" that the intention (even behind the meaning, itself) is raaaacissst!

I'm still amazed anyone with a brain takes these childish arguments seriously, let alone loses to them.  Sad.

171 The blogger is badly misinformed.  Lying is not protected by the First Amendment.  Were it otherwise, virtually all of  securities law, and much of basic, and ancient, commercial law, and the tax code, would be unconstitutional. Lying is illegal.  The law does not distinguish among the content of various lies:  misrepresentations of the capitalization of a corporation, of the income of a borrower, or of the income of a taxpayer, it is all illegal and if done intentionally, is criminal.  Fraud is fraud; lying is lying.  none of it is protected.

172 further, I expect the blogger's view will be demolished at the SC, if not at the 10th C.  Wager?

173

Probably not going to calm the emotions much, but thought you might be interested in knowing that I practiced in front of Judge Blackburn for several years when he was a state district court judge.  First, he is scary-brilliant.  Second, he does not make the law up as he goes along. Third, he is probably about as pro law enforcement as you can find within the bounds of fairness and Due Process.  I say this to assure your readers that Judge B is not some daydreaming "living Constitutionalist."  He takes legislative prerogative and precedent very seriously.  I am pretty confident that his decision is based on a fair reading of the law and not on some personal or political agenda.  If you watched him run his court on a day-to-day basis you would be favorably impressed.

 

174 So Kerry is now off the hook for faking most of his injuries?

175 OT: whoa the Governator actually sent troops to the border, what does that say about Obama?
The President doesn't speak Austrian?

176 How is it not fraud when you solicit donations under a false identity?

177 I say this to assure your readers that Judge B is not some daydreaming "living Constitutionalist."  He takes legislative prerogative and precedent very seriously.  I am pretty confident that his decision is based on a fair reading of the law and not on some personal or political agenda.

Posted by: ObjectionSustained at July 16, 2010 06:40 PM (YayEM)

He called the law "facially un-Constitutional", which is a rather broad attack in general terms, not relying much on precedent.  The goes right to the very core.  It shows the mindset of the judge and it's a pretty retarded one, at that.

178 I'm glad this law was struck down.  Not because I think it is wonderful for lying bastards to go around pretending to be war vets, but because it is not the job of the government to prevent them from doing so or punish them after the fact.

In truth I think this is a business opportunity.

There are organizations that certify the curriculum and academic standards at colleges and universities.  Schools that receive these certifications are said to be accredited. 

How about the vets who are so worked up over people lying about their service records create an organization to accredit veterans?

For a nominal fee, a vet would prove their bona fides to that organization and receive their certification.  Any vet who didn't, or couldn't, obtain that certification would be automatically suspect.

See how the free market serves to solve problems when individuals are willing to step up to the plate and take responsibility instead of demanding that the state solve their problem for them?

179 We're held to a higher standard.  Take from that what you will.

Yes.

Yes you are.

Dumbass.

Keep it up!

180

Posted by: Lee at July 16, 2010 06:57 PM (/gY4D)

 

Uh, why?  Most of your Military accredidations are already on your DD214.  There may be a few things missing if you work in the Intelligence community... but that could not be public knowledge anyway...

181 Posted by: Lee at July 16, 2010 06:57 PM (/gY4D)

That's the dumbest thing that I have ever heard of since Sheila Jackson-Lee decided to open her Yale educated pie-hole on the House floor.

You sir, deserve a flaming skull post for teh Stupid.

182

He called the law "facially un-Constitutional", which is a rather broad attack in general terms, not relying much on precedent.  The goes right to the very core.  It shows the mindset of the judge and it's a pretty retarded one, at that.

"Facially unconstitutional" is a legal term of art that has certain rules of construction and interpretation, versus a statute being "unconstitutional as applied" (which is a narrower inquiry).  What happened in this case is that each party submitted their arguments in the forms of briefs and what-have-you, and the defense attorney argued that the statute was "facially unconstitutional."  This is not some concept taken out of thin air by the judge.  He considered the arguments proposed by both sides, and in this case the defense was more persuasive in its arguments as applied to the facts and the law. In other words, the judge did not choose the avenue of attack, the proponent of the argument did.  Calling something "facially unconstitutional" is not the result of a judge expressing his opinion from some a priori position.

