Stolen Valor is now legal

[Perd Hapley]

It is!  Its a type of fraud.  It was my understanding that stolen valor would be a specific sub-category of fraud with enhanced punishment as being more reprehensible than typical.  Think of all those false 'my brother is dying' or 'my child has cancer' stories you hear.  Saying your child has cancer doesn't entitle you to money, but sure enough, the level of sympathy garnered spurs altruistic gift giving.  Fraud by false impression. 

As others have pointed out, he could have been convicted of fraud, had he materially defrauded anyone.  At least according to the ACLU, the law in question "doesn't require prosecutors to show anyone was harmed or defamed by the lie."

[vaskidmark]

My problem is that as I understand it fraud is the gaining/obtaining of something of value (an actual exchange of money or other valuables) by false pretenses/representation.  If my understanding of the crime of fraud is not accurate, would someone please correct me.

As much as I disapprove of a person claiming to have been awarded military honors when they know thaose claims to be false, I just do not see how making those false representations raise to the level of the crime of fraud.

Don't misunderstand me.  The false representations are moral/ethical violations of the first water.  Any person making such false representations should suffer the effects of violating the moral/ethical boundaries of our society.  But we cannot brand or tattoo them in the midle of their forehead with a big "L" (for liar), any more than we should be taking away their freedom or confiscating their personal wealth.

Public shaming, shunning, and otherwise making their ability to pass through society without negative notice may all be appropriate responses.  However, I am opposed to the public hiring of a person to follow them with a sign and cry out "Shame!" as was once done to divorced women.  If someone wants to volunteer for the job, or some private group wants to finance the position I have no objection.

Yes, we legislate morality in many other areas.  However, there are clear public risks involved in allowing those "immoral" activities to persist unchecked.  Perhaps the best example is prostitution - where the greatest objection seems to be the public financing of assuring the health of both provider and consumer, as opposed to the "organized crime" assertions.  But where is the actual harm that could be caused by allowing these liars to continue making their false claim(s)?

As the learned judge alluded, if one of these liars were to solicit and receive public or private funds or goods/services based on their false claim of receipt of medals/honors, then they can be prosecuted for that fraud.  But prosecuting them for saying a lie out loud would, as has been suggested elsewhere, then mandate the prosecution of politicians and prophets and we know rhat at least the first group would never stand still for that happening.

stay safe.

[Scout26]

No one is under oath when not in court.  

Not the way I was taught............

[Ned Hamford]

As the material gain from the lie had yet to cross from the intangible [good will] to the tangible [money, sex, better deal on a car, whatever], I'm content to leave it in the category of an attempted crime.  The reason one would tell the lie, steal the valor, is in hopes of gaining the benefit.  I don't fear prosecution for this category of deceit being a slippery slope, I fear more the relativism inherent in the protection of false claims as tho they were political speech.

[tyme]

If I claim to be an alien abductee, and some nutcase gives me money or gifts as a result, without me in any way indicating I need or want money or gifts, is that fraud?

[RaspberrySurprise]

If I claim to be an alien abductee, and some nutcase gives me money or gifts as a result, without me in any way indicating I need or want money or gifts, is that fraud?

If that is your reason for claiming to be an alien abductee then most likely yes.

[Ned Hamford]

If I claim to be an alien abductee, and some nutcase gives me money or gifts as a result, without me in any way indicating I need or want money or gifts, is that fraud?

That is a bit more out there than an obviously false claim made clearly for expected benefits, IE my child has cancer.  Your example would require a fact specific analysis.  Do you believe you were actually abducted and assuming no, do people who claim to have been abducted so regularly receive gifts and other benefits as to indicate that making such a claim would lead you to you receiving those benefits.

Another example of fraudulent inducement would be the person who claims they don't have money to get home, oh woes me.  They need not ask directly for money, but they have clearly created a situation where it is likely to be offered to them and their acceptance would be based on that false impression of them needing it to get home, even tho they actually just life around the corner and are scamming kind hearted folks.

[Hawkmoon]

As others have pointed out, he could have been convicted of fraud, had he materially defrauded anyone.  At least according to the ACLU, the law in question "doesn't require prosecutors to show anyone was harmed or defamed by the lie."

But, if the false "hero" is visibly a scumbag, and I am an ordinary, run-of-the-mill veteran who tries to be a decent human being and hold up my end of the "social contract" by holding a job (or three) and feeding my family, am I not harmed and "defamed" if people who see this scumbag associate scumbag-ness with veteran-ness?

