Lie just a Lie?

[Rick]

The beginning:

http://www.wowowow.com/pov/richard-glen ... aud-297321

Richard Glen Strandlof pretended to be an Iraq vet named Rick Duncan and led the Colorado Veterans Alliance.

Richard Glen Strandlof had the nation fooled: He claimed to have been at the Pentagon on 9/11 and to have been injured when his Humvee was blown apart in Iraq, two assertions that helped him become a popular activist for veteran rights. With those claims, Strandlof, who went by the name Rick Duncan, founded the Colorado Veterans Alliance. Sadly, he was nothing but a charlatan.

While preparing documents to make the CVA a nonprofit, the group’s members discovered inconsistencies in Strandlof’s story, and sent the case to the FBI, who determined that "Duncan" was really an ex-con and a drifter. They arrested him Tuesday and are holding him on $1,000 bond. While it’s a sad story for the CVA, which will now disband, it’s a true blow to the veterans’ rights movement.

Colorado Rep. Jared Polis remarked to The New York Times, “I was disappointed to learn of the lies spread by Rick Duncan. His fraud is a slap in the face to veterans everywhere and a betrayal to us all.” More than that, it’s sick — manipulating both a terrorist attack and a war, not to mention thousands of deaths, for personal gain.

But, then again, if he was doing it for the well-being of veterans, does that make it OK?

The Present:

http://www.military.com/news/article/ju ... gal--.html

DENVER -- A law that makes it illegal to lie about being a war hero is unconstitutional because it violates free speech, a federal judge ruled Friday as he dismissed a case against a Colorado man who claimed he received two military medals.

Rick Glen Strandlof claimed he was an ex-Marine who was wounded in Iraq and received the Purple Heart and Silver Star, but the military had no record he ever served. He was charged with violating the Stolen Valor Act, which makes it a crime punishable by up to a year in jail to falsely claim to have won a military medal.

U.S. District Judge Robert Blackburn dismissed the case and said the law is unconstitutional, ruling the government did not show it has a compelling reason to restrict that type of statement.

A spokesman for the U.S. attorney in Denver said prosecutors are reviewing the decision and haven't decided whether to appeal. The spokesman said that decision would be made by the U.S. Justice Department in Washington and prosecutors in Denver.

Strandlof's lawyer, Bob Pepin, said he hadn't spoken to Strandlof since the ruling was issued. Pepin said he would advise Strandlof not to comment publicly because the case might be appealed.

"Obviously, we think this is the right decision, or we wouldn't have been making the objections to the statute to begin with," he said. Pepin said Strandlof has been living in a halfway house in Denver while his case is in the courts.

The law has also been challenged in California and in a case now before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Denver attorney Christopher P. Beall, who filed a friend-of-the-court brief for the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado, said the Stolen Valor Act is fatally flawed because it doesn't require prosecutors to show anyone was harmed or defamed by the lie.

"The government position was that any speech that's false is not protected by the First Amendment. That proposition is very dangerous," Beall said.

"It puts the government in a much more powerful position to prosecute people for speaking out on things they believe to be true but turn out not to be true," he said.

Beall said the ACLU was not defending the actions Strandlof is accused of, but took issue with the principle behind the law.

Rep. John Salazar, D-Colo., who sponsored the Stolen Valor Act in the House, predicted the decision will be overturned on appeal.

"This is an issue of fraud plain and simple," Salazar said in a written release. "The individuals who violate this law are those who knowingly portray themselves as pillars of the community for personal and monetary gain."

Pam Sterner, who as a college student wrote a policy analysis that became the basis of Salazar's bill, said the issue isn't free speech but misrepresentation. Sterner, a former Coloradan who now lives in Virginia, said authentic medal winners' credibility suffers when impostors are exposed because the public becomes suspicious of even true stories of heroism.

Obviously as presented before I'm not a lawyer, however I think the ACLU's logic is flawed here.

If we are simply referring to the spirit of the law, as I'm guessing is the contention the ACLU has with the act,then the spirit (in my opinion) is that valor is not free.

Everyone awarded a medal/or medals "PAID" a price for them.

To lie about it is also theft if not just fraud...

[Lord Jim]

I see your point Keld, and on an emotional level, I'm certainly with you. Trying to profit by lying about being a war hero is a pretty despicable thing to do. (Maybe a law can be crafted that gets at the "profiting" issue) But I have to say that I think that this:

"The government position was that any speech that's false is not protected by the First Amendment. That proposition is very dangerous," Beall said.

Is a valid concern. (If indeed that is the argument that the state of Colorado made.)

I don't want to see that principle established in law. Not in this case obviously, but in may situations "truth" is to a degree subjective. I don't want the government getting involved in trying to sort that out; it will obviously bring it's own biases to the table.