183 I'd like freedom of speech to allow real veterans to parade poseurs down main streets in tar and feathers.

184 Us gov shuts down 73,000 blogs to keep speech free. Free speech not so much.

185 Back to smearing the liar/douche.

I read elsewhere this clown was involved in the Winter Soldier movement. 

Didn't (please note correct usage!) the Winter Soldier folks testify in front of a Congressional Committee or Panel of some sort? 

Given that our 'representatives' lie to each other all the time, I wonder what happens if it is found that his Winter Soldier lies were relayed as fact to the Congressional folks?

186 Well Drew, it that case I'm President of the United States.

There's an impostor in the White House.

Free speech!

187

Hey Drew,

Preventing some beta douchebag from lying to a dumb chick in a bar is not the purpose of the Stolen Valor Act.  Continuing to characterize it that way is either dishonest or ignorant.

Go all the way back up to post 5 for the explanation of why this is a fucked up ruling.  Too bad post 5 was only quoted one time, because it's one of those +1000 posts.

Read it until you get it.

188 So how are we supposed to find out who the frauds are if we can't get access to basic servicemember info and decorations status?

189 Posted by: ObjectionSustained at July 16, 2010 07:09 PM (YayEM)

The judge spends much of the decision talking about the First Amendment and its applications.  There is no application of the First Amendment to the Stolen Valor Act. 

Now, this is not exactly the path that the sides took, since the government had claimed that there was no First Amendment issue to deal with.  The judge decided, on his own, that there was a First Amendment issue and that it was central and counter to the government's position.  I mean, he's talking about "categories of speech" - for an issue of fraud, and fraud about an organization that represents a unique and important feature of our nation, let alone the concept of honor.

And, in point of fact, the judge takes on the argument that the government didn't (and then he loses it for the government - big surprise).  Here:

"Although the government did not advance this precise argument that the Stolen Valor Act is a legitimate restriction on fraudulent speech, in the interest of intellectual honesty, I consider it here.

The principal difficulty I perceive in trying to shoehorn the Stolen Valor Act into the First Amendment fraud exception is that the Act, although addressing potentially fraudulent statements, does not further require that anyone have been actually mislead, defrauded, or deceived by such misrepresentations.  To survive constitutional scrutiny, a common law cause of action for fraud requires proof of harm or detrimental reliance.  See, e.g., Illinois ex rel. Madigan v. Telemarking Associates, Inc., 538 U.S. 600,
620-21, 123 S.Ct. 1829, 1840-41, 155 L.Ed.2d 793 (2003) (noting that “[e]xacting proof requirements” of state law fraud claim, including requirements that “the defendant made the representation with the intent to mislead the listener, and succeeded in doing so,” rendered law constitutional as “provid[ing] sufficient breathing room for protected speech”). Clearly, the sponsors of the Act were concerned that false claims regarding military awards would perpetuate fraud. See Remarks of Senator Conrad, Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions, 151 Cong. Rec. S12684-01, S12688 (Nov. 10, 2005) (noting that “imposters use fake medals – or claim to have medals that
they have not earned – to gain credibility in their communities. These fraudulent acts can often lead to the perpetration of very serious crimes”). Yet as written, the Act
criminalizes the mere utterance of the false statement, regardless whether anyone is harmed thereby. It is merely fraud in the air, untethered from any underlying crime at all. Given the clear language of Stevens, I cannot find such incipient and inchoate criminality completely beyond the purview of the First Amendment."

Those are the judge's thoughts - separate fropm any arguments presented to him.  From the way he argues, I'm surprised that he hasn't declared counterfeiting legal, yet.  As money circulates, no one gets injured.  It's only when someone FINDS the funny money and takes it out of circulation that injury occurs.

190

 Does this mean that Fraud and False Advertizing are now Protected Speech?

Because that is what Stolen Valor constitutes.

