Stolen Valor Act Unconstitutional ?

[120mm]

So... Does this mean it should be legal for me to dress up like a police officer, drive a police looking car and pull over good looking women and offer them the opportunity to give sexual favors in return for not getting a ticket?

It's just "content-laden speech" after all.

Some judges are just stupid. They were lawyers once, after all....

[carl]

I think there is a fundamental difference between impersonating an officer in order to commit a sex crime and pretending to have been a soldier in order to impress people.

[jmm99]

(I'm leaving out the adjective "fundamental") between a person pretending to have been a soldier in order to impress people and that only, and a person pretending to have been a soldier in order to impress people to obtain money or other lucre from them. Hillar fell into the second category.

Drew made a useful point - even though it was made for another purpose re: 2nd sentence - in this comment:

from 120mm
Some judges are just stupid. They were lawyers once, after all....

In truth, most all judges are lawyers and remain so while they are judges. Military judges have a triple whammy; they are judges, lawyers and military officers. Imagine the possibilities for stupidness in that combo - but also the possibilities for smartness.

The point is that everyone (non-lawyers included) carries with them a certain perspective on what the "Law" is. I'm not going to go into a long song and dance about how I would use that in legal strategy and tactics (yippee). But, the "Law" to any individual (if he or she admits it) is not the written law, whether in statute or court decision. It is far more than that.

So, the "Law" may be shaped by the decision-seeker (usually a lawyer) and by the decision-maker (usually a judge or jury). Now, in the Stolen Valor cases (and in the Marine Burial case), I felt that the "Law" (my view) upheld constitutionality and said so in SWC posts. Other folks (lawyers and non-lawyers) felt differently and so did SCOTUS.

In Hillar, the prosecutor shifted gears and, by going the "wire fraud" route, shaped the "Law of the Case". The judge agreed (since the indictment stood); and Hillar pleaded guilty:

As part of his plea, Hillar agreed to pay back $171,000 he made by lecturing universities, soldiers, and federal and local law enforcement agencies while falsely claiming he was a counter-terrorism expert and had earned doctorate from the University of Oregon.

Bottom Line: The "Law of the Case" is different from the "Law".

Regards

Mike

[carl]

Mike:

Just to be fussy, the "fundamental" difference is between impersonating a police officer and pretending to have been a soldier.

If I get your point right, you are saying there is a difference between what people perceive as being just and how the statutes are written. You can use the perception of justice to affect how the statute is interpreted or applied. Is that it?

[jmm99]

but this is part of it:

from Carl
f I get your point right, you are saying there is a difference between what people perceive as being just and how the statutes are written. You can use the perception of justice to affect how the statute is interpreted or applied. Is that it?

It will take more than a sound bite - and I want to avoid technical Bravo Sierra.

I'll play with this a bit and come up with a summary of "trade secrets" on "shaping" the "Law of the Case".

BTW: my construct is right for me. I'm a "technician" and not an "artist", which means that I apply lots of preparation to open up avenues to intuition. In short, I rely on perspiration, not inspiration.

That has nothing to do with destructive speed ("tempo") in the courtroom - I like blowing away "an artist's" arguments. Other folks will have completely different ideas.

Regards

Mike

[Stan]

- and I want to avoid technical Bravo Sierra.

Regards

Mike

I really love it when you use the phonetic alphabet to explain technical terms!

I must've been an influence at one time or another

[jmm99]

indeed, you have been.

The phonetic alphabet seems to add a bit of class to the public presentation - not much class, mind you - but some.

To say nothing of using such jargon as "blowing away" the other guy's argument.

Regards

Mike

[120mm]

I think there is a fundamental difference between impersonating an officer in order to commit a sex crime and pretending to have been a soldier in order to impress people.

Your understanding of the Stolen Valor act is flawed.

If I impersonate a military veteran, in order to get something in return, how is that different from impersonating a police officer? Or a fireman to gain access to a home to rob.

The ####stain who beat his charges gained social status, job and monetary rewards by impersonating a military veteran.

I fail to understand the difference.

[davidbfpo]

120mm,

On the cited Army Times report the fraudster was dealt with:

Hillar, 66, of Millersville, Md., pleaded guilty March 29 to a single count of wire fraud in a federal court in Baltimore. As part of his plea, Hillar agreed to pay back $171,000 he made by lecturing universities, soldiers, and federal and local law enforcement agencies while falsely claiming he was a counter-terrorism expert and had earned doctorate from the University of Oregon. He also agreed to perform 500 hours of community service at the Maryland State Veterans Cemeteries.