That strikes me as a slippery slope we don't want to go down, and a can of worms we don't want to open, (and believe me, you never want to open a can of worms while you're going down a slippery slope...it can get very messy.)

[Crackpot]

Not to mention when you mix it with a whole other kettle of fish

[Lord Jim]

And apples and oranges...

[loCAtek]

No, I'm not cool with it; it is dishonorable, plain and simple.

You don't award yourself false merits in anything and expect people to respect you afterward.

True servicemen face disciplinary action for wearing medals they haven't earned; back in the '90's our Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Admiral Boorda, shot himself in shame for having been discovered wearing 'V' for Valor wrongly on his ribbons.

You didn't hear this from me, but those meatballs who claim to be SEALS, when they're not, get very personal house calls from real SEALS who teach them the error of their ways.

[Rick]

OK

After reading Jim Bob's post I found this:

http://www.omsa.org/forums/showthread.php?t=1332

It also supplies a different perspective.

I still feel "Duncan" was out to defraud, but I now agree the Act itself is also flawed...

[Gob]

Well according to some here, you either have total free speech or none

[rubato]

Whose ox is that? or "For every sacred cow there is a barbeque pit".


For those who think the military is the highest and most important and noble human activity imitating military heroism will seem the greatest wrong. For those who think the clerical life is the most important imitating priests, gurus &c will seem a greater wrong. And so on and so forth, ad infinitum, forever.


To me, impersonating great heroism is no greater wrong than any other fraud. It is the target group that is different, that is all.


I will only say that people make themselves more vulnerable to such frauds by mis-valuing certain types and symbols of achievement. There are great heroes who are rotten people just as there are great artists and scientists who are rotten people. Knut Hamsun was a great writer but as nasty a person as was Heisenberg who really was a great scientist.


yrs,
rubato

[loCAtek]

Whose ox is that? or "For every sacred cow there is a barbeque pit".



yrs,
rubato

I like that, but no, I wasn't standing on institution. Fundamentally, I think lying is wrong. Free speech does not cover crying 'Fire' in crowded theater if it's a false alarm; the key word being 'false'. 'Free' is not synonymous with 'false'.

[Sue U]

Fundamentally, I think lying is wrong. Free speech does not cover crying 'Fire' in crowded theater if it's a false alarm; the key word being 'false'. 'Free' is not synonymous with 'false'.

Um, no. The reason you can be prohibited from shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is not because of falsity, it is because of the very real potential for physical injury and loss of life occasioned by a panicked crowd. However, this is not an actual law, but an example of a possible justification for a governmental limit on otherwise free speech.

In investigations of crimes, police routinely lie to obtain confessions and/or incrimination of others. Should this lying be prohibited and the police prosecuted?

Manufacturers tell consumers all the time that their products are "new" and "improved" and "America's favorite" and "prefrerred by four out of five dentists" or whatever. Should such falsehoods be prohibited by law?

A woman tells her date that of course she's a natural blonde. Call the cops?

You are free to think lying is wrong; that is a moral choice. However, without some demonstration of the probability of actual harm to person or property, the government has no place dictating your moral choices.

Well according to some here, you either have total free speech or none

I think what we have actually said is that in the U.S.A. the right to free speech is not to be trifled with and is jealously guarded against any encroachment. Which is exactly what this case shows. When you have Jim, Jarl, Keld, Crackpot, rubato, liberty and me all lining up on the same side of an issue, you might want to consider that maybe we're actually on to something over here.

[loCAtek]

In investigations of crimes, police routinely lie to obtain confessions and/or incrimination of others. Should this lying be prohibited and the police prosecuted?

Manufacturers tell consumers all the time that their products are "new" and "improved" and "America's favorite" and "prefrerred by four out of five dentists" or whatever. Should such falsehoods be prohibited by law?

A woman tells her date that of course she's a natural blonde. Call the cops?

You are free to think lying is wrong; that is a moral choice.

No, not moral, those are subjective statements not objective ones, which is why tabloid newspapers get away with what they do, and are so had to sue. They add 'probable' and 'suspected' to their stories and they've covered their assets about reporting facts vs reporting stories.
Claiming to be something you're not, is falsely claiming a fact, not a substance.

That's the basis for persecuting someone for being a cop, or a doctor, no matter how well they execute the deception.

[Sue U]

No, not moral, those are subjective statements not objective ones, which is why tabloid newspapers get away with what they do, and are so had to sue. They add 'probable' and 'suspected' to their stories and they've covered their assets about reporting facts vs reporting stories.

Subjective vs. objective? Not hardly. Tabloid newspapers "get away with what they do" because there is no law requiring any publication to print only the "truth." And how could there be? Moreover, the government is affirmatively prohibited from enacting any regulation concerning content (it's that First Amendment thing).