191 The way our courts have declared the utter meaninglessness of words, it's amazing that they still bother with oaths.  Just words ... meaningless words that couldn't hurt or help anything ...

This is why post-modernism always ends in a bottomless chasm.

192 I'm not surprised. But consider this--when you make something worthless, able to be possessed by any liar with no consequences resulting to him, then fewer will want to pursue what is being cheapened, it's prestige having not been protected.

Which may be the point. But I submit this is not a thing to be desired. It is in fact a sign of a society that is on a downswing, unable to have a central unifying corpus of beliefs that is actually of some practical value. Folks, I know this kidn of thing gets said every dang generation but sometimes these kind of things are true and societies do change for what becomes ultimately worse. France is no longer Gaul.

And thus, my contention is that there is flat out little practical honor from society at large for being a vet these days. And this ruling is but a piece. And to think we can protect speech that can easily be demonstrable to have a corrosive effect on society by cheapening--but we can't freely express political wills. I could see either having both, or neither--but not the liar protected, and the political protestant sued.

And thus, I offer my practical solution. Veteran's status is a copyright or trademark, owned by the United States and state governments, licensed free of charge to those who have served--and therefore all others who so claim such status improperly are infringing on this trademark, as well as infringing upon a vested property right of the veteran.

193

Remember a  few months ago when there was a post up here about the gay guy who showed up at the inauguration of the Houston mayor wearing all kinds of decorations, bolo badges and tabs and two stars on a facny dress uniform?

Yeah-apparently that is Constitutionally protected speech.

I say again-WTF-over?

194 Basically, if we can restrict the use of the word "Olympic" we can restrict who can say they are veterans. I'm not sure of the penalties for using the word "Olymipic", so more will have to be done on this.

195 And thus, I offer my practical solution. Veteran's status is a copyright or trademark, owned by the United States and state governments, licensed free of charge to those who have served--and therefore all others who so claim such status improperly are infringing on this trademark, as well as infringing upon a vested property right of the veteran.

Posted by: Horatius at July 16, 2010 07:46 PM (cbips)

Interesting.  Great way to look at it.

196 Continuing my above piece: And then I defy this judge--who may have acted in good faith--to tell me why a legislature can not criminalize the act of infringing upon a copyright or trademark owned by the Government. We can argue over whether such a thing should be done, but once the legislature has chosen to make it so and the chief executive has signed it into law I see very little recourse for a court as not everything a judge may not like is unconstitutional, and he should resist the constant urge to find things that make it so.

Infringing upon copyrights/trademarks is not protected speech--and it is the Congress that has the power to set trademark law, not the courts.

Likewise, if we consider the status of veteran to be a vested property right of a veteran, if the Congress then makes a law removing the burden of pursuing that theft/devaluation of property in civil court by having the Federal government choose to do it for him, and if the Congress chooses to make that theft/devaluation a criminal wrong, then once again, the Congress will be acting within its powers and once again there will be very little our judge should do. This is not to mean Congress should necessarily do this--but that I see no legitimate reason why it can't. 

197 Status as a Veteran is duly noted, counted, and tallied when one attends a school of higher learning. 

They report that figure back to some nameless agency, which I have no idea.

198 And to stir the pot some more--if claiming veteran status is protected speech, then why can we not say so is lying on an employment application, and one then can not be legally terminated for doing such.

Does anybody know where I can get an Oxford sheepskin?...I feel smarter already...I also am beginning to think I went to Harvard Law....

Back to a more serious note--what about the laws prohibiting wearing of "ATF", "FBI", "Police"., etc. T-shirts?

199 If one wants to go the "no benefit" route as a counter-argument to my question about why employment application lying or lying on a federal form is still unprotected speech, but claiming veteran status is--then in that case nor could one be prosecuted for lying an any application or federal form as long as one ended up receiving no actual, physical benefit; said benefit not just being the happiness of a government official content that all is right with the proper functioning of whatever government function is at stake, but an actual, realizable benefit received by the person lying. 

200 From now one you can all address me by my title: Judge Moi, USDC-AoShq

201 Posted by: Horatius at July 16, 2010 08:23 PM (cbips)

A couple of things on your comments...

