Plan B Forum

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?

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.

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

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



yrs,
rubato

loCAtek wrote: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'.

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

Sue U wrote:
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.

loCAtek wrote: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.

loCAtek wrote: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.

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.

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

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

(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 ...

Big RR wrote:

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...