[vaskidmark]

But, if the false "hero" is visibly a scumbag, and I am an ordinary, run-of-the-mill veteran who tries to be a decent human being and hold up my end of the "social contract" by holding a job (or three) and feeding my family, am I not harmed and "defamed" if people who see this scumbag associate scumbag-ness with veteran-ness?

Sorry, but all you are is irritated.  Me, too.

But we have suffered no actual loss, nor have any of the others who actually were awarded medals.

Publicizing the effrontery and moral decrepitude of the scum who makes a false claim is, INHO, the best and proper response.  Make his face so well known as being the %**&$# who lied about having been awarded medals that he can't walk down any back alley without being spit upon.

stay safe.

[roo_ster]

kgbsquirrel nailed it.

If the law says it is illegal to merely impersonate an officer, the same logic applies to impersonating a veteran.  If it is only illegal to impersonate an officer and then use that for gain, then I'd apply that standard.

[Perd Hapley]

Sorry, but all you are is irritated.  Me, too.

But we have suffered no actual loss, nor have any of the others who actually were awarded medals.

Right on.  We don't want laws against "making group x look bad."  Heck, I'm pretty sure I make my fellow vets less respectable just by being me. 

[Perd Hapley]

kgbsquirrel nailed it.

If the law says it is illegal to merely impersonate an officer, the same logic applies to impersonating a veteran.  If it is only illegal to impersonate an officer and then use that for gain, then I'd apply that standard.

So if I say I'm a cop, then try to start a foundation to give aid to the families of slain officers, that would be actionable? 

[roo_ster]

So if I say I'm a cop, then try to start a foundation to give aid to the families of slain officers, that would be actionable? 

Ayup.

The likelihood that someone impersonates an officer in order to financially assist other officers is about as likely as finding a gay albino unicorn who voted for McCain. 

Well, in this reality anyways.  No guarantees for alternate realities.

[Ned Hamford]

Right on.  We don't want laws against "making group x look bad." 

As long as the underlying act is falsehood, why not?  Defamation, false light, seems silly to me to pin the conceptual understandingly solely on the one element of material gain when the greater concept of fraud is part of a larger framework of wrongdoing.  I am resisting the urge to start attacking the ruling itself, I think its very faulty in its application of the Stevens case, which wasn't that great a ruling to begin with.  I know my courtroom decorum would be wholly ruined if I gave into my instinct to start hitting folks with a rolled up newspaper while shouting 'No' and 'Bad.'

[Perd Hapley]

Ayup.

The likelihood that someone impersonates an officer in order to financially assist other officers is about as likely as finding a gay albino unicorn who voted for McCain. 

Well, in this reality anyways.  No guarantees for alternate realities.

But the bad guy in question was setting up an organization to help real soldiers.  Now, if he could have gotten started on that, I could see where criminal charges might apply.  But since he apparently didn't get a chance to pocket any cash...

[roo_ster]

But the bad guy in question was setting up an organization to help real soldiers.  Now, if he could have gotten started on that, I could see where criminal charges might apply.  But since he apparently didn't get a chance to pocket any cash...

Might want to go back and read what I wrote.

[T.O.M.]

I think the biggest problem that we at APS have with this crime is that we all find this ass-hat's actions to be morally reprehensible to the highest extreme.  To claim the title of "hero" when you did nothing more than buy a medal at a surplus store violates all of our basic ethical constructs, that real heroes are to be respected, shown the appropriate gratitude by those for whom the hero acted, and a tear shall fall from our eyes when his/her acts are recounted.

That said, at least here in Ohio, "defraud" as defined in section 2913.01(B) means to knowinglu obtain, by deception, some benefit for oneself of another, or to knowingly cause, by deception, some detriment to another.  Regardless of what this guy may have done, the law as written, and cited to by the judge, does not require the government to prove any benefit to oneself, or detriment to another.  Claim to have earned a Bronze Star and you are guilty under this law, even if, for example, you are doing nothing more than trying to impress a young lady in a bar.  Now the Judge here looked at this and said "what interest does the federal government have in regulating speach in this manner, to prohibit anyone from claiming an award, if it never gets to the point of criminal fraud?  Just to regulate the speach alone?  To stop guys in bars from claiming to be heroes to get a little action?"  The judge here said there is no real federal givernmental interest, so the law is unconstitutional.

What I really found interesting is that we so rarely see this argument made with respect to federal laws, or when we do see it made, the old "commerce clause" comes out as a catch-all to save the day...