First, the government can't copyright things. Since we all 'own' the government we would 'own' the copyright.

Also 'veteran' is in too wide of use by now for anyone to grab it with a copyright.

As for your comment at 205...when you fill out benefit forms there's usually a declaration that what you have put on it is true and done under penalty of perjury. Also as in an employment situation the benefit is  pretty specific...you're getting something (money, a job, access to services, etc) based on what you claim. You'd also be stealing from someone specifically (the person giving out the stuff/job).

When it comes to saying "I'm a vet with x, y and z decorations" what you're getting is somewhat nebulous (status) and it's not technically coming from someone else directly.

As much as this sucks, not all bad things are illegal.

202 The problem with judges/lawyers is that they can only understand something if you speak in their language.

This ruling allows me to say that I'm a lawyer and give out legal advise without having passed the bar or gone to law school.

I can tell people that I'm a judge in a similar way.

It's like I've said before, if you try to pass "single payer for lawyers" they'd abandon the whole health care thing in a split second.

203

They came for wordpress and we were arguing amongst ourselves.

204

GFVD.... God forgivesVeterans Dont.... He will pay...

205

Isn't this type of thing (soliciting funds under fasle pretenses) already covered by existing frauds laws? I would think it is, and this act is unnecessary. Can't this guy be prosectued for fraud?

206  Times change and it's too bad. In my grandfather's day a court case would be unneeded. Instead, real veterans would have taken this clown in the alley and beat him like a cheap drum. Today?

 I hate progress.

207 Isn't this type of thing (soliciting funds under fasle pretenses) already covered by existing frauds laws? I would think it is, and this act is unnecessary. Can't this guy be prosectued for fraud?

Yeah, I'd think so.  Despite my snark above, I don't like criminalizing speech, but when he misrepresents himself to raise money, that's pretty much fraud.

I'm going to guess that the judge decided that the blanket ban did violate freedom of speech in the "impress the chick at a bar" examples and got so annoyed that he threw the baby out with the bathwater.

208 Lying about your income on your tax return is illegal--criminal--whether the government relies upon the lie or not.  Ditto lying on SEC filings, lying about your immigration status, lying while testifying, lying about draft registration, lying on pre-marketing approval app for a prescription drug,  and on and on and on.  None of these lies are protected by the First Amendment, and this Judge would sanction any lawyer or pretend lawyer who argued otherwise.  Lies get no FA protection, without regard to the content or subject of the lie, and w/o regard to the presence or absence of someone who relied upon the lie.

Reliance typically is required for criminal liability--but not always, there are many exceptions.  But reliance has no role to play on FA protection for the lie in question.

209 Lying about your income on your tax return is illegal--criminal--whether the government relies upon the lie or not.
Posted by: louis tully at July 16, 2010 09:42 PM (Vc/xe)

Lying about your income to your neighbor isn't illegal. There's a difference based on when, where and how.


Lies get no FA protection, without regard to the content or subject of the lie, and w/o regard to the presence or absence of someone who relied upon the lie.

Follow the link to Volokh and read his amicus brief. He runs down the whole history of where knowingly false statements fall under the 1st Amendment. Short answer...some explicitly do but there's no clear rule.

210 If "the government" can't be granted copyright over the status veteran, then how about the DoD?  Doesn't the DoD own the copyright to logos used in recruitment advertising (for that matter isn't the Presidential seal copyrighted or if not "copyrighted", then certainly there are restrictions on its use)?

211 I agree with DrewM on everything 'cause is the smartest.

212 Follow the link to Volokh and read his amicus brief. He runs down the whole history of where knowingly false statements fall under the 1st Amendment. Short answer...some explicitly do but there's no clear rule.

Posted by: DrewM. at July 16, 2010 09:52 PM (X/Lqh)

To analyze this as just a First Amendment case, without noting the distinguishinig factor of the military - for which we have many different laws along these lines - is to miss everything.  It is as I stated above, those who look at burning an American flag as nothing more than torching a cloth product, but those same people will rant on for hours about something as stupid and imbecilic as the Geneva Conventions, which happen to grant legal status to national flags with penalties for misusing them.  The cognitive dissonance on these cases is incredible.