Adding "probable" or "suspected" or "alleged" or any other quailifier doesn't have anything to do with protecting anyone from government prosecution; it relates exclusively to the possibility of private libel suits (and as a practical matter it is of virtually no significance even in that context). The reason newspapers are "so hard to sue" is because, in deference to our stringent protection of free speech, the bar for establishing libel of any public figure is extremely high. (It is somewhat lower for a person who has done nothing to put him/herself in the public eye, but not too many newspapers publish even arguably libelous stories about people who aren't already in the news).

Claiming to be something you're not, is falsely claiming a fact, not a substance.

That's the basis for persecuting someone for being a cop, or a doctor, no matter how well they execute the deception.

Again, no; the basis for prosecution of someone impersonating an officer is because of the unique position of power police agencies have in society and the readily appreciable danger posed by phony cops. There is no statute prohibiting impersonation of a construction worker or a car salesman or a waitress. Penalties for impersonating licensed professionals, like doctors and lawyers, have to do with the unauthorized practice of medicine, or law, or whatever -- not for merely falsely claiming to be a doctor or a lawyer.

[Big RR]

Penalties for impersonating licensed professionals, like doctors and lawyers, have to do with the unauthorized practice of medicine, or law, or whatever -- not for merely falsely claiming to be a doctor or a lawyer.

Agreed; indeed, one ould make hotel and restaurant reservations, e.g., as Dr. So and so without any liability at all. But if her offered to test the waitress for breast lumps...

[loCAtek]

Libel, Slander or Defamation? Yes, there is. Defaming a practice by malpractice is prosecutable.

This individual claimed the rights of a disabled veteran without being so.

[Big RR]

Lo--malpractice is not a criminal offense; those injured by malpractice may recover damages for their injuries through the civil courts, but it is not a criminal matter. I'm not certain what you mean by "defaming a practice", but I can't think of anything in that line that would be prosecutable.

As for this person claiming the rights of a disabled veteran; if this was indeed the case and he fraudulently claimed, e.g., a disability pension, it might be something which could be prosecuted. But just so people thought more highly of him--it's no different than him claiming to be a genius, a musical prodigy, or great in bed. All lies, but nothing to prosecute. Under most circumstances one does not have a legal obligation to tell the truth.

[Sue U]

Libel, Slander or Defamation? Yes, there is. Defaming a practice by malpractice is prosecutable.

???? Huh ?????

(And if "defaming a practice by malpracitce" were prosecutable, the jails would be filled with doctors.)

This individual claimed the rights of a disabled veteran without being so.

What "rights" did he claim? If he received any government benefits (and the story doesn't say he did) then he could be prosecuted, fined, forced to repay and perhaps serve prison time, same as a welfare cheat. But is there some need for a special statute outlawing impersonation of a welfare recipient?

[loCAtek]

It's called Criminal Impersonation. and the False Claims Act, as well as Identity Theft.

[Sue U]

The Nebraska statute you cite would make Miley Cyrus a criminal:

(1) A person commits the crime of criminal impersonation if he or she:

(a) Assumes a false identity and does an act in his or her assumed character with intent to gain a pecuniary benefit for himself, herself, or another ...

Nebraska's statute is unusual in that virtually all other similar "criminal impersonation" statutes I have seen have an "intent to defraud" requirement, which serves to make impersonation a crime only when linked with an actual fraud. "Pecuniary benefit" is not the same thing as "fraud." I don't know whether the Nebraska statute has ever been tested for constitutionality, but it looks substantially over-broad to me. In light of the decision in the OP, it very well may be unenforceable.

The False Claims Act has nothing to do with impersonation; it has to do with fraud in government programs, and provides a "qui tam" cause of action (with enhanced damages and attorneys fees) for private civil prosecution where there is an alleged misuse of government funds.

"Identity theft" similarly has nothing to do with mere impersonation, but is a form of fraud using someone else's personal information. I doubt there could be any "identity theft" with respect to an inveted persona.

[Gob]

Penalties for impersonating licensed professionals, like doctors and lawyers, have to do with the unauthorized practice of medicine, or law, or whatever -- not for merely falsely claiming to be a doctor or a lawyer.

Agreed; indeed, one ould make hotel and restaurant reservations, e.g., as Dr. So and so without any liability at all. But if her offered to test the waitress for breast lumps...

Driving home from a rave one night with my mate Tim, we were stopped by the police. The cop approached the car and breathlysed Tim, who was clean ( of alcohol), but had been speeding in more ways than one, the cop asked to see his license. Tim said "We've just finish a late shift at A&E and wanted to get home to bed officer". The cop gave him back his license and said "Drive a bit more carefully in future Dr Bow." We drove off somewhat relieved it hadn't gone any further.

Dr Bow is a doctor of philosophy.