[Balog]

I think the biggest problem that we at APS have with this crime is that we all find this ass-hat's actions to be morally reprehensible to the highest extreme.  To claim the title of "hero" when you did nothing more than buy a medal at a surplus store violates all of our basic ethical constructs, that real heroes are to be respected, shown the appropriate gratitude by those for whom the hero acted, and a tear shall fall from our eyes when his/her acts are recounted.

That said, at least here in Ohio, "defraud" as defined in section 2913.01(B) means to knowinglu obtain, by deception, some benefit for oneself of another, or to knowingly cause, by deception, some detriment to another.  Regardless of what this guy may have done, the law as written, and cited to by the judge, does not require the government to prove any benefit to oneself, or detriment to another.  Claim to have earned a Bronze Star and you are guilty under this law, even if, for example, you are doing nothing more than trying to impress a young lady in a bar.  Now the Judge here looked at this and said "what interest does the federal government have in regulating speach in this manner, to prohibit anyone from claiming an award, if it never gets to the point of criminal fraud?  Just to regulate the speach alone?  To stop guys in bars from claiming to be heroes to get a little action?"  The judge here said there is no real federal givernmental interest, so the law is unconstitutional.

What I really found interesting is that we so rarely see this argument made with respect to federal laws, or when we do see it made, the old "commerce clause" comes out as a catch-all to save the day...

You apply the same standard to impersonating an FBI officer, yes? If sumdood in a bar is just doing it to get laid it's ok, right?

[Ned Hamford]

 Regardless of what this guy may have done, the law as written, and cited to by the judge, does not require the government to prove any benefit to oneself, or detriment to another.  Claim to have earned a Bronze Star and you are guilty under this law, even if, for example, you are doing nothing more than trying to impress a young lady in a bar.  Now the Judge here looked at this and said "what interest does the federal government have in regulating speach in this manner, to prohibit anyone from claiming an award, if it never gets to the point of criminal fraud?  Just to regulate the speach alone?  To stop guys in bars from claiming to be heroes to get a little action?"  The judge here said there is no real federal givernmental interest, so the law is unconstitutional.

While not comfortable with most occasions where the government does it, given the intangibility of harm [soiling the good name of heroes by deed or dilution] and benefit [good will] I am ok with rebut-able presumption for those two elements.  And as for the notion that nothing is off bounds for picking up women, I actually am a fan of that ruling from Israel not too long ago where a guy was arrested for lying his way into a woman's pants [amongst other things he claimed to be Jewish himself].  False speech does not deserve protection.  This isn't political or unpopular speech, its blatant and purposeful deception and it should have consequences.

As for the government not having an interest, the impersonated are or were government agents.  Frankly I think the lot of the military man is of very low concern to the feds and the judge's notion that they can stand the bother of impersonators shows the disregard for the honors they've earned in sweat and blood for his and society's benefit.  

I am rather disturbed at the no government interest construct the judge seems to operate under and if I wasn't so lazy, I'd search for other cases where he ruled similarly.  Having some video games handy however, I'll settle with having lambasted this ruling.

[Fitz]

You know, I guess after reading this thread i can see why it shouldn't be against the law.

My knee jerk reaction is to lock the *expletive deleted*ers up....

But i suppose public humiliation is fine too.

On the other hand, I bet you somewhere there's some laws against humiliating scum like this

Such a *expletive deleted*it world we live in

[Ned Hamford]

On the other hand, I bet you somewhere there's some laws against humiliating scum like this

There used to be, but the courts have found that unconstitutional too. 

With the decline of social and moral standards of conduct, it would be nice to know there is a backstop of legality, a final line in the sand... but nope. That is gone too.

I think it quite frustrating that the common response is a call for social consequences, the shunning.  Its a huge step back.  Sure he was facing some actual prison time, but I suppose calling him names will get the job done just as well.

Bah, Bah I say!

[Hawkmoon]

I suppose in this environmentally conscious world tar & feathers are no longer approved (if they ever were) by the EPA and FDA?

[41magsnub]

I suppose in this environmentally conscious world tar & feathers are no longer approved (if they ever were) by the EPA and FDA?

How about honey and granola followed by a run through the bear cage at the zoo?

[Antibubba]

 
I am a police officer. The number for my local PD is provided below. Accuse me of impersonating a police officer. I want to see what happens.

   314-428-4577

Can I ask for Internal Affairs and tell them "It's all your fault"?   

[Perd Hapley]

From you, I would expect no less.