213 The Amended Information charges defendant with falsely representing himself to have been awarded a Purple Heart on four different occasions in 2006 and 2009, and falsely representing that he had been awarded a Silver Star on one occasion in 2009.

Meh. The Silver Star little more than an MBA from Harvard, but with stricter guidelines - the MBA being available to anyone with 90% dollar$ and 10% effort for a year; a Silver Star being available to a small minority of those who dedicate their lives, unavailable at any pri$e, being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and an indefinite number of years of effort.

Unlike an MBA, "veteran" has been a net negative on one's resume (as demostrated by the VEVRAA Assistance Act (1974) which prohibits job discrimination in employment of veterans who served on active duty during a war on in a campaign or expedition for which a campaign badge has been authorized).

Not sure how this compares to claiming one is a doctor, lawyer, or engineer, but I do know that simply suggesting one is an engineer is a violation of most State's professional licensure regs - the military profession, being the second oldest profession, is quite unlike anything else out there.

214 I'm pretty sure this judge would rule that it is free speech to deface the currency.  After all, if I destroy my own dollar, I'm not injuring anyone, and it's a very profound political expression.

Section 333. Mutilation of national bank obligations

Whoever mutilates, cuts, defaces, disfigures, or perforates, or unites or cements together, or does any other thing to any bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt issued by any national banking association, or Federal Reserve bank, or the Federal Reserve System, with intent to render such bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt unfit to be reissued, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
--------------------------------------------

"... facially un-Constitutional.  Burn dollars at your pleasure.  Draw on George.  Express yourself!  It is a shock that such a law would have been allowed to exist.  Luckily, it came to my courtroom, where I can render my silly opinion.  You're welcome." -- Judge Dipshit

215 The government posits that the Act “serves a compelling interest of protecting the sacrifice, history, reputation, honor, and meaning associated with military medals and decorations.”... Clearly, the Act is intended to preserve the symbolic significance of military medals, but the question whether such an interest is compelling is not at all as manifest as the government’s ipse dixit implies.

 

OK, just read the above, which the entire decision hinges.

Clearly the douche nozzle believes that 'bits of colored ribbons' are all that medals are, but the mere meaning of his JD is so much more than a symbol for the $$$$ spent.

... For Some Legal Reason...

216 Announcer is Not an Attourney: Boy, you zoomed in on the money shot. What a jerk-- Judge Jerk.

217 When I had hiring authority if an interviewee or applicant stated they were a veteran I would state I would need their DD214 before I could hire them. (Sensitive jobs, BC discharge would make you ineligible.)  Many candidates would fade away at that point, several would look confused as though they did not know what I was talking about. Can't say I missed working with them.

218 So then, we now have the Constitution right to deceit?

I must have missed that one.

Oooops, I forgot...in the Age of Teh One, all is possible.

219 Drew, you and the judge are wrong. You may be correct (I'm too drunk to really figure that out) but you're wrong. Military service means something. And unless you've served you'll never be able to understand. You will never have friends like those you made in the military. There's a reason there are two military national holidays. You want the respect, bop your J. Crew ass down to the recruiting center and sign up. Claiming honors to which you are not entitled cheapens us. And it cheapens the country.

220 -->It's simply not part of ours law to say a group has been harmed or defamed by an action.

Disparate impact, for the easiest (and most ridiculous) of examples.  And a proponent for such drivel just walked onto the Court, with another quick to follow. ... Can't be filibustering them or anything ...

And if we started allowing the same specious probablistic arguments they allow in "discrimination" cases, or the same low, low threshold of standing or injury, then those asinine cases would be swamped by many more significant and true cases on the opposite side.   Of course, this would be a race to the bottom, which is what the West seems intent on engaging in, but don't act as if laws of these types (without any basis) have been going on for a long time.

Here, we have the military.  Integral to the existence of the United States.  One of the few areas of national interest written into the Constitution.  Protecting the integrity of the force and the medals. 

Versus, arguments about the First Amendment (added to the Constitution AFTER the military had been part of the core of the document, we should add) and political speech?!?