I would hardly call that, citing you:

..who beat his charges..

Given his age I'm not surprised a non-custodial sentence was given and being revealed as a fraud, with the sentence will be enough for him. Fully accept his sentence may not be enough for veterans and those on active duty.

On a lighter point I trust that you earlier post about:

...it should be legal for me to dress up like a police officer, drive a police looking car and pull over good looking women and offer them the opportunity to give sexual favors in return for not getting a ticket..

Is: a) not an admission to past behaviour and b) any statute of limitations has now expired, if so behaviour occurred. So you may now return to the USA from that other place you love.

[carl]

Your understanding of the Stolen Valor act is flawed.

If I impersonate a military veteran, in order to get something in return, how is that different from impersonating a police officer? Or a fireman to gain access to a home to rob.

My understanding of most things is flawed.

A police officer has legal authority to detain people. He has police powers, statutory police powers. When someone impersonates a police officer, he is availing himself of official power falsely and can do a lot of harm with that falsely acquired power. So I figure that is why there are statutes prohibiting impersonating a police officer, to keep people from doing harm to others because others think the impersonator is backed up by legal authority. For example, you gotta stop if a police car turns on its' red lights. If somebody installs red lights on his car, impersonating an officer, and gets behind you and turns them on, you will stop where otherwise you would not have. People have done a lot of harm doing just that.

Someone claiming veteran status has no official powers at all. None to my knowledge. He can't pull up next to you and wave his DD 214 in your face and expect you to pull over. He may be falsely acquiring social status of some kind, but if he gets that it is given because somebody wants to, not because he is obligated to by law. If somebody claims vet status to defraud the gov, that is already covered under criminal law.

That is how I figure it. Mike, you can now tear that apart.

[jmm99]

if you want, I'll tear you apart; but since I don't want to, I won't. Too many people are tearing each other apart on too many threads - it must be something in the water from the new SWC water cooler.

Anyway, here is your impersonating a LEO example:

If somebody installs red lights on his car, impersonating an officer, and gets behind you and turns them on, you will stop where otherwise you would not have.

You are including acts in the example - so it goes beyond speech.

Suppose a guy (in civvies) says to you, in the course of a normal conversation, "I'm a Michigan State Trooper".

Or, in the same type of situation, he says, "I'm retired Special Forces".

In both cases, he is neither - so, in each case, there is a "false pretense".

I see a distinction where there are acts accompanying the false pretense.

The question is what difference should that distinction make.

Regards

Mike

[carl]

Mike:

You can tear my attempt at legal reasoning apart. I don't mind that a bit because I'll learn from it. When lawyers tore me apart for real I was embarrassed but didn't hold it against them because they were doing their job and helping me to learn.

To my mind the addition of the act makes the difference, especially an act that takes advantage of people's obligation to obey another law-you must stop when a police car turns on his lights. That is so serious a matter that it requires a criminal statute to punish and discourage it.

Claiming to be a ex military whatever (a guy I know told me everybody he met in Texas of a certain age group was a sniper in 'Nam, part of the famous Texas Volunteer Sniper Division) might get you social status, but nobody is obligated to give you that status. In certain circles it might go against you. So that is not so serious a matter as to require a statute. It is one of those things that can be handled by informal social sanctions, like the group that exists to expose all the phony ex-SEALs out there.

Sometimes, there oughn't a be a law.

[jmm99]

for enacting a law in the first place.

Those will vary from place to place. Let's look at this from a Hancock, MI perspective - which you've some handle on.

If I had to characterize veterans status here (where I'm typing this), I'd say it amounts to an intangible property interest - created over the period of military service via the experiences and tests of that service; and perhaps leaving a body part or two behind.

I'm not talking about VA benefits or the like; and not about social status. What I'm saying is that the guy who walks in here wearing a Marine Corps League jacket, or on other days, a USMC "Sniper" jacket, earned and retained something (as I said it is an intangible) that has a value that cannot be expressed in monetary terms. All property rights, tangible and intangible, deserve to be protected from impairment - that is a basic beyond doctrinal law.

So, that, in my noggin, is what the Stolen Valor Act is really about. So, yeh, what I'm saying now ain't legal analysis - it's a belief, with which there is no argument.

Go down the road 100 miles to Marquette - perhaps a different set of beliefs. Go down the road 500 miles to Ann Arbor - probably a different set of beliefs.

If you'd ask me how I'd vote on the Stolen Valor Act - I'd vote "yes" (and would re-enact it just to let the courts know that I disagree with the decision).

Regards

Mike