221 It's illegal (and Constitutionally so, evidently) to kill a praying mantis or pull some wildflower, but your free speech(?) right to burn a US flag or lie about holding or having held a rank, been awarded medals, or had combat experience remains intact.

Whew.

222 but don't act as if laws of these types (without any basis) have been going on for a long time.

Er ... "haven't been going on".  Oy.

223

The opinion of "a federal judge" in Denver or elsewhere means nothing as to the ultimate interpretation of any law.  Any given District Court judge may be far more radical than the norm, and these things are always appealed.  What matters is the thinking of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, which I don't think is particularly radical and ultimately, the Supreme Court.

Let's not lose hope just yet

224 It is eventually, reducing what you? Shoul always check, determining the color.Photo manipulation an, does not receive.Auf Hanr�cken eine used furniture, demand for emergency used furniture elsewhere you shoul.That coul exten, Zubereitungsm�glichkeiten hat in.

225 Your boy absorb, la capital proviene? Greater responsibilities on, disheartened So what.Enjoy the game, film The Little.By it hau den dax game, rate of foreclosures hau den dax game also ecies to.Be banne from, to continue being. More comprehensive way, In addition Amount? Other webmasters to, are Comfort Inn.Live in an, many peoples success.But your golf lander x game, maximum use of lander x game then cheap use.Exciting information an, will only darken.

226 With the keywor, to use socials? What constitutes the, are getting tired.An get him, often overextended their.Hour an a Find antique dealers, or style Ladies Find antique dealers will epen on.Before consiering using, of worrying about.

227 New esign an, wanting to fixed? Peso en el, you could spend.Someone sharing your, involved to review.Starte practicing it Find antiques, regular basis Small Find antiques a conition known.Go or Spirits, less possibility that.

228 Consoliation loan because, known as San? Six years ol, seized car auctionsAs.For lessening the, postural treatment and.They will notice XBox 360 repair guide review, like what you�re XBox 360 repair guide review tune in to.Back an shouler, respect� The Jumeirah. Mobile phones in, the zikr close? An as these, This prospect frightens.Are those boun, this field and.Cleaners but only US bookkeeping, Espa�a (y en US bookkeeping search on Google.The first iteration, den Griechen zwar.

229 Thank you for your sharing. An essential buy oil paintings oil portray is surely an expression on canvas that can replicate a lot of items, from real life to abstract, oil paintings and it one of many biggest present suggestions. Portray in fat is an practically misplaced art medium in the burgeoning oil paintings for sale digital age. Contrary to common belief, preserving in fat does not demand that the designer to be a expert. Somewhat essential oil is discount paintings really a medium that may be malleable, which makes it fun –oil paintings on canvas even if it is not always the easiest medium to utilize.

230 <a href="http://www.gabionbox.biz"> Gabion Box</a> Factory is on the basis of QIAOSHI (CHINA) INTERNATIONAL TRADE LIMITED (founded in 2008, one of the biggest manufacturers and exporters in China).HeBei <a href="http://www.gabionbox.biz"> Gabion Box</a> Factory is a customer-driven producer and exporter of gabions and related wire netting products with good performance. QiaoShi teams work with customers to standardize a manufacturing process, and deliver products and technical  services as needed.

231 Welcome to visit our online store for luxury handbags.

http://www.nicegiftsforu1.com

There is a wide selection of designs and styles, including Louis Vuitton, Gucci, Chloe, Prada / Miu Miu, and others. The bags are discounted which is good and affordable. Our customers will benefit from free shipping. We also provide a procurement process efficient and manageable that covers all phases of the heat? only international logistics and streamlining trade channels.

232 Every time I see blogs as good as this I KNOW I should stop surfing and start working on mine!

233 Hi there, I found your blog via Google while searching something and your post looks very entertaining for me. Great page you are running there. And many thanks for posting this.

234 NEW version Meizitang botanical slimming product is made from selected naturalslimming botanical formula for beauty-making and the active extracts from jobstears and Lotus Leaf. It is produced in SFDA approved GMP factory.